Mmm.  As usual, Professor Gottfried compels me arduously to think and to re-think, even if I don’t agree with him on all points.  The neocons shot themselves in the foot by
their virtual lynching of Gottfried, because continuing to engage with such a formidable adversary could have toughened, as well as clarified, their impoverished minds, not to mention perhaps prompting them to recover from their moral bankruptcy.

As for this bit:  “In a series of decisions between the 18030’s and 1860s, Taney tried to reverse this expression of “constitutional nationalism,” by returning commercial and regulatory powers to the states...”

...well, yes he did, and he might have been right about some things.  But I disagree with the WAY he reaffirmed at least one power of the states, in his most infamous opinion, “Scott V Sanford”
(the Dred Scott case.) In it, he opined
that a “Black” slave AND/OR a descendant of slaves were not necessarily citizens of the United States (that argument, I reluctantly admit, had some merit as a LEGAL argument at that time), but he did so by affirming and reifying the concept of “race”.  (And in that opinion, J. Taney’s proferred history of the role Blacks had played in America since the 1700s, was incomplete and dishonest; some Blacks - and their number doesn’t matter - fought in George Washington’s Army, and that exception alone should have been enough to dissuade Taney from saying CATEGORICALLY that NO Blacks were ever considered part of the USA.  Just one Black Swan is enough to refute a categorical definition of all swans as “white.")

Now, one paradox I see there - paradoxical vis a vis Prof Gottfried’s very justifiable hostility to various kinds of “racial” entitlements - is that if you really want to put an end to the legal effects of the Cultural Marxists’ obsession with “race”,
then wasn’t Justice Taney’s opinion part of the problem?  (But to be fair, maybe Prof Gottfried disagrees with the WAY in which the Dred Scott decision was written, as I do?)

The reason why America has such a “racial” mess today is precisely because of a continuing belief in “race” as something categorically definable.

Ah, but on the other hand, I agree that the Warren Court exacerbated and protracted the problem, with its paradoxical LEFT wing belief in “race.”
In “Brown v Board of Education” (1954, the seminal school-desegregation case),
the Court was condescending as hell toward Blacks.  Perhaps desegregation was desirable, but the Court’s reasoning was stupid and - to some Blacks - even offensive.  How?  Here’s how:

Well, when I was a law student and that case came up for discussion, I said I didn’t like the reasoning - because the Court said the reason why segregation deprives Blacks of their civil rights is because they’re being deprived of the company and society of Whites.  The Court assumed that Blacks would be better off if they mixed with Whites more.  In class, I said (mockingly), “It’s like the Court is saying, ‘Hey Boy!  Ya gotta hob-nob with us Whites more, and let some
o’ that good Whiteness rub off on ya!”

I was virtually burnt at the stake by my mostly White classmates - while the only classmate who agreed with me was a Black one.  He also found the Court’s reasoning offensive and condescending, for the same reasons I did.

I’m against “racial” segregation, and against any and all laws which even acknowledge “race”.  Consequently some on the Left call me a “racist”, while some on the Right call me “politically correct”.  But the truth is never between two opposites, but above them.

Ah, but if we ever totally jettisoned the very concept of “race”, then it would pull the rug out from under opportunistic hacks of the Left AND Right!

Why is it that the two leading revisionists of the Neocon and Cultural Marxist views of history are not from the “Right” but are Paleolibertarians: Tom Woods and Tom DiLorenzo?

Mr. Ball’s taling sense about race—and that that the Reds and the Browns are—so to speak—brothers under the skin.

Hehe, time for a bit of fun.  I’m waiting for the commenter named “White Christian Paleoconservative”, or some other such troglodyte, to show up and start spewing twaddle about “White Values” and other non-sequiturs in response to my argument that we should just forget about “race” altogether.  In anticipation, I found a picture of “White Christian Paleoconservative”:

http://www.igniq.com/images/beavis_and_butthead_280705.jpg

He’s the one on the left, the blonde.

Yep, looks pretty “White” to me.

And are some more self-described “White Christians” who loves “White” more than they love Christ:

http://rexcurry.net/kkk-ku-klux-klan2.jpg

PS, while I’m at it, taking the piss out of
the tiny handful of racists who hover around here like the commenter who wrote - on my article about defending Chinese Christians - “they (Chinese Christians) are not my brothers and sisters...”

