|
Post by Young Ireland on Feb 23, 2019 23:09:19 GMT
I should think that the left are laughing at us as we fret and vex ourselves over a few 'alt righters' hidden in the darkest recesses of the internet while the real eugenicists and racists are the the globalists, the current governments of most of the influential European countries and in the U.S. and are getting away with murder, literally. These governments openly practice and rejoice in abortion, and increasingly more liberal abortion laws, the killing of Downs Syndrome children in some countries. Euthanasia in countries like Belgium and parts of the U.S. The Governments' openly anti-white racism via spurious claims of 'white privilege'. Our globalist masters are doing a good job of creating a diversionary tactic getting us all wound up with the alt right while they carry uninterrupted with their mad project. Assisi, the "alt-righters" of which you speak are not hidden, but rather are increasingly coming out into the open, hence the controversy about the articles in the Burkean. I agree that much of the criticism from the left is hypocritical, but remember that hypocrisy is the vice that pays tribute to virtue and the fact that the people making the criticisms have their own agenda does not mean that they are wrong in this instance. It's rather odd that you apparently include the Trump administration with the globalists, since if anything that government is the very antithesis of globalism. I assume that you are referring to the Democratic governments in some of the states. Also, would you be able to specify what you mean when you say that "The Governments' openly anti-white racism via spurious claims of 'white privilege'."? It's not clear what you are referring to, since I have not heard of any Irish official use the term "white privilege" recently.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Feb 25, 2019 11:17:39 GMT
Also, would you be able to specify what you mean when you say that "The Governments' openly anti-white racism via spurious claims of 'white privilege'."? It's not clear what you are referring to, since I have not heard of any Irish official use the term "white privilege" recently. You have to include all the quangos and the academic departments ("Equality Studies", etc.) which are funded by government. Race baiting is a diversionary tactic, that much is obvious. (I use the term "race-baiting" in the sense "making constant spurious accusations of racism, magnifying trivial instances of racism, obsessing over race and racism"). It's attractive because it's such a simplistic discourse-- white bad, everything else good, with an internal hierarchy of victimhood amongst other skin colours. Most promisingly, all you have to do to be a good person is to denounce racism-- you don't have to actually do anything-- and you get extra points for detecting racism where others don't (unconscious racism, "othering", cultural appropriation, etc.). It's really an endless source for ready-made indignation and self-congratulation (even if the self-congratulation sometimes takes the form of apparent self-condemnation). And it's completely risk-free-- Dave Cullen is right to sarcastically use the term "stunning and brave" for the latest "woke" propaganda piece-- nobody will ever suffer for making an accusation of racism (or other supposed prejudice), especially non-specific racism (or other supposed prejudice). Efforts to defend tradition, culture, nationhood, freedom, specialness, etc. are either directly condemned as racism (even where race isn't the issue), or compared to the Civil Rights era ("the same arguments were made against Civil Rights", etc.). This becomes the lens through which everything is seen.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Feb 25, 2019 12:02:08 GMT
I should think that the left are laughing at us as we fret and vex ourselves over a few 'alt righters' hidden in the darkest recesses of the internet while the real eugenicists and racists are the the globalists, the current governments of most of the influential European countries and in the U.S. and are getting away with murder, literally. These governments openly practice and rejoice in abortion, and increasingly more liberal abortion laws, the killing of Downs Syndrome children in some countries. Euthanasia in countries like Belgium and parts of the U.S. The Governments' openly anti-white racism via spurious claims of 'white privilege'. Our globalist masters are doing a good job of creating a diversionary tactic getting us all wound up with the alt right while they carry uninterrupted with their mad project. Catholic globalists will never admit that globalist elites and institutions are essentially anti-Christian, anti-family, and anti-life. It's a strange form of double-think. Peter Sutherland was a devout Catholic, it seems. www.irishcatholic.com/reconciling-faith-modernity-tribute-peter-sutherland/"Peter Sutherland’s commitment to European Unity also sprang from his Christian faith, something he demonstrated very clearly, when giving the Cardinal Newman lecture in Oxford in 2010. He said then: “The federalism of the Founding Fathers (of the European Union) was founded upon the belief that national sovereignty, constrained only from within, was not merely dangerous but essentially evil because it postulated a greater power than man alone can possess.” I won't pretend that I am opposed to globalism simply because it is anti-Christian, anti-family and anti-life. Even if it wasn't, I would be opposed to it.
