|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jan 19, 2019 20:58:27 GMT
How is that a better analogy? My blog is explicitly a Catholic blog. A university is (or should be) a place for free enquiry. Besides, these are not things Watson has said in his capacity as a lecturer, as far as I can see. I presume he is retired at this stage. So you think that Catholic universities have every right to give accolades to people who publicly dissent from Church teachings on human life and sexuality? If a university is solely a place for free enquiry, there can be no objection in principle to such behaviour. Of course a CATHOLIC University should be allowed to have a Catholic ethos. But can you imagine the pasting even a Catholic university would take if it tried to do "Catholic science"? This is the thing I don't get about all this indignation. Whether or not there are innate differences in IQ between the races is a scientific question. It's not a matter of belief at all, it's a matter of fact, one way or the other. And what if it were true? It doesn't diminish anybody's human dignity. At least, not in my eyes. I don't think a member of MENSA is somehow more important or has more intrinsic worth than a mentally retarded person.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jan 19, 2019 21:43:57 GMT
A lot of this discussion boils down to what should be considered "beyond the pale" within conservatism in general and conservative Catholicism in particular. It's interesting to me that Milo Yiannapoulos has recently appeared on the Patrick Coffin Show, the Eric Metaxas show, and Church Militant TV. The last perhaps not a surprise, the other two more so.
Meanwhile John Waters has defended Justin Barrett on at least one occasion that I've heard, and has appeared on Dave Cullen's show several times.
I think the important thing is that we really have to take every issue and individual on their own merits and not draw lines attaching A to B to C.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jan 20, 2019 11:41:24 GMT
I think it's worth reviewing the level of intolerance you are showing here, Young Ireland.
1) James Watson is a retired former Director and President of a laboratory (I mistakenly thought it was a university on a first reading) which has severed all connections with him and stripped him of his titles because he suggested there is a genetic link between race and intelligence. Lots of other people think this and the best that can be said to the contrary (as far as I can tell, thogh I don't pretend to be a scientist) is that there's no PROVEN link, that it's an open question. You keep dragging in his comments on abortion, but that's a red herring because this was not what prompted the controversy, nor was it the focus of the Burkean Journal article.
It would be perfectly possible for his former laboratory to simply announce that they do not endorse his views-- similar to what Lehigh University biology department did in the case of the proponent of intelligent design, Michael Behe.
2) The Burekan Journal, which is a platform for many different conservative viewpoints, published an article defending Watson. Even THIS is unacceptable to you. Instead of responding by submitting an article to the Burkean Journal, arguing the opposite case, you complain that it's "monstrous" that the Burkean Journal would publish the article at all. You have shown no interest in the scientific questions involved-- you haven't even addressed them. I'm left wondering if you think such views should be suppressed even if they are scientifically correct after all.
You have called for me and others to be banned from this forum, previously. You've approved of the far left interrupting events such as Identity Ireland's first meeting (and no, I don't support Identity Ireland at all). The irony is that, although you seem haunted by the spectre of Nazi Germany and Franco's Spain and Putin's Russia, you are yourself an extremely authoritarian personality who seems willing and eager to see every viewpoint YOU consider "evil" be suppressed.