...mm, well, all I can say is, contrast and compare some Chinese with some Whites.  For example, this beautiful lady, Chien-lien Wu (star of the movie, “Eat, Drink, Man, Woman):

http://movieimage.hanmail.net/images/peopledb/people_13500/peopledb_13546_L.gif

...as compared to, say, THIS hideous harpie of a White woman, Hillary Clinton:

http://www.all4humor.com/images/files/Scary%20Hillary%20Clinton.jpg

...hmmmmmm.  Methinks Taki would agree with me, that the former deserves more adoration by all men of all races, than the latter.  Hmmmmm..... :-)

Great beauties (both physically and intellectually, and morally) of other so-called “races” might not be closer to me DNA-wise than Whites, but I love truth and beauty more than I love any skin colour or eye-shape.  “Race” is bullshit, and beauty (of all kinds, physical AND moral) is the opposite of bullshit, as beauty and truth are identical.

I dare anyone to try to argue that Pope John Paul the Great, or his brilliant and morally courageous German successor Pope Benedict, would say otherwise.

@John Ball

“The reason why America has such a “racial” mess today is precisely because of a continuing belief in “race” as something categorically definable.”

How many blacks would agree that their race is something not categorically definable?

Tom Woods is a treasure. He’s got a good sense of humor too.

I would like to see the books, though I am a bit wary of
history told from an ideological perspective. I hope that I am
wrong, but I run across too many books whose authors start from
a premise and go back to history to find proofs for it. The
kind of book that you know by the first chapter how it is all
going to end (in which case I stop reading because I can put
my time for better use).

But I am jumping the gun. I have to read them first.

Bernie asked, “How many blacks would agree that their race is something not categorically definable?”

Very few, because most people of all races are fools.  Do you agree with those fools?

John Ball, with laudable arguments and goals, makes the following statement:

“The reason why America has such a ‘racial’ mess today is precisely because of
a continuing belief in ‘race’ as something categorically definable....”

It seems to me that to believe that “race [is] something categorically definable”
is not the same thing as to be or become “racist.” Or perhaps we should define
the words “categorically.”

Then, there is this statement:
“if we ever totally jettisoned the very concept of “race”, then it would pull
the rug out from under opportunistic hacks of the Left AND Right....”

But race exists, not only as a biological fact but in reality and in our
everyday lives. It seems to me that a better approach is to: (1) recognize
the existence of race, and that races will reflect, in fine, differing
characteristics; (2) that throughout most of history ethnic groups have
tended to associate with others of their ilk; and (3) that this, per se, is not
necessarily “racist,” that is, that pride in one’s ethnic group does not have
to be necessarily scorn and hatred for another’s group.

I don’t see this as inconsistent with traditional Christian theology.

Mr. Marshall and his Federalist colleagues were indubitably correct that Congress has exclusive power over inter-state commerce (the sqabbling of the states over this matter was one of the principal reasons for the Constitutional Convention!). The objections of Mr. Taney and Mr. Woods are not constitutional but ideological. Mr. Taney was committed to an idea of state sovereignty compatible with the Articles of Confederation but not the Constitution. Mr. Woods is a libertarian ideologue. The problem today is not that Congress claims authority over inter-state commerce but that it claims authority over all commerce! This is a position that was not advanced by the Federalists and is contrary to the manifest intent of the Constitution.

That Congress has authority over interstate commerce?

It’d better have, because who else could stop states from
putting tariffs against each other???

The problem with libertarians is that they think that an
authoritarian alternative is avoided, it will be sustituted
by a more liberty-loving one. That doesn’t work out that way.

You remove a tyrannical central government and put **nothing** in
its place, and be ready for a lot of local tyrants who can be
a lot more unbearable than the central government because a)
they are a lot closer by and b) can dedicate more time to screwing
you up.

AS the Yiddish blessing for the Tsar was “G*d, keep the Tsar
well and healthy, and away from us.”

You can see it in a forest. If a tree falls, it is not substituted
by a healthy tree, or by a more desirable tree. It is substituted
by fungi, moss, lichens, ferns, weeds, a shrub or two, and only
with the years you may get another tree, and if that tree is a
more desirable one, that will be the luck of the draw.

I’m not sure what Mr. Van Oosbree and Adriana are so upset about, but whatever it is, it isn’t anything I wrote.  My book spends only a few pages discussing the commerce clause, and it says exactly what Adriana is so at pains to announce to the world.

In the review above it is Kevin Gutzman whose book discusses the commerce clause at length, though even here, Gutzman’s analysis as spelled out in his book is certainly correct.  (By the way, Marshall never said Congress’s authority over interstate commerce was “exclusive.") Gutzman’s point is that the courts advanced an absurd and tendentious definition of “commerce.”

@John Ball

Bernie asked, “How many blacks would agree that their race is something not categorically definable?”