|
|
|
Post by assisi on Feb 25, 2019 14:22:42 GMT
I should think that the left are laughing at us as we fret and vex ourselves over a few 'alt righters' hidden in the darkest recesses of the internet while the real eugenicists and racists are the the globalists, the current governments of most of the influential European countries and in the U.S. and are getting away with murder, literally. These governments openly practice and rejoice in abortion, and increasingly more liberal abortion laws, the killing of Downs Syndrome children in some countries. Euthanasia in countries like Belgium and parts of the U.S. The Governments' openly anti-white racism via spurious claims of 'white privilege'. Our globalist masters are doing a good job of creating a diversionary tactic getting us all wound up with the alt right while they carry uninterrupted with their mad project. Assisi, the "alt-righters" of which you speak are not hidden, but rather are increasingly coming out into the open, hence the controversy about the articles in the Burkean. I agree that much of the criticism from the left is hypocritical, but remember that hypocrisy is the vice that pays tribute to virtue and the fact that the people making the criticisms have their own agenda does not mean that they are wrong in this instance. It's rather odd that you apparently include the Trump administration with the globalists, since if anything that government is the very antithesis of globalism. I assume that you are referring to the Democratic governments in some of the states. Also, would you be able to specify what you mean when you say that "The Governments' openly anti-white racism via spurious claims of 'white privilege'."? It's not clear what you are referring to, since I have not heard of any Irish official use the term "white privilege" recently. In all fairness the Burkean is not on the same planet of influence as the New York Times, Irish Times, RTE, BBC, CNN and all the other MSM outlets and universities in the Western world. You are right in that I was not talking about Trump. I had in mind the Democrat Governor of New York Andrew Cuomo and his celebration of new liberal abortion laws and those other US states that are now looking to imitate the New York laws. As for white privilege I wasn't thinking of Ireland (although if there are not subtle examples of this already there soon will be) I was thinking of the U.S. but I do believe that in Identity Politics, so dominant an ideology in the liberal left, there is no doubt that whites (male whites in particular) are at the bottom of the hierarchy, the 'deplorables'. Here's a quote from the new darling of the Democrats, Ocasio Cortez: "Frankly, I find it — I find the solutions for white communities to be very painful because it’s very painful for a community to understand and have go through this — like, you can be — the idea that you can be poor and benefit from the color of your skin does not compute for a lot of people," she explained. "And going through that realization is very painful or even just economically for people that were born with silver spoons. It’s very painful to admit that you had advantages." And here is old guard Democrat Hilary: www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQOB8HVusRU
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Feb 25, 2019 14:58:27 GMT
Assisi, the "alt-righters" of which you speak are not hidden, but rather are increasingly coming out into the open, hence the controversy about the articles in the Burkean. I agree that much of the criticism from the left is hypocritical, but remember that hypocrisy is the vice that pays tribute to virtue and the fact that the people making the criticisms have their own agenda does not mean that they are wrong in this instance. It's rather odd that you apparently include the Trump administration with the globalists, since if anything that government is the very antithesis of globalism. I assume that you are referring to the Democratic governments in some of the states. Also, would you be able to specify what you mean when you say that "The Governments' openly anti-white racism via spurious claims of 'white privilege'."