It is interesting that a strident anti-eugenicist (and fervent Catholic) such as G.K. Chesterton could be good friends with someone like George Bernard Shaw who was himself an outspoken eugenicist. I personally find something very sinister in the instinct for purity tests, no-platforming, and speech codes.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jan 20, 2019 13:05:58 GMT
I think it's worth reviewing the level of intolerance you are showing here, Young Ireland. 1) James Watson is a retired former Director and President of a laboratory which has severed all connections with him and stripped him of his titles because he suggested there is a genetic link between race and intelligence. Lots of other people think this and the best that can be said to the contrary (as far as I can tell, thogh I don't pretend to be a scientist) is that there's no PROVEN link, that it's an open question. You keep dragging in his comments on abortion, but that's a red herring because this was not what prompted the controversy, nor was it the focus of the Burkean Journal article. It would be perfectly possible for his former laboratory to simply announce that they do not endorse his views-- similar to what Lehigh University biology department did in the case of the proponent of intelligent design, Michael Behe. 2) The Burekan Journal, which is a platform for many different conservative viewpoints, published an article defending Watson. Even THIS is unacceptable to you. Instead of responding by submitting an article to the Burkean Journal, arguing the opposite case, you complain that it's "monstrous" that the Burkean Journal would publish the article at all. You have shown no interest in the scientific questions involved-- you haven't even addressed them. I'm left wondering if you think such views should be suppressed even if they are scientifically correct after all. You have called for me and others to be banned from this forum, previously. You've approved of the far left interrupting events such as Identity Ireland's first meeting (and no, I don't support Identity Ireland at all). The irony is that, although you seem haunted by the spectre of Nazi Germany and Franco's Spain and Putin's Russia, you are yourself an extremely authoritarian personality who seems willing and eager to see every viewpoint YOU consider "evil" be suppressed. It is interesting that a strident anti-eugenicist (and fervent Catholic) such as G.K. Chesterton could be good friends with someone like George Bernard Shaw who was himself an outspoken eugenicist. I personally find something very sinister in the instinct for purity tests, no-platforming, and speech codes. If people think I am "intolerant" simply because I feel eugenics should not be given a positive platform, so be it. I'm sure many Germans during the Weimar Republic thought Heinrich von Bruening to be "intolerant" simply because he tried to stamp out the Nazis and Communists threatening to overun the ailing republic. Tolerance is not an absolute virtue: there are things where we absolutely need to be intolerant of. You yourself recognise this in your opposition to pronography: surely this should also apply to extremist rhetoric, which often has the same intellectual effects? I keep dragging in his comments on abortion, because people would simply dismiss me as a virtue-signalling SJW and a crybaby otherwise, so radicalised things have become. At least the very fact that he supports eugenic abortion in conjunction with his views on race is a very clear signal to me that this is a man whose worldview we should be wary of defending in any way. As you say, the Burkean Journal gives a platform to many different viewpoints. By not only giving a platform to but actually endorsing Dr. Watson's racial views, it is sending the message that it is perfectly acceptable for conservatives to hold such views. Given the use of such thinking to underpin racial discrimination, I think "monstrous" is a fair description of the article. Your comments seem to suggest that Dr. Watson's views are reasonable, if rather misguided, and that whether or not he is in fact right is an open question. The problem with Dr. Watson's that this completely ignores the possibly that centuries of mistreatment may have artificially reduced academic achievement among the black community. But this would require recognising that such mistreatment has had such an effect, which would raise some rather uncomfortable questions. Therefore, such advocates, intentionally or not, decude that such disparities are down to genetics, thus absolving their ancestors for any possible contribution to this. I do not and have not endorsed vigilantism against any protestors, far-right or otherwise. I do endorse the right of people to protest extremist movements peacefully, something which I notice the hard-right are only enthusiastic about when it suits their own agenda. It's interesting that you are now resorting to personal attacks against me, denouncing as authoritarian for denouncing (shock horror!) support for scientific racism. Apparently you do not feel bound to be chivalrous to others though you demand it of them. I've never criticised Franco specifically (recently anyway): I believe that Franco was the lesser of two evils, consider that the other side were actively persecuting the faith to the point of mass murder, but that doesn't mean his regime should have not have been denounced for its crimes. With respect to Chesterton, I don't remember him comparing G.B. Shaw to Galileo with the unspoken implication that his opponents are dinosaurs who will be proven wrong by science. Finally, it's dissapointing that you can't apparently bring yourself to condemn Dr. Watson's views and instead resort to whataboutery as if almost trying to play down what he said. I expected better from you, Maolsheachlann, and I hope that in time, you will see the light and recognised that you are being taken for a fool, and recognise that you are on a road which far from leading to freedom will only lead to disgrace at the end. Please God you will have the strength to turn back.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jan 21, 2019 9:52:29 GMT