Very few, because most people of all races are fools.  Do you agree with those fools?

Well, my point was to note the difference between blacks and whites. Almost any white—including my racialist self—would be fine with a government, media, academy, culture ...etc that did not recognize race. Almost no blacks would be fine with this arrangement.

So, if we are angry with the “Browns,” perhaps our guns should be aimed at the NAACP, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and all the rest of the black racialists.

Now, as to whether I agree with black racial consciousness, I would have to say no. But it certainly does provide many benefits to blacks. For example, if we had the “race doesn’t exist” arrangement, we would notice that the top schools would be almost entirely white and Asian while blacks would be greatly overrepresented in the jails and service jobs. We would still have non-blacks very reluctant to live next to or go to school with blacks.

Under our current system, blacks get positions in schools, colleges, corporations, government and other institutions they would not have if they did not have black skin. Blaming whites for literally everything (and if you disagree, please name one problem that blacks do not blame on whites) also has its psychological rewards as blacks never have to confront their own failings.

@Mr. Woods

I am sorry if I commented on your book before I read it,
just what I promised I would not do.

I was just responding to another blogger (we enjoy beating
up each other) and you got caught in the crossfire.

I was commenting on the rose-colored view of too many Libertarians
taht I know, that when they construct “what if” scenarios go
inmediately for the best outcome, not the most likely.

Please I promise not to comment on you until I have read you.

Mr Cathey,

Thank you for addressing your remark to me with such generosity.

You wrote:  “But race exists, not only as a biological fact but in reality and in our
everyday lives...”

I agree in part, but I disagree with the way in which you say this.  “Race exists”, yes but how and why?  You say it’s “a biological fact”, and there I mostly disagree; or rather, I agree that there IS SOME truth in saying “race is a biological fact” - but the problem is, that a “fact” is inseparable from how it is stated.  The “fact” of race - like all facts - is inseparable from what goes on in our minds, as mutual cause and effect.

I agree that there are some vaguely, negotiably definable “racial characteristics.” This is just common sense.  Obviously my very light skin and green eyes indicate that I’m mostly of European descent.  But that says less about me qualitatively than my more important characteristics (the most important ones are the results of my own choices), like the “facts” that
I love cats and spicy food (these are not racial characteristics at all), and the more important facts that I prefer Fitzgerald and Poe over the charlatan Hemingway; and then the most important fact is that I identify myself as a Christian more than I identify with any race or nationality or state - as do many non-whites.

In other words, more simply, the “biological fact” of race is one of the LEAST important facts about any person’s
identity, or personality, or soul.

And you suggested:

1.  “recognize
the existence of race, and that races will reflect, in fine, differing
characteristics”

Yes I do recognise “race” exists at least in our own minds, but the next question is, for what purpose?  And how much importance do those “differing characteristics” really have?  And how much importance SHOULD they have?

2.  “that throughout most of history ethnic groups have
tended to associate with others of their ilk”

But an “ethnic group” is not the same as race, and most wars and atrocities have been between people of apparently SAME races.  The First World War, and virtually the entire history (both written and unwritten) of the myriad peoples of Africa.  And the war between China and Japan in 1937-1945.

3.  “pride in one’s ethnic group does not have
to be necessarily scorn and hatred for another’s group”

Partly true, but two problems here:

a.  See above, an ethnic group is not the same as “race”, and

b.  “Pride” in an ethnic or racial group is a fetish, at least from a Christian perspective.  Respecting and honouring one’s heritage and nation is one thing, but being “proud” of it is something else altogether.  How can I possibly take “pride” in my having green eyes?  I didn’t choose that.  All I can be proud of (insofar as any personal “pride” is legitimate at all in God’s eyes), is how I use my eyes, and what I choose to do about what I see.

In other words, more simply, the “biological fact” of race is one of the LEAST important facts about any person’s
identity, or personality, or soul.

Mr. Ball merits consideration for the title of Venerable from the appropriate Sacred Congregation. He has made the case against the Browns far better than I ever have done.  He is well aware that the Browns will now subject him to the ridicule one subjects a flat earther, and to the vituperative obloquy, defamatory opprobrium, and and general stone-throwing that one reserves for child molesters.  But I suspect Mr. Brown can take it with a very effective defense.

With men such as Mr. Ball, there is hope that the old Paleoconservative movement—which really died with Sam Francis, himself caught in the Tar-Baby or racialism—will purge itself of racialism and Judeophobia, purge itself of the American Renaissance and The Occidental Quarterly and all the rest of the Browns, and will emerge as the Real Conservative movement—something like the old German Zentrum, with a Burkean accent.

