“Every Use of the Word ‘Racism’ Is Meaningless”

Reactionary Catholic physics professor Bonald analyzes the concept of racism.  He is unimpressed by disingenuous liberal theologians who have identified racism as the deadliest of sins:

If by “racism”, one means “the sin of having a special loyalty and preference for one’s own group”, then [one is] trying to define a natural and non-sinful attitude to be sinful.  “Racism” as “the sinful belief that one race is superior in some way to another” is also guilty [of trying to define a natural and non-sinful attitude to be sinful] because such a belief may be true or false, but there is nothing inherently wicked in entertaining it.

The comments which follow are fascinating.  By the way, not only is having a special loyalty and preference for one’s own group not a sin, we have it on good authority that it IS a sin to LACK that special loyalty and preference.  (1 Timothy 5:8)

Read more…

Cruz and Carson #1 and #2 Again

This time at the GOP Convention in Texas. Rand Paul came in third.

Sen. Ted Cruz dominated the presidential straw poll at the Texas GOP convention on Saturday, pulling in 43.4 percent of the votes at the contest in his home state, far ahead of other possible 2016 contenders on the ballot.

In the survey, which is an informal read of the most committed conservatives in the party, the retired neurosurgeon-turned-conservative firebrand Ben Carson came in a distant second.

Carson, who was not in attendance, raked in 12.2 percent of the vote, barely beating out Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, who pulled in 12.1 percent. Texas Gov. Rick Perry came in third with 11.7 percent, while well behind him was former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush with just 3.3 percent

Read more here…

Baffled by Bergdahl?

Is anyone else as baffled by this Bergdahl affair as I am? Regardless of whether Bergdahl is a regular POW or a deserter, to me, the Obama Administration comes off looking stupid and incompetent, because the speculation that he was a deserter was already out there as a prominent part of the public record, so how could the Administration not have anticipated some negative reaction? At the least they should have acknowledged that there were questions and that they would be properly investigated on his return.

Tom Fleming discusses this strange case here.

Our old friend Sean Scallon seems upset by the rush to judgement, and I agree that Bergdahl shouldn’t be definitively declared guilty by Obama’s critics before an investigation and +/- a trial, but that doesn’t negate the fact that the Administration was stupid to not have seen this coming. Here is the comment I posted at Chronicles:

Sean, I’m not sure I understand your point. The Obama Administration had to be aware of the Daily Mail story that Dr. Fleming refers to. I’m baffled by this. The Admin seems to not have anticipated the backlash. But given the highly partisan nature of things these days, how could they not have? And doesn’t the fact that they “forgot” to inform Congress not suggest they might have known they were going to get pushback? It makes the skeptic in me think that they might have REALLY needed to get Bergdahl back for some reason. But even if that is the case, why they didn’t just withhold judgment and say that there would be an investigation instead of acting as if they had just secured the release of Jeremiah Denton is beyond me.

 

PoMoCons vs. Porchers?

Apparently they’re has been a longstanding rift between postmodern conservatives (PoMoCons or PoMos) and Front Porch Republic types (Porchers). Who knew? The occasion for the increased discussion of this rift is the fact the Peter Lawler is moving his Postmodern Conservative blog from First Things to NRO.

See Rod Dreher here.

Caleb Stegall has a lot of links here.

Peter Lawler here.

This is at FPR.

I think that all of us in what you might call the alternative conservative (meaning outside mainstream conservatism) community have some things in common and mutual enemies, the left and stale mainstream conservatism, but I think the description of the Porchers that is being tossed around describes something much more radical than the reality. The Porchers, at least as represented by FPR, are, as far as I can tell, a bunch of PC phobes. How can you talk about localism and community and “place” without talking about immigration? Doesn’t an influx of non-natives have a pretty big impact on place? Here is the comment I left at Dreher’s post.

The description here of the Front Porch folks actually sounds an aweful lot like paleocons to me, but I think that may be giving the Porchers more credit than they deserve. My impression of the Porchers is that they are pretty PC squemish. How can you talk about localism, organic community, corporatism, etc. and not address immigration? The Porchers want to be faux radicals but they strike me as scared to be thought of as wrongthinkers. In other words, they’re harmless.

