Monday, July 02, 2012

From RR and others
  • Obama versus the rule of law.
  • Why unions don’t want workers to earn more.
  • Moral injury and American war. I’m not pacifist nor anti-military but: When your job requires you to pull sleeping families from their beds at midnight thousands of miles from your home, or to shoot at oncoming cars without knowing who’s driving them, or to refuse medical care to decrepit old men, you begin to question what doing your job means. When the reasons keep shifting for what you’re supposed to be doing in a country where most of the population wants you to go home even more than you want to, it’s hard to maintain any sense of innocence. When someone going about his daily life is regularly mistaken for someone who means to kill you — as has repetitively been the case in our occupations of both Iraq and Afghanistan — everyone becomes the enemy. And when you try — and fail — to do the right thing in a chaotic and threatening situation, which nothing could have trained you for, the enemy can move inside you and stay there for a very long time.
  • On that note, Kelley Vlahos at TAC on WWII. My father likes to tell a story about the men living on the railroad tracks where he grew up in central Connecticut. When he was boy, he often rode the tracks on his bike and came across what he thought were “hobos” along the way. He was surprised when my grandfather, a World War II Army veteran of the Battle of the Bulge, ruefully told him they were veterans. In essence, they never came home from the war, he told his son... As it turns out, not only were they not alone, but there were big hospitals (or in old-fashioned speak, sanitariums) for the thousands of men who returned from World War II with what the old-timers called “shell shock” and we know now as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.
  • That said, Takimag’s Scott Locklin: The early 21st century’s antiwar movement was right, but for all the wrong reasons. With a few exceptions they weren’t against the wars because they were useless expenditures of blood and treasure. They were against the wars because they hate rednecks who serve in the military. Such unpleasant antiwar types made neoconservatives look like reasonable statesmen in comparison and probably made the war in Iraq possible. Most of these numskulls were silent as the Obama Administration expanded our wars to Yemen and Libya. I find it heartening that despite — or perhaps because — these loudmouths have shut up, most Americans were against the war in Libya and are against the one proposed in Syria. Like the spoiled rich kids 40 years ago weren’t really for peace or less government but wanted to be the government and were cheering for the other side, the Communists. (Scratch a hippie and find a Stalin.) The Anti-Gnostic: how long before the ‘rednecks’ get fed up with serving a class that hates them?
  • While I’m rereading Locklin: he’s right about the Big Zero versus the great-Satan rhetoric coming from some of our side (but the war on the Catholic Church is real). A clever friend likes to put it this way: “I’m proud that my country can elect a mediocre nonentity, whatever his race.” Obama turned out more or less as I expected: a centrist of dubious competence who appointed cronies from his team. This isn’t the socialist gun-grabbing apocalyptic figure the more excitable heartland conservatives predicted. Obama didn’t raise taxes appreciably. He didn’t make a fool of himself in front of foreign leaders any more than our previous president did. He has helped run up the national debt for no apparent reason, invaded a few more countries, and for some reason he seems fond of insurance companies, but these missteps could also have been expected from the other guy.
  • Self-defense and the anti-gun mentality.
  • Doing more with less: the case for venture capitalism.
  • Pro-homeschooling: forced association by the government isn’t socialization. If you’ve got the wherewithal, go for it.
  • Long, interesting article on marriage. I think it’s balanced. Anyway, get the state out of it, gay marriage is not about liberty but a power grab, the state can’t force so-cons to pretend (read this writer describe traditional marriage: it takes a village in the real sense, family as in having children, community, ethnos, culture; gay marriage isn’t marriage), and leave the few, among the roughly 3% who are homosexuals, who want that in peace. (Balance perennial, pre-modern order with liberty: the do-no-harm principle.)
  • Regarding Furedi’s quick remark on ‘controlling women’, Roissy (and books, movies, TV, etc., high and low?) agree that’s simply civilization (I’m not defending Muslim abuse of women: the Pope at Regensburg nailed Islam; our God’s rational, as in St Thomas Aquinas; theirs isn’t, so they’re not as civilized), or women have original sin and concupiscence too. (Only one has been conceived immaculate.) In civilization, nice-guy providers have a shot at prosperity, the postwar American dream. Take the veneer of civilization away, as happened with the Sixties (late ’60s-’70s), and you don’t get SWPL feminist utopia (castrated Christianity minus Christ) but the law of the jungle (the fallen natural order, as is, uncensored), which Roissy calls female hypergamy: the girls share the few alpha men, and the nice guys finish last (and through taxes, etc., as cuckolds, stuck with the bill of raising the alphas’ impoverished, uncivilized bastard spawn).

No comments:

Post a Comment

Leave comment