Dr. Cathey is a very erudite man who himself has much from the Real Conservative tradition to offer.

@John

Bombon, my cat wants to know if when you say that you love
cats and spicy food you mean that you like to eat cats with
spicy food????

@ Sid, “Mr. Ball merits consideration for the title of Venerable from the appropriate Sacred Congregation...”

Thanks, but the only Sacred Congregation who would ever venerate me would be the one Taki belongs to:  Boozers who adore beautiful women and who are willing to fight hard and equally willing to make peace with our honourable adversaries.  :-) I’m a marginal heretic and I smoke and drink and admire beautiful women too much to be venerated by my Roman Catholic Church, but a big part of me hopes that the likes of Taki and I will be neighbours in the most delightful part of upper-purgatory, where we’ll occasionally invite some Saints AND some denizens of LOWER purgatory such as Nixon and Stalin and FDR.

@ Adriana, Very funny.  Please reassure your cat Bombon that my (late) cat, named John Paul (yes, like Pope John Paul, another great lover of Humans just like my cat), didn’t end up on my table, but often ate from it.  I adopted him as a stray, knowing that his former “owners” ran a pizza shop, and so my cat was addicted to pasta sauce.  He went mad whenever I cooked pasta or pizza sauce; the scent of it was like cocaine for him.

But some of my former neighbours in China had a very different attitude to cats.
Thus, the spoof song (spoof of “Cat’s in the Cradle"):

“There’s a cat in the kettle at the
Beijing Moon,
The place where I eat every day at noon,
They say it’s chicken or beef or pork,
But there’s a fur-ball on my fork...”

My new pet, here in Australia, is a Cockapoo puppy named Sam.  I named him after the Hobbit gardener Sam Gamgee, because he likes digging in the garden.
As he’s half-poodle, he’s half-German, and I see just a trace of German neurotic self-obsession in him, but as he’s half Cocker-Spaniel, he’s half English, so his sense of humour prevents him from being intolerable to me and my English love of
silliness.  :-)

(Gloss:  the word “silly” comes from the Old English word, “selig”, which originally meant, “healthy” in the tongue of the ancient Anglo-Saxons.  Hmmm… :-) I often think, very seriously, that the main reason why the English resisted Hitler was because Hitler just had no sense of humour.............)

“In other words, more simply, the “biological fact” of race is one of the LEAST important facts about any person’s
identity, or personality, or soul.”

If you haven’t noticed general differences in identity and personality between races then you must live in a very homogeneous place. Both the aforementioned ethnicity and race, along with nationality, play significant roles in determining our own personal identities.

Besides non-whites put their own group rights, whether based on race and/or ethnicity, ahead of other concerns. Until there is reciprocity from from non-whites what choice to whites have if they wish to protect their interests?

Are Americans the dumbest people on earth? After reading the comments from John Ball and Sid Cundiff, the answer must be obvious.///I have been all over the world, lived in Europe and some politically correct Judeophile Marxist American is going to tell me that there is no such thing as race?  obviously never lived in Europe.  I have and a lot of conversation over there is about race.///For some of you yahoos, the Greek word “ethnos” is translated as race and to say that race and ethnicity are different--really don’t know your ass from a hole in the ground.///The Bible acknowledges race and has many references about race--God even commanded the wiping of a few out and the Hebrews managed quite a few “genocides” according to figment of race.  But what I can’t understand is the Christians are disputing with God--The Bible must be lying?  The Word of God uses race and ethnicity and John Ball wants to refute race?  Who are you John Ball, God?  Or are you one of those Vatican II socialist christians? John Ball you don’t have a clue.

Ethnos is the Greek word for “tribe”.

If the Bible uses “race”, would Mr. Wheeler tell us the Hebrew and Koine words for it, and then where it is used, chapter and verse.

In fact, race is a concept that originates in the 19th C.

@Sid

Indeed racism is very much part and parcel of the nineteenth
century panoply of pseudosciences and odd religions (spiritism,
Theosophy, etc.)

While there is a propaganda that tells you that science drives
out supertistion, the fact is that advances in science are
accompanied by advances in credulity. An age known by its
advance of knowledge will be filled by all kinds of new
superstitions, which can paint themselves as “scientific”. The
Rennaissance, for example, brought about an interest in the
occult and witchcraft at levels undreamed in the Middle Ages.
The Enlightment in France was accompanied by the likes of Mesmer,
Cagliostro, and Saint-Germain.

Unfortunately in the United States there is a hunger for novelty,
which makes us less willing to be skeptical of weird claims. And
we acquiere all kinds of new superstitions that better grounded
nations escape.

