Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Today's links and remarks

  • I didn’t see much of the debate but Lew Rockwell sums up what I remember: Romney’s handlers wanted him to be less of a warmonger tonight, and Obama’s handlers wanted him to be more of a warmonger, but that was all just a lying smokescreen. The establishment scam of bipartisan foreign policy still dominates: these two are twins of empire, interventionism, spending, and mass death. Oh, and Israel, Israel, Israel, Israel.
  • I have no political anti-establishment reason for not voting. I’m not an anarchist. I just don’t see why I should vote. A vote is a choice between two elaborate theatrical productions. It’s a choice between the aesthetics of Star Wars versus Indiana Jones.
  • From RR: The US may soon become the world’s top oil producer.
  • The euro falls as Moody’s downgrades regions.
  • How do you define a successful third-party candidacy? I understand Harry Browne realistically saw his campaigning as educational. This takes a similar approach. Cindy Sheehan’s nice; once sent her an e-mail of support and heard back from her.
  • From Ad Orientem: The SSPX dismisses Bishop Williamson. Thank God for Archbishop Lefebvre; he saved our Mass. My libertarianism and the society’s and the bishop’s monarchism and fascism (just a description, not a dirty word) seem at odds. I won’t attack him for his argument based on science and engineering that questions the magic number six million. The matter’s not doctrine to us; irrelevant. I understand brother trads’ suspicion of the institutional church, given how they’ve been treated for 40 years (so a split if the society is recognized again by the official church is no surprise); I’m barely in it myself (I have my Mass and don’t bother them; they leave me in peace). I saw this coming: in his latest Eleison Comments newsletter he recommended family reading of The Poem of the Man-God, a book the Holy Office condemned in the ’50s. (Some charismatics, the conservative but low-church ’70s-’80s will-o’-the-wisp some thought was the church’s great hope, liked it too; the Medjugorje fraud they fell for recommended it.) But it seems like with another hardliner some trads like, Fr Leonard Feeney (if you’re not Catholic, you’re going to hell), the matter was of obedience (here the Novus Ordo neocons laugh); Feeney was kicked out, in the ’50s, for disobedience, not for his views (which, outrageous as they are, are allowable; he didn’t have to recant when the church let him back in, and he didn’t). The laity have the freedom to go to the SSPX. It’s worth remembering that Joan of Arc sided with ‘the wrong Pope’ yet was later canonized. To show the libs who’s boss, make the society an ordinariate or personal prelature and make Fellay a cardinal.
  • From John Boyden: This seems to clarify the status of Planned Parenthood in regards to their services. They admit they do not do mammograms. Big surprise there.
  • César Chavez. I admit I didn’t know that much about him. A sympathetic figure at first glance because of the Catholic connection (critics called him a showboater with his religion but some called Fulton Sheen that; by the way, it seems that pre-Roe the radical chic sort of liked Catholic ethnics, anything not WASP even though the Rockefeller Republicans were as liberal as they were). He made mistakes (Synanon) and had faults. Maybe like Dorothy Day, economically naive but well-meaning. (Rothbard: Unions are only successful in a market economy where the union can control the supply of labor: that is, when workers are few in number, and highly skilled, so that they are not easily replaceable.) Interestingly, and I didn’t know this, he opposed illegal immigration, for a practical reason that made perfect sense. (He was something like a fourth-generation American who agreed a country’s first priority is its citizens; the companies importing scabs undermined what he was trying to do for American and legal-immigrant workers.) By the way, while I agree with Sailer on group IQs on average and sympathize with some fellow rightists’ reaction against political correctness (Christianity minus Christ, or the left pretending to be nice, claiming to be better than you), Takimag seems annoyingly hostile to Latin people.

6 comments:

  1. I unfortunately had to hear the debate as it was being listened to in the other room. Yes, lots of Israel. What struck me the most was how very close Romney's positions were to Obama's in spite of his attempts at differentiation. Obama is very much an old-school Democrat Hawk who is being forced to back down some from his interventionism by the realities of being president now and getting burned by it. Romney's only real difference is his enthusiasm for a military build up which is completely unrealistic. He cannot cut taxes, cut social programs, balance the budget, and raise military spending all at the same time. History suggests it will be the budget that gets the go-by if he gets in.

    Romney's lack of foreign policy stature also is reflected in his constant attempts to steer the debate back around to the economy.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don't want to praise Libertarian voters for their apparent policy of automatically nominating the most famous person who shows up for the primary fight (this was a disaster in 2008), but the fact that politicians as prominent as (non-Libertarian) Bob Barr and Gov. Gary Johnson are even interested in seeking the Libertarian nomination in the first place says something about the progress that has been made in 40 years. Most LP Presidential candidates have been investment analysts, onetime Presidential electors, or obscure state legislators. Gary Johnson, in contrast, was a state governor who actually has significantly more high-level executive experience than the incumbent President. I'm not 100% sold on him (though he is by far the least awful choice on the ballot, and I will probably vote for him in the end), but I at least have to admit he is in a different weight class than the LP's usual candidates. The Constitution Party has experienced a little of the same phenomenon recently (and, like the LP in 2008, they've managed to nominate this year a prominent Congressman who brings both great name recognition and a total contempt for their platform).

    ReplyDelete
  3. "The laity have the freedom to go to the SSPX."

    Not according to my (arch)bishop! No jurisdiction = no way to satisfy one's Sunday and Holy Day of obligation under the usual conditions.

    Jim C.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The stupidity they write in economic magazines such as that article about the value of the fiat dollar in comparison to other fiat currencies is a load of crock. The crock is based on the fact that this scheiss economy we have today is based on scientific models of government planned economics - which makes normal market relations - the so-called black market -- and the theoretical economy the real and metaphysical point of reference for the White-world governments, which thwart freedom by militaristic regulations set on expanding the glory of the State upheld by the Marxian ethic of dialectic Leninism - essential Protestantism in its worst Stundiste form as formulated by arch-heretic Friedrich Hegel.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ingemar6:06 pm

    Lay off the jargon, Niby.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey! The guy is nuts. To purloin an expression from a Cardinal in reference to the LCWR you are engaging in a "dialog with the deaf!" LOL More like dealing with an internet troll, don't you think?

      Delete

Leave comment