Our Cute Little Protestant Friends
#11
This article makes me want to become a Protestant just to spite Kathy Shaidle.
Reply
#12
(02-24-2015, 04:04 PM)Ave Castitatis Lilium Wrote: There's lots of overlap between people who write there and write on American Renaissance and similar stuff.

I'm not a paranoid anti-racist but race realism devolves to quickly into race hatred that I prefer to just leave the subject alone. It might be scientifically correct, but every race is created in the Image of God so to mistreat someone because of their race is blasphemy against that Image.

Vox Clamantis regularly links to Jared Taylor, so following your train of thought, we are all here connected to "white nationalism" (which is an extremely nebulous thing).
Reply
#13
(02-24-2015, 07:06 PM)Bourbon Apocalypse Wrote: Well said, Crusading Philologist. Have you read Dr. Thomas Fleming's The Morality of Everyday Life? He speaks to the concerns that you have expressed. Also, with what book by de Benoist do you suggest that one begin?

I've read Fleming's stuff on the Chronicles website and have always found it interesting, but I haven't read The Morality of Everyday Life.  I'll definitely have to find time to read it at some point, though. Interestingly, Benoist apparently wrote a few articles for Chronicles a while back. Apparently, both he and Fleming share an appreciation for the Calvinist political philosopher Althusius. 

On recommendations, I'd suggest Beyond Human Rights. It doesn't really deal directly with race and so forth, but it does touch on the whole relationship between the universal and the particular. Old Sarum's recommendation also sounds pretty good, though. Other than that, one can also find some of Benoist's articles online. This website has several, for instance: https://neweuropeanconservative.wordpress.com/
Reply
#14
(02-24-2015, 05:12 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: I agree that race realism becomes an obsession for many, but I think the problem with simply ignoring it is that race is going to be an issue for us whether we want to deal with it or not. If we just ignore it, we end up with conservatives either caving in whenever they are called racist or else blathering on about universal human rights, human dignity, Western values, our Judeo-Christian heritage, and all the rest of it. Catholics, it seems to me, could, if they would get over their subjection to ethical humanitarianism, offer an interesting perspective on human difference of all sorts.

In particular, I think the Catholic way of approaching the world is one of the few traditions that seriously calls into question the ways in which moderns have formulated the distinctions between mind and body, nature and civilization, and perhaps even between nature and nurture, which I suppose is to an extent simply one aspect of the larger nature/civilization dichotomy. Here, I think one ought to consider the sacramental quality of Catholicism and the way in which this can mediate between the particular and the universal, without rejecting either. As the speaker of David Jones's "The Wall," asked, "What did our mothers tell us? What did their mothers tell to them? What the earth-mother told to them? But what did the queen of heaven tell her?" In contrast to Protestantism, the Catholic view, I think, is to see a degree of typological continuity alongside the rupture that followed the Christian revelation. The Incarnation was not simply an arbitrary intervention, but rather something deeply connected to human nature and human history.

Ironically, I think the position of someone like Alain de Benoist--with his focus on regional and ethnic differences rather than national ones, his rejection of the utilitarian and scientistic perspective of many American race realists, and his questioning of some of the dichotomies I mentioned above--is in many ways not that far from what a proper Catholic view would look like. For Catholic sources, I would consider, say, Joseph de Maistre or Pascal. Both lived before we had much understanding of genetics and so forth, of course, but at the same time, they were around when many of our modern assumptions about the world were still developing, and I think their criticisms of these assumptions are useful and insightful. Unfortunately, though, most of the Catholic Church today seems to have uncritically accepted much of the technological spirit of modernity, with only the occasional criticism that usually does not get to the root of the problem, and as a result has committed itself to courses of action that go along with the enframing of the world and of humanity itself.

I've never been or seen a discussion where the introduction of racism was made necessary—I mean, other than discussions about racism itself, like this one.

Also, before we go on accusing the Holy Mother Church of a modernist, quasi-satanic anthropology (viz., the technological view of humanity), we better keep in mind that racism (even of the “race realism”) sort is as modern as it gets—it should be obvious that, as Voeglin pointed out, racism (and race) is a byproduct of modern biology, which makes far too many assumptions about the creation, for instance, it completely discards final cause precisely where final causes are more evident (that is, the wings of a bird are clearly for flying, they are not merely a mechanical freaky accident without a [final] cause).
But then again, the flip side of racism, egalitarianism, in all its ugly variations, is also a modern thing.

And of course, as the Church most wisely has always avoided both Dionysus and Apollo we can affirm difference (ethnic, but down to the bones, even!) and unity, because we are analogically related to the unity above unity—no Jew nor Gentile.
But then we would have to discard taking modern talk, and this includes racism.
Reply
#15
(02-25-2015, 09:02 PM)Dirigible Wrote:
(02-24-2015, 04:04 PM)Ave Castitatis Lilium Wrote: There's lots of overlap between people who write there and write on American Renaissance and similar stuff.

I'm not a paranoid anti-racist but race realism devolves to quickly into race hatred that I prefer to just leave the subject alone. It might be scientifically correct, but every race is created in the Image of God so to mistreat someone because of their race is blasphemy against that Image.

Vox Clamantis regularly links to Jared Taylor, so following your train of thought, we are all here connected to "white nationalism" (which is an extremely nebulous thing).

The difference is we're not columnists and conference speakers for these organizations. I mean, I don't mind reading Jared Taylor/AmRen occasionally, it's just I find many people wrapped up in that loop to be very uncharitable and sometimes very anti-Catholic. Like I said, I'm not a paranoid anti-racist, I have far-right political views (traditional counter-revolutionary thought, of course, not the "traditionalist" crypto-fascist/crypto-modernism infecting the right today) and if there are biological differences between races, so be it, even if the implications are politically incorrect. I just don't consider it a priority because Jesus died for men of every race.

(02-25-2015, 09:32 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: I've never been or seen a discussion where the introduction of racism was made necessary—I mean, other than discussions about racism itself, like this one.

Also, before we go on accusing the Holy Mother Church of a modernist, quasi-satanic anthropology (viz., the technological view of humanity), we better keep in mind that racism (even of the “race realism”) sort is as modern as it gets—it should be obvious that, as Voeglin pointed out, racism (and race) is a byproduct of modern biology, which makes far too many assumptions about the creation, for instance, it completely discards final cause precisely where final causes are more evident (that is, the wings of a bird are clearly for flying, they are not merely a mechanical freaky accident without a [final] cause).
But then again, the flip side of racism, egalitarianism, in all its ugly variations, is also a modern thing.

And of course, as the Church most wisely has always avoided both Dionysus and Apollo we can affirm difference (ethnic, but down to the bones, even!) and unity, because we are analogically related to the unity above unity—no Jew nor Gentile.
But then we would have to discard taking modern talk, and this includes racism.

I agree with this post.
Reply
#16
http://gloria.tv/?media=93470

Ah, Protestant Heaven versus Catholic Heaven. I always love this Simpsons clip. I get a good laugh from it.
Reply
#17
It's funny because it's true.
Reply
#18
Catholics kept objective truth
Prots got relativism
Reply
#19
Thanks, Old Sarum and Crusading Philologist, for the recommendations.

I dowloaded Beyond Human Rights on my Kindle last night and look forward to reading it this weekend.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)