If one reads the available documentation reflecting the debates and discussions associated with the ratifying conventions of the respective states, one is compelled to conclude that the Constitution would have never been ratified had the understanding of the commerce clause been that which the courts have spun it to mean today.  One is likely wise compelled to remember that the Constitution gets any lawful authority which it might have - not from the drafters, the framers, the Congress or any court - but from the ratifiers in whom the authority is vested.

Intra-specie rivalry is a fact of biological life.  Such includes intensive rivalries within the same species from colony to colony.  Ant and bees depend on recognizing their “enemy kinsmen” primarily by smell, their primary means of sensing the difference in phenotype.  We humans recognize difference primarily though sight, categorizing the otherness within our species and the potential for competitiveness primarily by looks - call it grouping, categorizing, racial profiling or whatever; and the otherness which therefrom ensues is to be labeled something: ethnicity, race, people group.  The Christian is to love his enemies, not to deny that he has them.  Slave and free, Jew and gentile, Greek and barbarian, are to, through the transforming love of made possible through the Christ, transcend their differences, not to deny them.  An attempt to define away differences which are real and often threatening to individuals and groups is an ideological unreality and most likely has at its root the desire to do away with the mediation of the Christ who alone can bring peace between man and God and between man and man.

As a related sidebar, at the level of genotype, geneticists have been able to find almost not variation among the different breeds (races) of dogs.  Yet, there is a compelling difference between the Catahoula Leopards which I raise and a Toy Manchester - differences which are predictable in individual dogs and from generation to generation.

I have just read Thomas Woods’ book, and found it to be a very stimulating read. I wanted to post a simple comment to that effect, but I don’t want to get into a “pissing match” with the rest of the “enlightened people” on this board. So, I will just say, it’s a damn fine book, and everyone should read it.

</i>The reason why America has such a ‘racial’ mess today is precisely because of
a continuing belief in ‘race’ as something categorically definable...<i>

I think you are overstating your case a bit - race does exist as a definable category (although, as of late, the definitions have been stretched and blurred quite a bit).  It is as definable biologically as gender or any other physical characteristic.  Now the question of what importance to give to that physical trait is a wholly separate issue.  I would agree that the importance (or emphasis) that has been put on race has caused quite a bit of a mess.

I think it is also a bit naive to believe there really is no prejudice.  Prejudice - pre-judgment - is as natural as breathing.  Again the issue is not so much whether prejudice exists, but how it affects behavior.  My first instinct as a “pre-judgment” would be to trust someone of the same race, nationality, creed, political philosophy, etc. on an issue pertaining to that characteristic over an “outsider” so to speak.  But it would be just that - an initial “pre-judgment”.  I would (hopefully) not be locked into that pre-judgment, and as further information unfolds, I may agree with the the outsider.  If the prejudice locks you into that pre-judgment, then you may have a problem.

There is nothing wrong in noting the physical differences
among different groups. What is wrong is the ideology that
says that those differences are a preeminent fact in
deciding how to deal with them.  This ideology is just one
leftover from the pseudosciences of the nineteenth century, and
in its most extreme heretical, as some proponentes
came up with a Creation story that dispensed with Adam and Eve
and instead said that God created all different races in
the garden of Eden.

The fact is that racism like all pseudosciences is lousy at
providing information that we need on how to conduct ourselves.

For example, you may say that racists are just incompetent
paranoiacs. They tend to believe in the inherent goodness of
those of what they call “kith and kin” and reserve their
distrust, scorn, and even hartred towards those who are not.

Of course, quite often when their “kith and kin” stab them
in the back they are extremely surprised.

I’m a Greek-American man.  One day a racist black person called me a “cracker.” I had no clue back then why he had called me a wafer of toasted bread.  “A cracker,” he explained, “is a man who cracks the whip--a slave owner!” So, all of a sudden I was a slave owner.  I explained to the man that I neither now, nor have I ever owned a slave.  He said it didn’t matter--I was still a cracker.  “You’re white, aren’t you?” he asked.  “Yeah, why?” I answered.  “Then you’re automatically a cracker.” he answered, with a satisfied grin.  “You’re ancestors enslaved my ancestors, so you’re a cracker.” Despite his illogical explanation, I made my point very clear.  My ancestors were Greek.  When the African slave trade began, my ancestors were already slaves to the Ottoman Turks for about a hundred years.  When the blacks were freed in the U.S., my ancestors would continue in their slavery for about another hundred years.  So, while blacks were slaves for 200 years in America, the Greeks were slaves for about 400 years.  My ancestors never had the opportunity to become owners of black slaves.  The gentleman was speechless.  Then I drove the last nail into the coffin of his illogical rant.  “I can prove that no Greeks were slave owners,” I said.  “How so?” “Do you know any black people who have a Greek last name?” “Umm...no,” he said.  “Well, there ya go,” I said.  “You need to learn some history before you say something that stupid again.” I walked away feeling vindicated, and rightfully so.

