Sunday, July 12, 2015

How American soccer's weird, the war on the American people, and more

  • Repost; something Steve Sailer brought up after the recent U.S. women's soccer team victory: The strange place of soccer in American culture, unlike most other countries, where it's a real sport. Why America doesn't produce soccer stars; that's not what American soccer is for. Privileged whites don’t actually want their children exposed to diversity; they will spend a lot of money to keep them, especially their daughters, in a cocoon as white as (say) the U.S. Women’s World Cup team. These are not, when it comes down to it, ignoble desires. In fact, they’re quite reasonable. What is unreasonable is how the same people who spend huge sums to protect their own children from diversity will, at the same time, demonize their less privileged fellow citizens as racists for asking for some help from their government in guarding America’s borders. It's all really a class war on the Wrong Kind of Whites: Tutsis vs. Hutus.
  • Ex-Army: There are a lot of groups wildly in favor of mass immigration and open borders, and very few with a sane attitude about the issue. That's why so many of us are delighted that Trump is pounding away at the issue. ... The MAG (Media, Academia, Government) love the idea of masses of incompatible foreigners moving in and replacing the American people, because, frankly, the MAG hates the American people. Simple as that. Others pushing for mass immigration include the sappier sort of Christian, who think it's their duty to give up all they have (and all the rest of us have) and give it to random immigrants, who of course will not appreciate it but just whimper that they need more. Then there are the doublethinking Zionists (including many of the aforementioned Christians) who think Israel's borders are sacred and inviolable, but that ours are artificial or stupid or something. There are liberals in general, who, as a part of, or ally of, the MAG, prefer foreigners to Americans, non-whites to whites, non-Christians to Christians, etc. And we have the neocons, like the Bush boys, who want to be hidalgos lording over a multicultural empire full of an easily manipulated ethnically ambiguous people, who will work cheap and be dependent on the government. And then we have the flakier sort of libertarian, who says that everybody has a 'right of travel,' and therefore we have no right to keep anybody out of our country. This is much like the liberal notion that freedom of anything requires that the government subsidize everything that one might want to be "free" to do. Sailer: conservatives are naturally loyal to family, neighbors, and nation (so the Germans should like being German, for example); liberals rip off Christian universality by claiming to love humanity but hate their own people (false humility). Some common sense about this stuff: 1. Welcome the talented tenth, regardless of race. 2. Equal opportunity, not equal outcomes. Quotas in a job field (affirmative action) don't improve the field. 3. Freedom of association: "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone," the law traditionally says. But the market works against turning away paying customers. 4. A country's first obligation is to its citizens; that's partly why it exists. (César Chavez, a born American, opposed illegal immigration.) But 5. Catholic social teaching: help a suffering person who asks, regardless of politics (borders) or even other parts of the law under some circumstances (I think you can find this in St. Thomas Aquinas).
  • Diaspora Judaism (since the Romans destroyed their temple in 70), certainly European-based Ashkenazim (most American Jews: mostly via Russia with an older immigration from Germany), promotes weak ties among gentiles to try to keep the host society safer for themselves. (Secularizing Christmas so the schmaltz is the content, the sole message, for example.) Universalism for thee (thus promoting liberal politics) but not for me: it's tribal; everything is to benefit the Jews, and they don't particularly want you to join. It's not a universal faith. (It's a religion except when they say it's not. It's a race except when they say it's not.) Anyway, a strength of pre-conciliar American Catholicism is we had that sense of "a people," that self-interest, but of course without the exclusivity (almost but not quite a tribe), because Christianity (per Acts) is evangelical, universal. Back when we were brave enough to start Catholic schools instead of sending our kids to de facto Protestant state ones. The Sixties was when American Protestants succeeded in absorbing us. "Our people" means, yes, "the Christian community."
  • What do Ebenezer/herchurch Lutheran Church and the Orthodox have in common? Actually lots. Both still use the church's trappings and both are effectively idolaters, taking a good thing — the Byzantine Rite, an Eastern European culture, or even something as basic and universal as femininity — and leaving the church to make it the real focus. Also, both Orthodoxy and traditional Lutheranism (which I respect, because it's Christ-centered, not tribal or Erastian; not herchurch's brand of course) think they are the church. And I'll say it: you've got to appreciate the irony that a house of worship devoted to femininity has a pastor who's not very feminine. Church can include ethnic or national loyalty, a conservative virtue I just mentioned, but those aren't ultimately what it's about, or at least they shouldn't be. We're about principles more than the tribe, which is why a state can't own us. By the way, both herchurch and American Orthodoxy are self-limiting too: most women are normal, wanting to be with men (Kissinger: "no one will ever win the battle of the sexes; there's too much fraternizing with the enemy"), the herchurch folks are unlikely to reproduce, and, one of my standard lines, Byzantine Christianity fails in America by the third generation as the ethnicity fades. I'm pretty sure American Orthodoxy essentially is Greek immigration with the occasional convert.
  • Feedback on Catholicism and politics. Umm, you know that Ron Paul and Generalissimo Franco are poles apart, or am I missing something obscure? That Franco and Paul are poles apart proves my point that politics aren't Catholic doctrine. We can 180 each other and still be good Catholics. So if the Church commanded all nations to submit to some international union or world government, we'd all have to sign up in order to be good Catholics? I'd have to think not. You're right; it can't. Such would be beyond the church's authority. Again, politics aren't doctrine.


  1. John, don't let your poor experiences with culture-obsessed Orthodox Christians lead you to stereotype all Eastern Orthodox as unprincipled, culture-driven sectarians, because I am sure that you know better.

    1. Except it's about principles, not bad experiences. I write as I do because I know what I know. The thing by nature is sectarian, just like Anglicanism at heart is Erastian. I almost never found such Slavs exclusionary. Catholic or Orthodox, they'll welcome you into the tribe if you meet them halfway. That's not the issue. The issue is the Orthodox really think their rite and culture are the church; it's why they're not Catholic. Latin Catholicism really doesn't.

    2. "The issue is the Orthodox really think their rite and culture are the church; it's why they're not Catholic. Latin Catholicism really doesn't."

      The Orthodox defend the Byzantine Rite because it organically and holistically expresses the patristic faith of the Orthodox Catholic Church. To the Orthodox Christian, there are no other generally viable liturgical rites that have preserved their ancient form in the context of the ancient, undefiled Faith of the Holy Fathers. For this reason, she will always zealously guard the Byzantine rite, not because she devalues other cultures and liturgical rites, in principle, but because she does not discern a reflection of the ancient Church in other liturgical rites and cultures, which she perceives to be far from the teaching and praxis of the Holy Fathers. This is a principled position, which is oriented around defending and preserving a correct vision of the Church, not defending culture for the sake of culture (albeit, some Orthodox, influenced by the world, allow this defense of the Faith to degenerate into pure nationalism and cultural chauvinism).

      Furthermore, to attribute the Great Schism to issues of culture, alone, neglects the fact that doctrinal development occurred in the Latin Church (in which teachings were once treated as opinions before they were doctrines and dogmas), which raises significant concerns for those who desire to preserve the ancient Faith, unchanged.

    3. "Why we think Byzantium is the church." No sale. Go preach somewhere else.


Leave comment