Oh No! Putin is a Mean Evil Sexist!

Here is even more reason for us to bomb Russia. Putin is a sexist! He dissed Queen Hillary. I know, I know, it’s outrageous, isn’t it? It’s the year 2014. No country should have to endure having a sexist for a leader. We must commence bombing immediately and liberate the people of Russia from this knuckle-dragging menace to the modern mind.

Russian President Vladimir Putin gave a blistering response to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s comparison of his actions in Ukraine to those of Adolf Hitler leading up to World War II in a television interview that aired Wednesday.

Putin accused Clinton of not being the most elegant speaker and made remarks implying women in general are not well-suited to politics.

“It’s better not to argue with women. But Ms Clinton has never been too graceful in her statements,” Putin said in a French television interview Wednesday.

Putin went on to suggest Clinton was weak and make more disparaging comments about her gender.

“Still, we always met afterwards and had cordial conversations at various international events. I think even in this case we could reach an agreement,” said Putin. “When people push boundaries too far, it’s not because they are strong but because they are weak. But maybe weakness is not the worst quality for a woman.”

Read more here…

Ted Cruz Wins RLC Presidential Straw Poll, Ben Carson Comes in Second

It isn’t news that Ted Cruz won, but it is news, IMO, that Ben Carson came in second. I don’t know that much about Carson. He may be a good guy. And as I have said before, I’m not going to criticize him just because he is a non-traditional candidate, because I don’t think there are any traditional candidates out there so far who would advance our thing. But I have no real reason to think he is some sort of paleo. But this is further evidence that conservatives are desperate for a black candidate so they can say, “See look. We’re not racists.” Do these conservative not realize that this reinforces the liberal PC narrative?

The Spurs vs. the Heat, Round 2. GO SPURS! (Plus a word about the Donald Sterling lawsuit.)

So it’s going to be the Spurs vs. the Heat again this year. I guess we should have just skipped the regular season and went straight to a second finals. This outcome was fairly predictable. Here’s hoping that this year we’ll have a different outcome.

I like the Hawks because they are my home team, and I like the Spurs because I lived in San Antonio for a while coutesy of the USAF, but I hope Donald Sterling sues the NBA into bankrupcy. I would gladly do without the Hawks and the Spurs if that was the cost of crushing that little PC enforcing bug, Adam Silver. Sterling has filed a 1 billion dollar lawsuit, and according to this analysis of the NBA Constitution, it looks like Silver grossly over stepped his authority.

So go Spurs, and go Donald!

Google Workforce: Too White

From the AP:

[T]he Silicon Valley giant this week issued a gender and ethnic breakdown of its workforce that showed that of its 26,600 U.S. employees, 61 percent are white, 30 percent Asian, 3 percent Hispanic and 2 percent black. Thirty percent of its employees are women.

“Google is miles from where we want to be,” said Laszlo Bock, head of personnel at Google.

One year, Google says, there were just two black people in the U.S. with newly minted doctorates in computer science on the job market. The company hired one of them, and Microsoft hired the other, according to Bock.

Computer science sounds like a rough field to be in if white or Asian, and male.

If Google is hiring less qualified workers simply because they’re not white/Asian, male; it might be a good time for its shareholders to sell. A company’s most valuable asset is often its workforce.

Music, The Sacred, & Science

At Catholic World Report Jerry Salyer reviews Roger Scruton’s latest book The Soul of the WorldAs the review notes, Scruton devotes considerable attention to aesthetics:

In this age of democracy über alles the claim that certain kinds of music are base and others noble invites the charge of elitism [...]  At the risk of sounding elitist myself, I must observe that Scruton has on his side not only Western philosophy’s godfather Plato—who was convinced that a proper moral education begins with a proper appreciation of music—but also the great Eastern sage, Confucius, who advised his followers to “be perfected by music” and condemned certain tunes as “wanton”. To dismiss out of hand the idea that different musical styles can have different influences on a child’s developing psyche seems almost as foolish as dismissing the idea that a child’s diet can impact his health.