I find it interesting that our government believes it is above the law, and can do as it pleases in whatever way their whim blows.  I would like to remind our politicians that they are all--every single one of them--elected representatives.  That means that every single politician is a representative of the people, elected by the people to represent the wishes of the people.  They are not here to do as they please.  The government is not the boss of the people.  The people are the boss of the government.  Politicians must be held accountable for every little thing they do.  As representatives of the people elected to bring the wishes of the people to fruition, they need to do as they are told--by the voters.  So, when the people overwhelmingly demand an end to a war, the government must end that war immediately--or be thrown out of office.  If the people want to return to a gold standard, then the green-colored toilet paper must be replaced by real gold.  If the people say end inflation now, the government must immediately shut down the printing presses, and stop the counterfeiting in a heartbeat.  We, the people are the boss, and the government is our servant.  When we say “Jump!”, the government must say, “How high?” The Constitution is the highest law of the land, and we the people demand that our current fascist regime stop wiping its ass with it, and start upholding it.  Instead we have our Great Decider--the Commander-In-Thief--and his Vice Predator playing God, and ignoring the wishes of the people who elected them.  And our choice for the next election is between the Fascist Pachyderm Party and the Socialist Jackass Party.  God help us all!

Race and Ethnicity:

Back in the late 1970s I worked with a number of Blacks and Latinos.  Among the Latinos was a black Puerto Rican.  But for his name and his accent he could pass for an African American, but culturally he identified and was identified as Latino.  Only those who would judge solely on the basis of appearance would classify him as ‘African-American’.

Yes, as a Puerto Rican, he is an American citizen. Also, quite obviously he had African ancestry.  However his behaviors and expectations were formed in a Latino culture, and not an ‘Afro-American’ culture.

‘Latino’ refers to ethnicity, and not race.  Latinos can be of purely African ancestry, purely Amer-Indian ancestry, or purely European ancestry, some mix of the preceding, or Asian, Middle Eastern… What makes the term ‘Latino’ relevant is cultural behaviors and expectations.

In a ‘racially motivated’ confusion about a decade or so ago, my blond haired blue eyed little brother was called ‘Nazi’ by some passing Armenians while he was walking in Glendale, California, which has a fairly large Armenian population.  All they knew about him was his hair and eye color, and from this they made the same sort of mistaken assumptions which confronted CR.

Be Well,
Bob Griffin

Of course, the Puerto Rican you knew was a Latino, since
he spoke a Latin-derived language.

Not too long ago I read the memoirs of Pilar Primo de Rivera,
the head of the Female Branch of the Falange in Spain. She
tells of her adventures and her projects that took her to
Spain’s colonies. She found dealing with the natives of the
Spanish Sahara and Morocco difficult, due to their being
Muslims, but when she went further south, to Spanish Guinea, she
found herself much more comfortable, since the natives a)
spoke Spanish, and b) were Catholic, thus making herself feel
closer to them.

Why are people PAYING their tax dollars, to say nothing of millions of $$$ in endowments, for the egalitarian, socialistic, and just plain asinine trash which passes for education in our society? Universities, colleges,and other “schools” which consistantly emit such nonsense, while doing everything to SUPPRESS real knowledge about society, history, and cultural heritage are deeply and systemically disfunctional and pathogenic institutions, contributing to the decline and barbarisation of our society, NOT its enlightenment!

It is past time to find (or even create) something better, and withold support from these increasingly bizarre circuses of socialism, feminism, perversion, preposterous nonwhite identity politics and all round silliness. The “antiracists”, the “antisexists” the “antihomophobes” (I guess this is what they would be called), the neo-Luddite “greens”, the antiChristians, et al, could--and should--be as goody as they please on their own time and expense, not at the expense of the rest of us.

Maybe after we reclaim our schools, churches, and universities, we can even build these people zoos where they can play and make noise, and entertain the rest of us, but certainly with no imprimature of knowledge or scholarship on their part!!

PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
David K. Meller

@David K. Meller

On the subject of the “Greens” I just watched on EWTH how
Pope Benedict XVI celebrated and environmental mass in
Rome, urging the young people to “defend the creation”.