? It's not clear what you are referring to, since I have not heard of any Irish official use the term "white privilege" recently. In all fairness the Burkean is not on the same planet of influence as the New York Times, Irish Times, RTE, BBC, CNN and all the other MSM outlets and universities in the Western world. You are right in that I was not talking about Trump. I had in mind the Democrat Governor of New York Mario Cuomo and his celebration of new liberal abortion laws and those other US states that are now looking to imitate the New York laws. As for white privilege I wasn't thinking of Ireland (although if there are not subtle examples of this already there soon will be) I was thinking of the U.S. but I do believe that in Identity Politics, so dominant an ideology in the liberal left, there is no doubt that whites (male whites in particular) are at the bottom of the hierarchy, the 'deplorables'. Here's a quote from the new darling of the Democrats, Ocasio Cortez: "Frankly, I find it — I find the solutions for white communities to be very painful because it’s very painful for a community to understand and have go through this — like, you can be — the idea that you can be poor and benefit from the color of your skin does not compute for a lot of people," she explained. "And going through that realization is very painful or even just economically for people that were born with silver spoons. It’s very painful to admit that you had advantages." And here is old guard Democrat Hilary: www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQOB8HVusRUThe widespread use of terms like "pale stale male" shows that anti-white racism is somehow considered OK. Indeed, "white" is used every day as a disparaging term and nobody says a word about it. Indeed, if white people ever complain they are ridiculed and a double standard is applied-- the term "racism" is interpreted in the broadest possible way when it's a matter of detecting racism by whites, but interpreted narrowly when it comes racism against whites. www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/14/gammon-not-racial-slur-change-conversationNot that I care that much myself-- I'm just showing up the hypocrisy of the thing. If people want to be bigoted against white people (or anyone else), that's their own business as far as I'm concerned. I just stop listening, watching, or otherwise paying attention. I won't get into a tizzy about it. I refuse to watch Get Out or Black Klansman, for instance. But I'm not going to lose any sleep over them.
|
|
|
Post by assisi on Feb 26, 2019 10:18:58 GMT
The following short interview on race on a BBC late night political programme is well worth watching as it illustrates what are in my view deep seated views of racism which seem blind to any counter argument. www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQTnnDCXZNM
|
|
|
Post by Account Deleted on Feb 26, 2019 15:54:17 GMT
Unjust treatment of anyone is to be avoided - any Christian knows that.
It seems to me that there are now an increasing number of "minority" voices out there who are calling for (and given a platform for) exceptional treatment for themselves, or those that they claim to represent, even if that treatment involves the exclusion of the common good, or in some cases the unjust treatment of other groups (that they themselves do not belong to). That is hardly just, and certainly not Christian of them. From some of them that I've heard, you couldn't rule out attention-seeking narcissism as their motivation. Society is already clearly failing them (not least in the standard of education they have received). We have failed them, not in the way many of them believe, and will not be redeemed with the solutions many of them propose either. As a society we are undoubtedly more focussed on individualism now - and pandering to it - than in recent generations.
Any culture built only on mere human ideologies and social innovations, divorced from Christ, is bound to fail ... again.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 26, 2019 21:16:47 GMT
Any culture which equates human ideologies and social innovations (or archaisms) with Christ will fail, too.
|
|
|
Post by Account Deleted on Feb 27, 2019 9:34:05 GMT
Any culture which equates human ideologies and social innovations (or archaisms) with Christ will fail, too. Precisely the point I was making hibernicus . Or culture is using them as an inadequate substitute for Christ
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Feb 27, 2019 9:44:09 GMT
Any culture built only on mere human ideologies and social innovations, divorced from Christ, is bound to fail ... again. Is this true, though? What do you mean by "fail"? Christian cultures have been in a minority in human history, and some (not me) would argue that there has never been a truly Christian culture. I have never read Kierkegaard but I get the impression this was his view. Has Indian culture failed, or Chinese culture, or Japanese culture? I don't think anyone would claim they are built on Christ.