Finally, it's dissapointing that you can't apparently bring yourself to condemn Dr. Watson's views and instead resort to whataboutery as if almost trying to play down what he said. I expected better from you, Maolsheachlann, and I hope that in time, you will see the light and recognised that you are being taken for a fool, and recognise that you are on a road which far from leading to freedom will only lead to disgrace at the end. Please God you will have the strength to turn back. If you are suggesting I am on some kind of "road" to the far right or Alt Right etc., then all I can say is that I'm not and I think anyone who fairly reads anything I've written on this subject can appreciate the nuances. As for disgrace, it might well be the case that before very long anyone who raises their voices against political correctness of any stripe risks ever more serious consequences. This is the very danger that me and many others are warning about tirelessly, and trying to fight against. The fact that you are pushing in the opposite direction explains why I find it hard to treat this as an academic debate. The reason I'm not going to get into denouncing Watson's views is because I don't play that game-- having to preface every statement one makes with, "I'm not a racist", "I'm not a sexist", I'm not a homophobe", etc. etc. No. You're always on the back foot in that case, always on the defensive. I've said I don't know and I don't care if he's right-- I favour a race-blind social policy. I am defending his right to air his opinions. And I think free speech should go beyond not having the police knock on your door, and should be defended not only against the state but other powerful institutions. (Actually I'm not even defending his right to air his opinions so much as the moral right of the Burkean to publish an article in which someone defends him. The fact that his former employers are a laboratory rather than a university puts a rather different complexion on the matter. I'm not particularly worked up about the case itself.) I simply do not understand how anyone of spirit or nobility can side with the bullies against the bullied. And if you can't see cases like this in those terms, take an analogy with Asher's Bakery. The persecutors of Asher's Bakery (and similar cases) would ALSO claim to be standing up for the oppressed-- just as you invoke Jim Crow etc., they would invoke the Matthew Shephard case and various other instances of homosexuals being mistreated, and would argue that Asher's freedom of religion emboldens gay-bashers and "sends a message" to suicidal gay teens, etc. etc. The bullies posing as the defenders of the oppressed. But you have to ask yourself, in all such cases: who has the power? Whose agenda is on the offensive, in society at large? Do you really believe there is a serious prospect of Jim Crow being reintroduced, or a neo-Nazi coup? Is this not hysteria? Isn't the danger to freedom of speech and freedom of conscience greater by orders of magnitude? The two hegemonic forces in our society are political correctness and globalism-- you have chosen to ally yourself with both of them. Others defend free speech and the survival of their national heritage at considerable (even great) risk to themselves, while you side with the dominant forces. I'm happy to concede that you break rank on the subject of religious freedom and the defence of the unborn child, although how you don't see the common cause (at least in the area of defending freedom of speech, conscience and association) defeats me.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Feb 12, 2019 19:51:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Feb 13, 2019 15:29:26 GMT
Quotation from the article: "The uncomfortable question we have to ask ourselves is how much genetic inheritance affects groups of people. Human beings are defined both by their genetic inheritance and by their culture. We have both ‘hardware’ so to speak (genetically-determined), and software (culture, customs, habits, and norms). Human hardware is difficult to change, software is not. Both have a massive impact on the development of a people and their nation. Egalitarians claim humans are all software, which just isn’t credible. In an age so obsessed with equality there are few questions more important than this. Obviously all people deserve to be equal in the eyes of the law and in regards their rights, but when the conversation turns to national and socio-economic inequalities, we are faced with the question of innate potential." And: "Just because some nations and people innately have less potential does not mean we should disparage them for it. Every nation and person should have self-esteem and pride. Instead we should think of nations like individuals: each one has its unique qualities, interests, aptitudes, and failings. And that’s okay. Why would we want or expect everyone to be the same? If anything, it demonstrates the need for greater understanding and cooperation with our fellow man." I presume when you say "I utterly condemn the sentiments therein", you're not referring to these ones? Personally, I consider the "convergence" theory he describes an absolute nightmare, and I hope he's right that it cannot be achieved, whether the disparities are based on culture or genetics. (Not a question that interests me, or that I'm competent to judge.) I'm fighting against "convergence" with all my might, as far as I can. I also can't imagine anything worse than a world where every country was like Singapore, or New York, or Tokyo. I also find the assertion that human software is not difficult to change very arguable.
|
|
|
Post by annie on Feb 13, 2019 23:36:20 GMT
The African and South American people are every bit as intelligent gifted and hard working as any other people. We Irish were the butt of Punch cartoons 100 years ago, depicting us as being half ape, half human. Many countries in the "third world" were crippled by foreign debt which had to be paid back in hard currency. Forgiveness of these debts was urged by John Paul II and others but it fell on deaf ears. The rich batten on the poor.