Read more here:

http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/3150/the_search_for_soul_in_a_fallen_world.aspx

 

Two Roads Diverged in a Yellow Wood

UPDATE BELOW:

One thing’s for certain: The sea-to-shining-sea unity of pre-1965 America is gone, thanks to floodtide immigration, and it ain’t coming back. Numbers don’t lie.

So the question is, What do we do about it? It’s time for a massive political reorganization. There are two models we can use to guide us. One is a decentralized model with well-defined boundaries separating distinct groups, allowing autonomy within each unit; the other is the model of a powerful central government that must impose order on a mixed population. These two models are exemplified by the experience of Switzerland and Yugoslavia. Their histories are examined in this Public Library of Science paper. Here’s part of the Reader’s Digest version summarizing the Swiss model:

Switzerland is recognized as a country of peace, stability and prosperity. This is surprising because of its linguistic and religious diversity that in other parts of the world lead to conflict and violence. Here we analyze how peaceful stability is maintained. Our analysis shows that peace does not depend on integrated coexistence, but rather on well defined topographical and political boundaries separating groups, allowing for partial autonomy within a single country.

And then there’s Yugoslavia:

Our analysis supports the hypothesis that violence between groups can be inhibited by physical and political boundaries. A similar analysis of the area of the former Yugoslavia shows that during widespread ethnic violence existing political boundaries did not coincide with the boundaries of distinct groups, but peace prevailed in specific areas where they did coincide. The success of peace in Switzerland may serve as a model to resolve conflict in other ethnically diverse countries and regions of the world.

Which should we choose? Well, I’m not one to try to sway opinions (what? me?) but let’s keep this in mind: Switzerland today is peaceful and prosperous, while Yugoslavia self-destructed in 1990.

Which shall it be? Which shall it be?

UPDATE:: This story from the Washington Times suggests which way DC plans to go: Memo outlines Obama’s plan to use the military against citizens

Jeffrey Tucker vs. the Rockwellians

Recently there was a dust up in libertarian land over an article by Jeffrey Tucker which essentially struck a PC pose, and seemed clearly intended to distance himself from his former colleagues at the von Mises Institute. I never got around to discussing it at the time, although it is mentioned in the comments of this post about another libertarian squable.

To be honest, I was not even aware that Tucker had left the von Mises Institute, so I was prompted by the squable to search for news/gossip related to the separation. I found surprisingly little. I am certainly not privy to the inner workings of the von Mises Institute, but I was under the impression that Rockwell and Tucker were friends, so I presumed the lack of gossip was an indication that the parting had been amicable. When this squable first broke out, I went to LewRockwell.com to see what they had to say about it. While they addressed the issue, by my memory and current searches, they did so less than I expected. I took this as evidence that the Rockwell crowd might be holding its fire to some extent out of deference to Tucker. (Similarly, I have a hunch that LRC holds their fire at Rand Paul somewhat out of deference to his father.)  I couldn’t decide whether to consider this honorable or unwise, since the Tucker article was so clearly aimed at the Rockwell orbit.

With this in mind, it was with interest that I stumbled upon this tidbit at the Economic Policy Journal. The article is about a separate but related post Tucker brutalism article PC dust up, where some PC suck up hack was whining about libertarian racism. Of interest is that Rockwell orbit heavyweight Tom Woods weighs in in the comment section with a direct attack on Tucker. As best as I can recall, this is the most direct addressing of Tucker specifically that I have seen. (Let me know if I’ve missed something.)

To continue in that vein, she would have had to break with Tucker, and that gig is evidently too lucrative to give up.

Meanwhile, Tucker, who from his recent writing appears to be a delicate flower who feels pain at every unkind word or thought entertained by anyone at any time, couldn’t spare three seconds to stand up in defense of Ron Paul, who has done so much for him, or for Walter or the others. Let’s hope this phase passes soon.

Ouch. That stings a bit. I would really like to know if anyone has any inside intel on all this business because Tucker’s new found persona seems to have come from out of the blue.