|
|
|
Post by Account Deleted on Feb 27, 2019 16:22:32 GMT
Any culture built only on mere human ideologies and social innovations, divorced from Christ, is bound to fail ... again. Is this true, though? What do you mean by "fail"? Christian cultures have been in a minority in human history, and some (not me) would argue that there has never been a truly Christian culture. I have never read Kierkegaard but I get the impression this was his view. Has Indian culture failed, or Chinese culture, or Japanese culture? I don't think anyone would claim they are built on Christ. That requires a more expansive discussion than I've got time to devote to at the moment really. But the crux of it is, as you say, what do we mean by failure? That's linked to what we mean by its corollary - success. Is the success of a culture simply its longevity? I would argue not, if it is the prolonging of (for example) a corrupt, fascist, or decadent culture that harms, more than helps, its people. There are degrees of failure. Would we consider the Indian caste culture successful, or Chinese socialism and one-child policing? Christian culture has indeed been around since the time of Christ, seeded (as "the salt of the earth") within those other cultures, to greater or lesser degrees. So it is perhaps (by its nature) a different model of culture entirely than any of those others. Where would any of those human cultures - or the possible tensions and rivalries between cultures - be now if the Christian influence hadn't been around all this time, with its influence on concepts of human dignity, systems of education, human rights, etc.? And the personal touch of the Body of Christ, through the outreach of missionaries, etc. Fortunately, (and thank God) we won't ever know what that world would have looked like. In summary, it comes down to what your idea of a successful culture should be. Christ provides one way to envision the success of culture, and the Spirit the means to enable it. But part of the Christian view means giving ourselves over to God and in humility accepting we are incapable of fully conceiving even a notion of the successful culture ("what we will be has not yet been revealed"). Many who rather enslave themselves to ideologies alone do at least do so in the belief that a society/culture can be made *better* by following their ideology, and so they implicitly accept that their culture is imperfect or failing in some way. But very few human ideologies embrace the fundamental flaw in all human ideologies. Pope Benedict stated that Christianity is not an idealogy. Only Christ redeems the fundamental flaw undermining all ideologies - the concupiscence of the humans devising them, or attempting to carry them out. In the end, it is the personal giving of oneself to Christ that opens avenues for grace to work in the world. If more were to accept Christ, and allow that grace to flow, how much more successful would our culture(s) be? Hope that expounds my meaning for you a bit better.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Feb 27, 2019 16:43:46 GMT
Is this true, though? What do you mean by "fail"? Christian cultures have been in a minority in human history, and some (not me) would argue that there has never been a truly Christian culture. I have never read Kierkegaard but I get the impression this was his view. Has Indian culture failed, or Chinese culture, or Japanese culture? I don't think anyone would claim they are built on Christ. That requires a more expansive discussion than I've got time to devote to at the moment really. But the crux of it is, as you say, what do we mean by failure? That's linked to what we mean by its corollary - success. Is the success of a culture simply its longevity? I would argue not, if it is the prolonging of (for example) a corrupt, fascist, or decadent culture that harms, more than helps, its people. There are degrees of failure. Would we consider the Indian caste culture successful, or Chinese socialism and one-child policing? Christian culture has indeed been around since the time of Christ, seeded (as "the salt of the earth") within those other cultures, to greater or lesser degrees. So it is perhaps (by its nature) a different model of culture entirely than any of those others. Where would any of those human cultures - or the possible tensions and rivalries between cultures - be now if the Christian influence hadn't been around all this time, with its influence on concepts of human dignity, systems of education, human rights, etc.? And the personal touch of the Body of Christ, through the outreach of missionaries, etc. Fortunately, (and thank God) we won't ever know what that world would have looked like. In summary, it comes down to what your idea of a successful culture should be. Christ provides one way to envision the success of culture, and the Spirit the means to enable it. But part of the Christian view means giving ourselves over to God and in humility accepting we are incapable of fully conceiving even a notion of the successful culture. Many who rather enslave themselves to ideologies alone do at least do so in the belief that a society/culture can be made *better* by following their ideology, and so they implicitly accept that their culture is imperfect or failing in some way. But very few human ideologies embrace the fundamental flaw in all human ideologies. Pope Benedict stated that Christianity is not an idealogy. Only Christ redeems the fundamental flaw undermining all ideologies - the concupiscence of the humans devising them, or attempting to carry them out. In the end, it is the personal giving of oneself to Christ that opens avenues for grace to work in the world. If more were to accept Christ, and allow that grace to flow, how much more successful would our culture be? Hope that expounds my meaning for you a bit better. If longevity is not the criterion, I feel we need some other criterion or set of criteria to test the failure or success of societies. To say that any society not built upon Christ is doomed to fail, and then to make the criterion of success or failure the Christian ideal itself, is circular. Of course I am not disagreeing with you that Christianity is the highest ideal for a culture. I'm just not sure what constitutes failure or success for a culture, or if those terms can even apply.
