Thursday, June 19, 2014

The Redskins story, and more


  • From Theden: The Redskins story. It’s been fashionable among progressives to whine about the offensiveness of the Washington Redskins’ name for some time, and now the US Patent and Trade Office has cancelled its trademark registration, calling the name “disparaging to Native Americans.” Actions like this one are less about defending supposedly disparaged individuals or groups and more about letting the world know who’s boss. We might like to think of trademark registration as an apolitical thing, but progressivism demands otherwise.
  • From MCJ: On a slow news day, any little group that the media can hype in order to spite the church will do. Priests' mistresses (nothing new), vagantes, what have you. They're funny about papal primacy too, because 1) most of Western society is lapsed Catholic, ultimately, and 2) the media are ignorant: they want a superpower version of it we don't claim while saying they don't want it. They put the Pope on the cover of Rolling Stone in the hopes that he will use that supposed superpower: wave his hand, sign a document, whatever it is Popes do, and overturn church teaching. I guess the liberals with a clue (like the old churchmen who came of age in the Sixties) hate his office and call for collegiality, etc., because in a way they do still understand it: it's Catholic, wholly of the church, so it can't make the changes they want, so, like Henry VIII's sellout flunkies tried, they want to get rid of it. (Cranmer never imagined anything like Episcopalianism today but hey, logic and consequences.) "Let's get rid of the fuddy-duddy old Pope and vote like rational adults" (another media favorite, Survey Says™: "most Catholics don't buy this anway, so..." as if teaching were up for a vote). By the way, as Chesterton noted, if Christianity isn't true (like Norse religion, for example), why does the left even care?
  • Political correctness/the Cathedral is a Christian heresy, the son of Protestantism; the Calvinism of the old Anglosphere elite has turned into the religion of the new elite. John Lennon's "Imagine" is the work of an apostate from at least cultural Christianity. "A brotherhood of man" <- we are one body, Christian universality, Galatians 3:28, etc.; "no religion" <- Schmemann for example about Christianity as the fulfillment of religion and thus its end as the world had known it.
  • From last year: A celebrated convert leaves. There's the extreme of putting your ethnicity, a good thing, above the church; the sin of the Orthodox and the obscure Polish National Catholics (an American schism), for example. And of the white identitarians who, just like liberal New Agers, have apostatized to a faith of their invention, in their case a pseudo-Nordic one such as Asatru (as the left will point out, turning a blind eye to worse Soviet atrocities, shades of the SS, or as I and others note, the Nazis were more modern and left than traditional and right). Idolatry. But they have a point. As the Anti-Gnostic says, Catholic churchmen trying to hitch the church's wagon to social democracy is not necessarily a good bet and can backfire as in this convert's case. (Me: the church is apolitical. We can work with monarchies, dictatorships, and republics.) Universality (which only the church in itself gets right), but incarnational thus local, and run by custom (which the Christian East gets right), so why shouldn't Italians like being Italian, or, like Roger Daltrey, the English like being English? Imagine that.
  • How does the church view the Anglicans? Quick answer.

1 comment:

  1. "The Cathedral" is a construct of conspiracy theorists who only read other conservative blogoids. None of those behind these ideas are competent to assess the opposition, or they wouldn't throw around phrases like "obviously wrong" so freely. That's also why it threatens (via Anti-Gnostic) to absorb other conspiracy theory thinking, in spite of the overwhelming evidence for HIV as a cause of AIDS and the endless documentation of the Holocaust. It's more comfortable to cultivate the idea that failures of one's preferred ideas to gather traction are the result of the Forces of Evil than it is to admit that the world isn't always he way one wants it to be; but by the same token sometimes it does work the other way around. In the case of AGW and the Keynesian-Misesian conflict it's clear that both sides of each issue are pushed by people with conspicuous conflicts of interest, not just the liberal side.

    It's like when I find myself faced with 9/11 skeptics. If you read only the conspiracy sites, you are lied to constantly and fed a lot of "obvious" conclusions from people who lack qualifications--basic qualifications. I'm not educated as an engineer, but I know enough physics and materials science to understand that the official "why they fell" explanations hold water, and why the skeptic counter-arguments are stupid. I also read enough other sites, including primary materials, to know that skeptic claims about the evidence are by and large gross misrepresentations. The truth that the event was terribly convenient to the interventionist neocons and to the security industrial complex is not evidence that they engaged in a conspiracy to make it happen; indeed, there is plenty of evidence that they were caught by surprise. The situation isn't as lopsided for the big three "cathedral" doctrines, and I personally think it's safe to say that a lot of the claims about AGW aren't going to pan out and that Keynesianism is going to get supplanted by something else (in my view a complete paradigm change that's going to heave all economic theory as we know it over the side). But I'm not seeing how the dogmas of skepticism are really different in nature.

    ReplyDelete

Leave comment