Equality is not in what's in our pockets but in our each having souls which were dearly bought by Our Lord at the coat of his life. He chose to be born poor as well.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Feb 14, 2019 10:15:28 GMT
The African and South American people are every bit as intelligent gifted and hard working as any other people. We Irish were the butt of Punch cartoons 100 years ago, depicting us as being half ape, half human. Many countries in the "third world" were crippled by foreign debt which had to be paid back in hard currency. Forgiveness of these debts was urged by John Paul II and others but it fell on deaf ears. The rich batten on the poor. Equality is not in what's in our pockets but in our each having souls which were dearly bought by Our Lord at the coat of his life. He chose to be born poor as well. Yes. But Germany was devastated by two world wars and had to pay significant reparations, including World War One reparations which were finally paid off only in 2010. It doesn't seem to have held them back. Also, Third World countries have had massive foreign aid and it seems a legitimate question to ask why it has so little effect. The article draws many similar comparisons. In fact, they must have occurred to everybody independently, whether they say so or not. I realize the Irish people were caricatured in Punch. I can never understand the significance of this argument, though. The theory that there are deep differences between cultures seems a reasonable one to me. Whether genetics plays a part seems a valid field of enquiry-- I don't know. I'm surprised by the scientific confidence of those who are absolutely sure it plays no part. Is this really scientific certitude, or political taboo? Personally I am inclined to think culture plays a larger role, or even explains it entirely. Dr. Johnson said in the eighteenth century: "There is no permanent national character: it varies according to circumstances. Alexander the Great swept India: now the Turks sweep Greece." I absolutely agree that equality is spiritual, not financial or intellectual or cultural or anything else, and unlike many on the right (but like Chesterton) I passionately believe in human eguality, though not in the egalitarian sense. Everybody is infinitely precious through virtue of being a human being. That's why I don't get as het up about this subject as other people, and even feel somewhat baffled by the hysteria. I don't accept that one person is somehow more important than another through having a higher IQ. If the same applies to groups, I have the same view. I don't even think high-achieving cultures are necessarily any better than those which are low-achieving in terms of material success. I absolute believe a poor village in Kenya might be spiritually and culturally superior to Silicon Valley. In fact, I'm sure it is. I'm not even interested in the subject in itself, but I do find the hysteria around it irritating. I like Paddy Manning and John McGuirk but this was not their finest hour. I suppose they have to be careful what they say, being figures in the public eye, and keeping their powder dry for the battles they can win. I suspect that an obsession with this subject is rooted in the globalist tendency to see all human development in terms of productivity, material success, and standard of living. The idea that a nation's real treasures might be its cultures and traditions is utterly foreign to them, and they see any suggestion that this or that culture might not be able to emulate the (dubious) success of the most wealthy countries as the ultimate insult. Since Young Ireland posted this story in the Alt Right thread, I might also mention that this, ironically, is an assumption that the Alt Right actually seem to share with globalists, neocons and neo-liberals. It's all about the skyscrapers for all these people, it seems. Even if the argument was: there MIGHT be genetic differences in intelligence between groups, but this is a subject that should not be discussed recklessly in public because of the danger it might encourage eugenicists and social Darwinists or scientific racists or whatever, I might have some respect for that. But we always have to bear in mind Orwell's dictum: "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two makes four. If that is granted, all else follows". The theory that there are innate differences in potential (as the article puts it) is just a theory. If it's a fact, it's a fact. Whether you take that theory or fact to promote eugenics or scientific racism or social Darwinism is another thing, quite apart. Surely that distinction should be respected? The author of this piece doesn't seem to be making any actual proposals as regards public policy, simply arguing for the theory itself and saying that it should be taken into account. I have no dog in this fight, since the subject itself doesn't interest me much. Indeed, it would be much wiser to say nothing, for my own personal benefit-- even on this rather obscure forum. However, that would seem like cowardice to me. When it comes to this subject, I can only say what I say when it comes to climate change: I don't know. I'm not scientifically-minded enough to decide. And one always has to be wary of agendas, even in science.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 17, 2019 23:07:10 GMT