By the way, the clergymen around him were all wearing green
chausubles..

So let’s get ready for Green Christianity.

Andrew said to me:  “If you haven’t noticed general differences in identity and personality between races then you must live in a very homogeneous place.”

I lived in China for the past five years, and lived in a mostly Black part of Philadelphia during my college and law school years.  I haven’t exactly been living in a bubble.

And the nut-case Mr Wheeler wrote:

“I have been all over the world, lived in Europe”

...so have I, and I’ve lived in China and Russia too.  By the way the Chinese tend to be among the most racist people in the world, which is one of the things which turned me against obsession with “race” even more.  The Chinese racists think White people’s more hairy bodies are evidence that Whites are less evolved than Chinese.  I point out to them that
Chinese have flatter noses - like monkeys - and then they grumble and hold their peace.  That said, on balance I find most Chinese to be slightly more intelligent than Whites on average (George Kennan said the same thing), and their women are equally beautiful as Whites if not more so.  By the way, Taki’s blog is the wrong place to bash non-whites (such as East Asians), as Taki is a Japanophile whose boat is named “Bushido”.

And Wheeler wrote:

“and some politically correct Judeophile Marxist American is going to tell me that there is no such thing as race?”

...I am to some extent a Judeophile, as all Christians ought to be since Jesus and Mary were Jews.  I have been a personal victim of political correctness, several times.  And don’t you dare call me a “Marxist”, after I’ve spent the past five years in China OPENLY telling my Chinese law students (most of whom were Communist Party members) that Marx was full of shit.  Sir, you might “walk the walk” of anti-Communism, but I’ve literally “talked the talk”, IN a Communist country, in public.

And you wrote:

“The Word of God uses race and ethnicity”

...no it doesn’t.  The Word of God used words in other ancient languages for which our modern terms of “race” and “ethnicity” are very poor translations, because the Modern Age Western concept of “race” did not exist when the Bible was written.

And you asked,

“Who are you John Ball, God?”

No, but funny that you ask, because whenever one of my Dad’s late-adolescent students would say “Oh God” in his class, my Dad would wink and reply, “Not yet, I’m working on it.” HA!  :-)

“Or are you one of those Vatican II socialist christians?”

I have never hypocritically claimed to be a perfect Catholic.  (Does any such person exist?) My inclinations are more on the border between high church Anglicanism and traditional Catholicism.
That said, just yesterday I attended a Latin Mass here in Australia, a delight for me because for the past five years in China I was not allowed to attend any true Roman Catholic Church.

I know enough Latin to know that the word “race” was not mentioned in that Latin Mass.  Occam’s razor tells me, QED, that “race” is not essential to Roman Catholicism.

@John Ball. It is funny how “Catholic” has come to mean “Communist” for I see no difference between what you teach and the communist doctrine of deracination. Obviously, Mr. John Ball you haven’t read Plato or Aristotle. Plato writes that Quote:
“Had not the combined resolution of Athens and Lacedaemon repelled the menace of enslavement, there would long ago have been a complete confusion of Hellenic stocks with one another, of barbarian with Hellenic and Hellenic with barbarian, like the wretched sporadic condition of the present dispersed and confused subjects of the Persian despotism. (sect:692e-693; Hamilton’s Dialogues of Plato, pg 1287)
So please Mr. Ball, stop trying to rewrite history to comply with your marxist feelings. Haven’t you read Mr. Ball that you are to supplement Faith with Arete.  Do you understand this word “Arete”? Probably not because our “Christian youth” are not attaining arete but thru MTV are turning into the most infantile, vulgar lowclass people in the world because we allow Africans to set the cultural tone for this supposedly “Christian” country.  Sorry Mr. Ball, we are turning nothing out but whiggers. We don’t have European culture anymore--but a whiggerized culture of filth.  There is no difference among races--I beg to differ.  It is your mentality that there is no such thing as race is what drives our disastrous foreign policy and gets all sorts of people killed.  When one becomes a catholic, I guess the words “idiot” must be stamped on the forehead.

There is no such thing as a “American citizen”. America is a non-entity, a nihilist construction that no good Christian can participate in.

@Wheeler

Whatever Plato and Aristotle might have written, please
remember that Christianity is based on the Ancient and
New Testament, and in the Catholic Church case, the Tradition
of the Church.

Plato, Aristotle, and all other philosophers of antiquity are
of use if they do not contradict Catholics tenets, if they do,
it must be attributed to the pagan ignorance that they endured.