Some More Thoughts on “Baldwin Churches”

Sorry for my recent absence from CHT. I was on vacation and away from internet access for a week.

This is a follow-up to my previous post on this subject.

Currently the tab for the application process at the Baldwin Liberty Church Project website is not functioning. I just sent them an e-mail asking when they think it might be working because I am seriously interested in trying to launch such a project in my area. I have made a few inquiries to guage potential interest. I have been giving this a lot of thought, and I see this as a project that has a lot of promise, but is also frought with potential peril.

First of all, I am currently happily churched in a healthy and active church. I have some theological disagreements with the church’s statement of faith, but not so much that I am overwhelmingly uncomfortable there. We have many good friends there. Most importantly, my wife and kids are happy there, and I am sure would resist a major change. I foresee myself initially as engaging this project in addition to my regular church attendence. That is why I prefer the concept of a “fellowship” as opposed to a church initially. Also, I like the idea of having the service on Sunday afternoon, as they do in Montana, which I suspect is at least partially intended to accommodate such dual congregants.

Second, I am not crazy about the heavy focus on the concept of “Biblical Natural Law” and “liberty.” Biblical Natural Law is both a theologically and philosophically problematic formulation and is arguably an oxymoron. And I don’t believe that the Bible’s focus is “liberty” nearly as much as it is obedience to God’s law. But this is a subject for a separate thread. That said, I am sure Chuck Baldwin is no libertine or antinomian, and I suspect this formulation is largely intended to appeal to a certain segment of the “liberty movement” that isn’t also hostile to Christianity and traditional morality. It’s just theologically and philosophically confused.

If I am involved in launching such a project, I would be very weary about poaching people who are already churched in other healthy, doctrinally sound churches. Therefore, I believe the initial focus for building a healthy fellowship would have to be on devout Christians who are currently unchurched for principled reasons, most likely the tax exempt issue. Building by bringing in the unchurched and new converts would likely have to follow the establishment of a healthy core. So you would have a small pool to draw from to begin with, and let’s be honest, one that is potentially filled with a disproportionate number of malcontents and outliers. As I commented in my first post, strong leadership will be essential to make this work right.

Those concerns stated, here is what I see as potentially promising. As I said above, I have some theological disagreements with my current church. But one reason I remain there is because I would almost certainly have theological disagreements with any church I might join. (Our Catholic friends would say that is a fundamental problem with Protestantism, but again, that is for another thread.) For the record, you can relax. I am orthodox (small o) in my beliefs and certainly do not reject any of the fundamentals of the Faith (the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, etc.). It is on some non-essentials that I have a hodgepodge of beliefs that I believe reflect the Bible but don’t usually come as a whole. (Some things I don’t so much disbelieve outright as I just don’t see that the Bible is definitive enough on the subject to be dogmatic about. The subjects of church government and end times come to mind)

Theology tends to come in packages. You have your Reformed. You have your Wesleyan. You have your Baptistic. Etc. For example, while I reject turning the political concept of separation of church and state into a theological dogma, as my own Baptists do, which might otherwise tend me toward the Reformed tradition, I reject the infant baptism and sacraments as a “means of grace” that comes with that package. As far as I know, there is no package that incorporates all my beliefs. So what is a Christian such as I to do?

As I indicated in my first post, I like the concept of a Christian fellowship united on the fundamentals (which IMO includes basically the historic creeds plus Protestant soteriology), but which allows wide latitude on the nonessential secondary issues. This shows humility that we acknowledge that we really don’t have it all figured out, and allows for sincere Christians to embrace membership without reservations if they don’t fit into a specific theological package.

I was once a part of a model such as this when I attended chapel in the military. I would not recommend this alternative all the time because much depends on the Chaplain, but we had a theologically sound Chaplain. The Sunday School and Bible studies that we had were some of the best I have ever participated in. They were not echo chambers. We had serious discussions about issues from a variety of theological standpoints.

