Thursday, April 16, 2015

Lincoln the dictator and more

  • Abraham Lincoln and the inversion of American history. Seen semi-blasphemously as a Christ even then. (The state as your church.) Actually a dictator who suspended the Constitution and was only about trying to keep the Union together by any means. (As for religion, he was at the theater on Good Friday.) The South had the right to secede, Lee (a devout low-church Episcopalian under an almost-Catholic president, Jefferson Davis) was a hero (actually against secession but, offered command of the U.S. Army, he wouldn't take arms against his home state), and Sherman a war criminal (my great-great-grandfather, George Washington Wylly, surrendered Savannah to him).
  • From 1994: Jewish Murray Rothbard on America's political false religion. During the 1820s, the Protestant churches in the Northern states of the U.S. were taken over by a wave of post-millennial fanatics determined to impose on local, state, and federal governments, and even throughout the world, their own version of a theocratic statist kingdom of God on earth. As I say, our left is a Christian heresy: trying to stand up for the weak and oppressed, they deify minorities for being such and try to erase the sexes or deify women, depending. Interestingly, relatively recently, the government pushed the Pilgrims' story as THE American founding myth. (The Northern Protestants who are the SWPLs' church fathers.) What about the Anglican Cavalier adventurers who were here first, founding Virginia?
  • A troll down memory lane. How a clickbait-ized TV station baited Memories Pizza in Indiana. It's all one jump from gladiatorial games.
  • History I've recently learned. Joe McCarthy was right (the Hollywood Ten were guilty as sin): not only our government (such as Henry Wallace) but our press was riddled with Communist spies (such as the repentant Whittaker Chambers), part of our helping the USSR win WWII, which they won thanks to Lend-Lease but had to deny since it proved Communism doesn't work.
  • Fred Reed on feminist nonsense. Bob Wallace and others nail this: feminists are childish and envious, wanting men's power without the responsibility. (Camille Paglia et al.: without men you'd be living in grass huts if at all.) Trivializing real rape, with some semi-literate writing, from Vassar, and the fact that on average women in combat is a very bad idea (makes no sense biologically: men are on average stronger and women more valuable reproductively so a healthy society protects its women; we stopped being a healthy society about 40 years ago). By the way, there's no glass ceiling/unequal-pay plot: women on average hate the rat race (they have a point) so they quit it as soon as possible to be married with kids (also trying to beat the biological clock); men on average work harder and longer so they make more. Elementary as Holmes said to Watson.
  • Fr. Chadwick on church labels. This phenomenon affected me because, due to Vatican II, for a long time (and still so in places), the high churchmen outside the church (a contradiction, but they think they're the church — the Orthodox do — or a branch of it), Anglicans and vagantes for example, had more of the basics, from credal and sacramental orthodoxy to traditional liturgics, than real Catholics locally, so who's "Catholic"? (I believe Apostolicae Curae. To believe the Eucharist and holy orders are possible without the church's intent isn't apostolicity but magic, and the church doesn't buy the Dutch-touch argument.) In '80s America, you often had to look outside the church to learn this stuff, so I did. (It was a little easier to find, if you were looking for it, in the Catholic Church in England.) I first heard of the Anglican Catholic Church around 1979 or '80, and I thought, "That means we're Catholic too, just like I was taught" and "Why leave over the new Prayer Book? We don't use it!" The other shoe dropped a couple of years later when I found out about Bishop Spong, women's ordination, and the Thirty-Nine Articles. Anyway, I understand they've changed, from would-be Catholics minus the Pope (the old Tridentinesque American Anglo-Catholicism, different from the would-be Roman British version) to something like real classic Anglicanism (Fr. Robert Hart et al.: mild Calvinism but with bishops) but retaining the later would-be Catholic trappings (crucifixes, chasubles, etc.). Traditional Anglicanism is the Articles and "the north end"; most such believers say it's "Hooker without the Erastianism." In 20/20 hindsight it's only a short jump from hijacking the church to do what the king wants to voting to change the matter of holy orders and matrimony, so even though Henry VIII and Cranmer never imagined women priests or gay weddings, these logically result from their principles and precedent. (Or on their own, wrong terms, the Episcopalians are right.)

1 comment:

  1. Oh come now, John: "guilty as sin" of what? Their only actual "guilt" was in resisting an attack upon their freedom of association. Alger Hiss was certainly guilty of treason, as was Julius Rosenberg; a bunch of Hollywood types engaged in the kind of political organization the FFs intended weren't guilty of anything that anyone else with bad political views isn't guilty of. It hurt any conservative political cause a great deal to have something investigating "un-American activities", in the name of the government, when that sort of dissenting political organization was exactly what the low numbered amendments was supposed to protect!

    As far as Henry Wallace is concerned, what we seem to have is one unsupported tossed-off-without-proof.

    ReplyDelete

Leave comment