The point about the significance of the fact that Irish people used to be caricatured in PUNCH is that it is an example of how the relative economic backwardness of a group was attributed to genetic inferiority, when subsequent developments have shown this was not the case. (We are talking about the sort of "race scientists" who went around measuring skulls, or the caricaturists who portrayed Irish people as apes. Evangelical conversionists are a different matter, since many of these attributed Irish backwardness to Catholicism and believed turning Protestant would fix the problem.) An extreme example would be Dr Robert Knox, who advocated the extermination of "Irish Celts", and whose career came to a sudden halt when he was found to be buying corpses for dissection from Messrs Burke and Hare without asking too many questions about how the corpses got to be corpses: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_KnoxThis is not unique, BTW. Many early C20 American and other eugenists claimed southern Europeans (who the present-day alt-right would usually class as "white") were genetically inferior to Northern Europeans: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lothrop_Stoddard James Watson is a very great scientist (he co-discovered the structure of DNA, one of the fundamental discoveries of biology). So were William Shockley (discovered the transistor) and Frederick Soddy (described the processes of radioactive decay and isotope formation) - that didn't stop them from expressing horrendous racist and anti-semitic views, which need to be exposed and denounced in case these men's genuine achievements are used to give them credence and cause suffering: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Soddyen.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shockley In scientific terms, Watson's views are just hideously crude. There may be genetic differences between local populations (examples would be the susceptibility of many people of African descent to sickle cell anaemia and of many Orthodox Jews to Tay-Sachs disease, and widespread lactose intolerance among East Asians[ quite serious research is being undertaken in American on whether certain medicines may work differently on different ethnic/racial groups) but there is no reason to think that these differences coincide with the traditional racial distinctions - Africa is a big continent with many different populations. It is now well established that there have been highly organised African civilisations at many points throughout history - something which used to be denied quite frequently in the past; the list of non-African origins ascribed to the Zimbabwe ruins, for example, would be comic if it wasn't for their role in perpetuating racial oppression. Their failure to develop further involved such factors as the endemic cattle diseases found in large parts of Africa and the relative absence of navigable rivers (the Congo has a stone ridge near its outlet which makes navigation problematic. Given the history of anti-black racism and of "racial science" I think it is reasonable that people should wish to dissociate themselves from them, and the more distinguished their proponent the more damaging their possible effect. Let me say straight away that I don't think Maolseachlainn is a racist, but I think he is being naive. (I speak here as a fellow contributor, not as editor.) There are views that cannot be tolerated because they are (a) damaging to reasoned discourse (b) not put forward in good faith, and I think Dr Watson's views fall inside this category. I would defend the BURKEAN JOURNAL's right to publish an article saying Dr Watson's views should not exclude him from polite society, but their editorial endorsement was profoundly irresponsible and has wrecked any claim they might have to being taken seriously. It's easy to be criminally naive when you're young. I remember on occasions when I was a teenager greeting acquaintances with Roman salutes (straight-arm) as a sort of affectation. Now I shudder when I think of what that gesture meant across Europe within living memory, and one reason I try to study the history of the Third Reich, American racism, and similar movements is to keep myself from ever straying into that sort of territory, and warning others off. One thing that has struck me, BTW, is that it is very dangerous to sneer at and demonise opponents, something I've often done in the past. "Othering" is a real and dangerous phenomenon, and Jesus warns against it to an extent I haven't always realised. Be careful.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Feb 18, 2019 10:01:54 GMT
The point about the significance of the fact that Irish people used to be caricatured in PUNCH is that it is an example of how the relative economic backwardness of a group was attributed to genetic inferiority, when subsequent developments have shown this was not the case. (We are talking about the sort of "race scientists" who went around measuring skulls, or the caricaturists who portrayed Irish people as apes. Evangelical conversionists are a different matter, since many of these attributed Irish backwardness to Catholicism and believed turning Protestant would fix the problem.) An extreme example would be Dr Robert Knox, who advocated the extermination of "Irish Celts", and whose career came to a sudden halt when he was found to be buying corpses for dissection from Messrs Burke and Hare without asking too many questions about how the corpses got to be corpses: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_KnoxBut I think the analogy is strained. The fact that caricaturists portrayed Irish people as apes doesn't have any bearing on whether there are innate differences in intelligence between groups.This is not unique, BTW. Many early C20 American and other eugenists claimed southern Europeans (who the present-day alt-right would usually class as "white") were genetically inferior to Northern Europeans: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lothrop_Stoddard James Watson is a very great scientist (he co-discovered the structure of DNA, one of the fundamental discoveries of biology). So were William Shockley (discovered the transistor) and Frederick Soddy (described the processes of radioactive decay and isotope formation) - that didn't stop them from expressing horrendous racist and anti-semitic views, which need to be exposed and denounced in case these men's genuine achievements are used to give them credence and cause suffering: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Soddyen.