But my main reason for hoping to see a “Baldwin Church” established in my area, is because I feel really strongly about the 501c3 issue, and I think it is important enough to take precedence over many other theological and practical concerns. A church that voluntarily allows itself to be censored by the State is arguably guilty of idolatry as it is allowing something to come between it and the whole proclamation of God’s Word. While the charge of idolatry is likely unhelpfully argumentative, it does indicate the seriousness of the issue at hand. People should be judged in the context of the milieu they are in, and since 501c3 status is currently the norm, I don’t want to be overly harsh. Many people who participate in such mean well and likely don’t know the alternative, but the current state of affairs is very misguided to say the least. As I said in my first post, churches should be non-taxable as opposed to tax exempt. As I understand it, this was essentially the state of affairs before the relatively recent development of the 501c3 status. But also as I said in my first post, since 501c3 status is normative these days, unincorporated churches are potentially wild cards, both theology wise and membership wise. As far as I know, we have only one unincorporated church in my area, but it is a Reconstructionist church so it comes with the whole Reformed package. Having a theologically sound but less doctrinally exclusive alternative would be a blessing IMO.

This post has essentially been me thinking out loud, so I would appreciate your thoughts and feedback. Thanks.

Santa Barbara shooter had history of posting racist, misogynist comments on hate site

Does the above headline send shivers down your back? Good. That means it worked.

The ghouls at the Southern Poverty Law Center rake in their millions by trolling the news for tragedies, selecting facts out of context, and spicing up the story with their own special spin. Then it’s a simple matter of contacting their secretarial pool (aka, the mainstream media) and releasing their lurid tales to a breathless public. Et voila – everyone’s talking about how another dangerous racist has terrorized our multicultural utopia. In their next fundraising letter, the SPLC will conflate neo-Nazis with immigration control activists, conservatives, and critics of big government as “haters” and “racists” inflamed by uncontrolled “hate speech” (aka, non-leftist speech).

The latest example is Elliott Rodger, a mass-murderer who killed nine people in Santa Barbara on Friday:

According to the hate-tracking Southern Poverty Law Center, alleged Santa Barbara shooter Elliott Rodger had a history of posting misogynist and racist comments on anti-woman website PuaHate.com. …

According to the SPLC, Rodger posted comments in January, beginning with “Saw a black guy sitting with 4 white girls,” causing him to admit his frustration over white women socializing with minority men.

But even a cursory examination of this troubled young man reveals a delusional, frustrated sociopath who resented all women who rejected him and the men who dated them. In his seething manifesto, Rodger threatened to “slaughter every single blonde s**t I see.”

Does that sound like something a white “racist” would say? No matter. The SPLC will go on with its fear-mongering fundraising, and the mainstream media will go on transcribing SPLC releases.

The Green March of 2014

Don’t look now, but we’re being overrun by illegal immigrants from Latin America. And no, this isn’t the opinion of VDare or FAIR but the New York Times:

Last weekend alone, more than 1,000 unaccompanied youths were being held at overflowing border stations in South Texas, officials said.

The flow of child migrants has been building since 2011, when 4,059 unaccompanied youths were apprehended by border agents. Last year more than 21,000 minors were caught, and Border Patrol officials had said they were expecting more than 60,000 this year. But that projection has already been exceeded.

By law, unaccompanied children caught crossing illegally from countries other than Mexico are treated differently from other migrants. After being apprehended by the Border Patrol, they must be turned over within 72 hours to a refugee resettlement office that is part of the Health Department.

What’s the one fool-proof, most direct way to create a pro-socialist, pro-immigration majority in this country? Simple – just import a new people that will support such an agenda. Demographic revolution isn’t anything new. In 1975, an unarmed exodus of Moroccans was able to tip the scales in favor of what was once Spanish Sahara to become part of Morocco:

The Green March was a mass trek of 350,000 Moroccans into Western Sahara (former Spanish Sahara) on November 6, 1975 to claim the mostly desert territory from a regional insurgency and to declare control over the territory as a contiguous and connected subset of a “Greater Morocco.” The “march” allowed the Moroccan state to triumph over countries in the Western Sahara region, which was contested by the Polisario Front, an acronym for the Popular Front for the Liberation of Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro (Frente Popular de Liberación de Saguía el Hamra y Río de Oro), a national liberation organization formed by Moroccan students of Sahrawi descent. While neighboring Algeria and Mauritania claimed the territory, the Green March proved decisive in consolidating a large territory of 103,000 square miles with fewer than 500,000 people composed of Sahrawi and Moroccan descendants. The goal of Moroccan King Hassan II was to present the world with a fait accompli occupation that would be irreversible.