|
|
|
Post by Account Deleted on Feb 27, 2019 17:34:21 GMT
If longevity is not the criterion, I feel we need some other criterion or set of criteria to test the failure or success of societies. To say that any society not built upon Christ is doomed to fail, and then to make the criterion of success or failure the Christian ideal itself, is circular. Of course I am not disagreeing with you that Christianity is the highest ideal for a culture. I'm just not sure what constitutes failure or success for a culture, or if those terms can even apply. But not agreeing either? If you consider Christianity the highest ideal for a culture, ideal for what exactly? Ideal in that such a culture would be most successful, or at least more successful that the alternatives in some way? If that is so, then you have an ideal against which to gauge the comparative success or failure of any given culture.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Feb 27, 2019 18:03:21 GMT
If longevity is not the criterion, I feel we need some other criterion or set of criteria to test the failure or success of societies. To say that any society not built upon Christ is doomed to fail, and then to make the criterion of success or failure the Christian ideal itself, is circular. Of course I am not disagreeing with you that Christianity is the highest ideal for a culture. I'm just not sure what constitutes failure or success for a culture, or if those terms can even apply. But not agreeing either? If you consider Christianity the highest ideal for a culture, ideal for what exactly? Ideal in that such a culture would be most successful, or at least more successful that the alternatives in some way? If that is so, then you have an ideal against which to gauge the comparative success or failure of any given culture. I am agreeing with you insofar as we both consider Christianity the highest ideal for a culture.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Mar 4, 2019 15:28:59 GMT
Good John Waters article in First Things, on an anti-populist manifesto signed by thirty "European" intellectuals: "In the end, they descend to reductio ad Hitlerum, referring to “a challenge greater than any since the 1930s.” They employ the term “populism” as a hypnotic trigger-word to demonize those who are different in outlook. “Populism” was once merely a synonym for “popular,” signifying a connection to the people, for the people, with the people. Almost no one speaks of “the people” these days, and for good reason: The people present a problem for the elites, who have reintroduced the concept of “populism” as a handy pejorative synonym for “democracy”—which for obvious reasons they cannot so readily condemn." "Of course, the word is intended to invoke the image of a seething, foaming, raging rabble. But there are all kinds of mobs, including “intellectual” mobs. These intellectuals have issued no statements condemning #MeToo mobs, pro-choice mobs, LGBT mobs, or common or garden Twitter mobs seeking the scalps of holdouts from the latest “liberal” demands." "It will take more than moral blackmail or virtue-signaling to put things back together again. A revolution is happening across the free world. It is not a revolution of the “Right,” “alt-right,” or “far right,” but a revolution from the concrete center, from the places where working people live and work to build, fix, paint, and clean the world as their antecedents did for thousands of years. It is fundamentally a reaction against lies, intimidation, official stupidity, and political correctness. It is already sweeping Italy, Spain, Germany, France, Sweden, and the countries of the Eastern bloc. It is at the back of Brexit and Donald Trump. It may not be an “intellectual’ movement, but it is a movement rooted in a deep and ancient intelligence—the intelligence of the human heart—which has beat for several thousand years at the center of the greatest civilization the world has ever seen. The people of the West are stirring in their slumber. Yes, Europe is coming apart at the seams, but not in the ways the E.U. intellectuals divine. What they call “the bonfire of our freedoms” has already happened, and the people who make and fix things are building a new Europe in the ashes of the old."
|
|