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shockley In scientific terms, Watson's views are just hideously crude. There may be genetic differences between local populations (examples would be the susceptibility of many people of African descent to sickle cell anaemia and of many Orthodox Jews to Tay-Sachs disease, and widespread lactose intolerance among East Asians[ quite serious research is being undertaken in American on whether certain medicines may work differently on different ethnic/racial groups) but there is no reason to think that these differences coincide with the traditional racial distinctions - Africa is a big continent with many different populations. It is now well established that there have been highly organised African civilisations at many points throughout history - something which used to be denied quite frequently in the past; the list of non-African origins ascribed to the Zimbabwe ruins, for example, would be comic if it wasn't for their role in perpetuating racial oppression. Their failure to develop further involved such factors as the endemic cattle diseases found in large parts of Africa and the relative absence of navigable rivers (the Congo has a stone ridge near its outlet which makes navigation problematic. The point is that ANY suggestion that there are genetic differences between groups, especially when it comes to intelligence, tends to attract accusations of racism, not any particular claim.
To repeat myself once again, it's not a subject that interests me much. I'm more interested in the political correctness aspect to this debate than in the debate itself. I do resent the globalist assumption that populations are interchangeable, but I'm more interested in culture and heritage than biology. Given the history of anti-black racism and of "racial science" I think it is reasonable that people should wish to dissociate themselves from them, and the more distinguished their proponent the more damaging their possible effect. Let me say straight away that I don't think Maolseachlainn is a racist, but I think he is being naive. (I speak here as a fellow contributor, not as editor.) There are views that cannot be tolerated because they are (a) damaging to reasoned discourse (b) not put forward in good faith, and I think Dr Watson's views fall inside this category. I would defend the BURKEAN JOURNAL's right to publish an article saying Dr Watson's views should not exclude him from polite society, but their editorial endorsement was profoundly irresponsible and has wrecked any claim they might have to being taken seriously. I'm glad you don't consider me a racist, Hibernicus, but honestly, the term has been thrown around so promiscuously that it's pretty much lost any meaning or any effectiveness. We have been told so often that all white people are racist anyway that I'm not going to lose any sleep over the accusation. In terms of chivalry and respect, however, I do rather dislike singling out Africa for critique. Personally I am in favour of every people and region developing according to its native genius, to use a rather old-fashioned term. I'm a Slavophile when it comes to Russia, and I have the same attitude to Africa and its own regions. The beauty of African art and culture is something to be cherished on its own terms and I see no reason why Africa should be expected to ape the West, Asia, Japan, or anywhere else. (Nor do I assume it can't do so.) Indeed, as machines increasingly outstrip the human brain in ratiocination, I wonder if culture, tradition and spirituality might come to be seen as more important than efficiency, technical prowess, the work ethic, etc.
You say that there are views that cannot be tolerated because they are a danger to reasoned discourse and not put forward in good faith. But everyone could say this about views they dislike, just as progressives constantly try to differentiate between "free speech" (which of course they accept) and "hate speech" (which they want to suppress)-- the latter of which includes using the wrong pronoun or criticizing the concept of "gay rights". It was a common trope of anti-Catholic discourse to say that, while of course one respected freedom of religion, the Catholic Church was a subversive political power. It's easy to be criminally naive when you're young. I remember on occasions when I was a teenager greeting acquaintances with Roman salutes (straight-arm) as a sort of affectation. Now I shudder when I think of what that gesture meant across Europe within living memory, and one reason I try to study the history of the Third Reich, American racism, and similar movements is to keep myself from ever straying into that sort of territory, and warning others off. You often mention your shame at various positions you took in your youth. Is there a danger you are over-reacting to this? It's good to be self-critical, but surely it can become excessive and we might be so blind to one extreme we fall into another. We live in a society that is completely obsessed with the Nazis, Apartheid and Jim Crow and seems to forget that history is much bigger and that there are other and much more imminent dangers. To me this is as bizarre as the anarchist or libertarian who has a monomania about government and who sees minimum wage legislation as equivalent to the gulags, who doesn't seem to care if poor people can't afford basic healthcare as long as they are "free from state interference". The similarity I'm suggesting is the concentration upon one evil to the extent that you allow any number of other and often greater evils to flourish. It seems that today we are so terrified of racism and discrimination etc. etc. that we will suppress free speech, destroy national heritage, wreck careers for one insensitive tweet or article, and allow any number of other evils to thrive, all to avoid even any suggestion of this one greatly exaggerated evil. (I mean exaggerated in its prevalence, and usually exaggerated in that trivial instances are treated as gravely as serious instances.)
