Thursday, September 11, 2014

9/11, the weaponization of traditionalism, and more

  • The weaponization of traditionalism. In a broader than Catholic sense. During the Cold War. By Reagan. Whom I voted for.
  • 9/11: what more can I say? We meddled in Arab countries' affairs, including against the Palestinians, and it was payback time by devout Muslims, mostly from Saudi Arabia, which got away with it. I was already radicalized/libertarianized when it happened so it didn't surprise me. Invading Iraq, a secular Muslim country nothing to do with the attack or our mistakes that caused it, was idiocy. The government won't improve anything. All 9/11 did really was drive me away from the mainstream Republican Party forever; since 2004 it's been Libertarian or ('08) bust. First voted LP, for André Marrou, in '92. It doesn't have to be l/Libertarian.
  • "Atheist must swear to God, or leave Air Force." I'm suspicious. There must be more to this story than is being reported. Sounds like lefty agitprop. Unbelievers were part of our country's founding and have lived in peace here for centuries; I really DON'T think the U.S. military is persecuting them. That officially we're not a Christian country has been good for us Catholic Christians; the Protestant majority couldn't beat on us, according to the law. As far as I know, John Courtney Murray was right. We CAN have a state church, and some Catholics may believe we should, but we don't have to. Score one for Vatican II's policy change. No, the real threat is from the Cathedral, secular humanism (Protestantism's endgame) as a rival religion, trying to force conservative Christianities from the public square ("freedom FROM religion"). The Tutsis vs. the Hutus.
  • What is an American? Tribal or propositional? What makes a patriot? And are all patriots essentially conservative (read: inclined to preserve some status quo)? How might a patriot be a change agent or is that antithetical to patriotism? Good question I'm still trying to answer, Tripp. Best I can come up with is it's sort of like being Jewish, both tribal, British roots, and propositional/confessional. Non-British are welcome as long as they obey basic rules; a set of laws and a baseline culture, not necessarily ethnic. A baseline that's Christian-based so Catholics are welcome, and broad enough to include Jews (who fled the Russian pogroms). Putting American interests first, so no meddling abroad including "humanitarian wars." American exceptionalism is American, though. A country's first obligation is to its citizens, so common-sense controls on immigration ("What can you contribute to our country?"). Burke's high-church conservatism: preserve a status quo not just because it's old but because it's true; it became the status quo for a reason, to protect something. Objective truth is the criterion for good change. (The modern left, using emotion, not reason, claims homosexualism, "gender" interchangeability — "I am a woman because I say so," and 50/50 racial quotas are self-evident goods.)
  • Sensible immigration policy doesn't import other countries' problems.
  • I read Cracked less now. Better than the smug putdown Onion, which really wishes the prole whites would just die already, but I haven't consciously followed pop culture since 1998 (what I happen to learn is largely peripheral and anecdotal) so I often have no idea what they're writing about and don't care, and like its cousin it's becoming insufferably politically correct, another mouthpiece for the Cathedral.
  • Derb's alternative history of Britain and Ireland. What if the Iron Curtain included them?
  • Alleged malpractice killed Joan Rivers. Outpatient clinics aren't allowed to do vocal-cord biopsies; that required a hospital. All I can say is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and may she rest in peace.


  1. John, the atheist airman story was reported in the Air Force Times; the facts of the matter aren't in dispute. What will happen of course is that the USAF will be made to go back to the old way given the mass of precedent on this. There's no lefty agitprop involved, just some moron brass hat who hasn't read the constitution.

    1. I thought the coverage might have been lefty agitprop but the real story less dramatic. Seems so.

  2. Also, WRT Murray he isn't someone whom I have read much, but I don't think you've characterized him accurately. In any case a state church is absolutely forbidden by the 1st amendment, so "can have" is only so in the sense that this amendment could be nullified by some future amendment. That will not happen.

    1. You're right about Murray. He went too far, into indifferentism. The church was right to silence him.

      The First Amendment isn't Catholic doctrine. The church has usually said it should be the state church. By "we CAN have a state church" I meant Catholics, not necessarily Americans.


Leave comment