I can just hear the Koch Brothers, Mark Zuckerberg, and all the other billionaires sniggering with delight at the prospect of all that cheap, exploitable labor rushing into their arms.

60th Anniversary of Brown Vs. Board of Education

Gail Jarvis turns his eye on the Brown vs. Board decision. We’re assured this was a wonderful thing, but as Jarvis points out, the actual results have not been all that wonderful. From the Canada Free Press:

The Brown decision brings to mind the following quote from James Russell Lowell: “Among the lessons taught by the French Revolution there is none sadder or more striking than this, that you may make everything else out of the passions of men except a political system that will work, and that there is nothing so pitilessly and unconsciously cruel as sincerity formulated into dogma.” – Wise words indeed. “Sincerity formulated into dogma” certainly characterizes the Brown decision. It might have been based on good intentions, but attempts to accomplish its idyllic goals actually did more harm than good.

“Sincerity formulated into dogma” could just as well describe not just the French Revolution, but the Russian, Chinese, and Cambodian revolutions too. Otherworldly ideas imposed on flesh and blood do not yield paradise, but mayhem.

The Limits of Free Speech

Rights in general should be based on tradition, but I’d like to attempt a rational approach regardless:

Free speech should never extend to matters that undermine the faith a society is built upon. To say Anglo-Saxon man (the tradition our free speech originates from) should have the right of free speech isn’t to say Piss Christ is a tolerable expression of art. Piss Christ should be destroyed, the owner not compensated for the lost asset. Similarly, gay marriage is anti-Christian. It should not be tolerated for violation of the Faith.

Treason shouldn’t be tolerated, obviously. Cicero gives the example that a child shouldn’t turn his parent in for robbery or planned robbery; but murder and treason are matters he should betray his parent over. So, free speech doesn’t cover treason. Planning a crime should of course be illegal, even if the good son shouldn’t betray his father for it; but the point here is to emphasize the extreme wrongness of treason.

In addition to Faith, a society might be founded on other things. I’m a nationalist. In the ideal, one has a nation-state composed solely of citizens of a single nation. Foreign workers would be tolerated, but they would not be capable of obtaining citizenship. Free speech, under such a society, should not extend to calls for granting citizenship. Such limited citizenship would be a bedrock foundation of a true nation-state. Any change would inevitably create a new society. Citizenship could be less important to other types of society.

On every other matter though, a free Anglo-Saxon should have the right to speak his mind. Leaders should be open to criticism. History should be questioned. Heroes should be questioned. Children should be taught truth, not myths. Faith is beyond question, but a recent war should not become Faith.

As a specific example: Germans should be free to question the extent of the Holocaust and other facets of WWII. WWII should not have become part of the German Faith. The off-limit areas should be few and clearly defined.

Chuck Baldwin Seeks to Launch Liberty Churches Nationwide

This is interesting.

For many months now, I have been making preparations for this moment. Hundreds of man-hours have gone into the planning of this project. Now, I am ready.

Over the past couple of years, hundreds of people from across the country have pleaded with me to help them start new independent, unorganized, unincorporated, non-501c3 churches and Christian fellowships. It has become painfully obvious to many patriotic believers that the vast majority of establishment 501c3 churches and pastors have made a deliberate decision to NOT engage the liberty fight. For the most part, these pastors and churches have been completely muzzled by State incorporation and the 501c3 government tax-status. And, sadly, these pastors and churches have absolutely no desire to change. They are cemented in lethargy and indifference. Meanwhile, our nation is spiraling downward toward certain destruction–and the biggest reason for this calamitous situation is the absence of patriot-pulpits.

See more here…

Here is the website for the project.

I’ll give my thoughts in the comments, because I don’t want to detract from something I’m largely supportive of, with criticism.