Globalist elites run virtually all our institutions, so it's not surprising they constantly hold up the Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan, etc. etc. as the embodiment of all evil, and suggest that any opposition to globalism is comparable to these, or is a step on the road to them, etc. etc. One thing that has struck me, BTW, is that it is very dangerous to sneer at and demonise opponents, something I've often done in the past. "Othering" is a real and dangerous phenomenon, and Jesus warns against it to an extent I haven't always realised. Be careful.
|
|
|
Post by annie on Feb 19, 2019 14:04:45 GMT
Many people criticise African countries for not getting themselves on their feet in spite if all the foreign aid they get. The problem is that much of this aid has strings attached and it is not truly aid if it has to be paid back in one way or another. Germany for example used send money to Africa but the Africans then were obliged to buy German tractors or pay back the loans in hard currency. People had to grow coffee instead of food in order to obtain hard currency to repay these debts. Ireland got a taste of these monetary practises post 2008. The editor of the Burkean is too young to know that we Irish were barely subsisting prior to joining the EU. Our young had to emigrate or stagnate. Our links with the third world through our missionaries was real and strong. The response of the Irish people to the man-made famine in Biafra was magnificent. We knew what it was to go hungry or have hunger or the threat of it used as a political weapon against us. When it was proposed to us that we might join the EU many wondered what we,a poor country on the edge of Europe would be doing in a rich man's club but when it was pointed out to us that the Europeans had a fear of food shortages and wanted to make ensure food security by having ourselves and Denmark join them. Furthermore, they would give our farmers security by keeping up prices for their produce and by being a member of this rich man's club thanks to our geographical position we could channel more funds to those locked outside it in Africa and other disadvantaged areas. We are lucky to live in a temperate climate with fertile clean soil, others aren't so lucky.
It's true that a full stomach has no understanding or comprehension of an empty one. For generations we sent missionaries out of Ireland to bring the light of Christ and fraternal love to the whole world. After VAT II, there was still a steady stream of lay volunteers working for a number of years helping the disposessed of the world to their feet. One only has to look at any of the old Radharc programmes to know how this was heart-to-heart stuff. Sadly, one rarely hears of this happening anymore. We have become obsessed with getting stuff for ourselves rather than sharing.
I was intrigued by the designation "PIIGS" given to the grouping of Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain some years back, when bets were being put of which of us porkers would fail first and "bring down the Euro". Co-incidentally it seemed, all the above countries had Catholic or Orthodox majority populations. The industrious Protestant nations of the North of Europe were held up to us as models. Those nations have different problems now and democracy in the PIIGS countries is but a pretence, the monied elite preserve each other.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Feb 20, 2019 8:55:19 GMT
I was intrigued by the designation "PIIGS" given to the grouping of Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain some years back, when bets were being put of which of us porkers would fail first and "bring down the Euro". Co-incidentally it seemed, all the above countries had Catholic or Orthodox majority populations. The industrious Protestant nations of the North of Europe were held up to us as models. Those nations have different problems now and democracy in the PIIGS countries is but a pretence, the monied elite preserve each other. My reaction might be a bit off the point. I don't tend to blame the EU for the condition of this country as I believe there is an influential minority here who are perfectly happy with current developments. Brexit frightens them greatly,as it is the one thing they haven't factored in and I don't believe we are preparing for the worst.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Feb 21, 2019 18:23:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by assisi on Feb 23, 2019 22:15:34 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.
|
|