So, if you want to discuss Catholic doctrine, then by all means,
get out the Bible, the commentaries of the Bible, statemens ex
cathedra from Popes and writing judged to be according to
such doctrine, and leave Plato and Aristotle for discusion about
Greek philosophy.

My dear Adrianna, We live in Western Culture and Western Culture is built on One thing the Logos but the Logos comes two ways Thru Divine Revelation and the Temporal Order or the Natural Order. You must be a Protestant, Adrianna because you solely picked “Sola Scriptura”. Methinks that John Ball and yourself forget that the Natural Order was built by the Logos just as much as Holy Scripture was. St. Paul in I Cor. begins a teaching this way: “What does Nature teach...” Truth also comes thru the Natural Order which is called Natural Law.  John Ball and yourself err greatly when you don’t take into account the Natural Order. The problem with modern Catholicism is that (a) it is Protestantizing (b) Judiazing and (c) divorced from nature. The Church is NOT above the Natural Order--and that is why she is failing greatly. Christian Truth stands on Divine Scripture and the Natural Order!!!  Christianity is NOT a Jewish religion which is based solely on Scripture! You are forgetting Western Culture!

@Wheeler

As far as I can tell, when the Pope makes a decision, he does
not base it on Plato and Aristotle, but on Scripture and
Tradition. Actually, it took a while for Christianity to accept
Aristotle as an authority. It took Thomas Aquinas to convince
the Chruch that following Aristotle did not meant you were a
heretic (and we know what the penalties for heresy were then).

You wnat to discuss Western Civilization, fine, but if you
discuss Christendom, you better be aware that the Greek classics
are read on a contingent basis, that is, as long as they do not
contradict Revelation.

There have been Christian scholars who loved Aristotle and
thought little of Plato, and Christian scholars who followed Plato
and despised Aristotle. But there were no Chrsitan scholars who
rejected Scripture.

Mr Wheeler wrote:

“The Church is NOT above the Natural Order”

There.  Caught you, you bloody heretic.
The Church is supernatural, as supernatural as the resurrection of Christ and the Eucharist.

QED, Mr Wheeler, you are not a Christian, of any kind.  What you said there, was from Satan.

@Adrianna--I don’t go for Caesaro-Papism.  The Pope is not “the be-all or end all” of Christianity.  Christianity is a concilliar religion.  I know modern Catholicism’s paradigm is “Asian Monarchical Despotism” which is Caesoro-papism but Christianity is defined by Councils not be fiats from the Bishop of Rome!///Second, Adrianna, no Catholic I have ever met believes in the Teaching of the Tower of Babel. No priest I have ever met believes that nor does any Catholic so for you to say Scripture teaches is nonsense in Catholicism--for they don’t believe a dang thing in the Old Testament! nor much else.  “Catholics” are toooooo intellectual to stoop down and believe the “"""myth""" of the Tower of Babel!  The Tower of Babel and its teaching is just so much NONSENSE for the enlightened sophisticated Catholic! Catholics don’t believe in Scripture. They don’t even know what is in the Bible! They could care less.///Funny, I believe in the teaching of the Tower of Babel. I believe Divine Revelation.  It is too bad that the “Church” is actively undermining nation/race/ethnicity that is the plan of God!  The Church is just plain communist. It is quite funny that volkenhass is in every human and animal.  It is put there by God and the plan of it is to keep people seperate in their tribes, clans, race, nation, ethnicity. It is too bad that Catholicism seeks the undermining of this plan of God.

@Mr. Ball.  I suggest you find Cosgrove, Charles H., “Did Paul Value Ethnicity”, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 68,2006. ///The Church and Christians live in the Temporal Order; the Natural Order.  The Church and Christians are subject to the Natural Order and are NOT above the Natural Order.  God Created the Natural Order and you are not above it Mr. Ball! I am not a “Vatican II” (read Masonic/Jewish) Catholic. I am a traditionalist Catholic/Greek Orthodox.

@Mr. Wheeler

I have no idea what you are, but you are certainly not
Catholic. No Catholic would speak despectively of the
Bishop of Rome (an usage invented by Henry VIII to get
himself divorced).

So, you are a Protestant, which branch I cannot tell - once
Luther and Calvin got away with it, anyone who could start
his own church did so, and evidently you did.

So, be a Protestant (of whatever denomination it may be)
but do not call yourself a Catholic.

So you believe that Catholic doctrine is determined by
Councils, not fiats of the Bishop of Rome?

Where were you when a Council proclaimed the dogma of
Papal infallibility?  And if you believe in Councils, why
disparage Vatican II?

You got a wonderful mess in your head, I am afraid.

A council, Madame, filled with papal toadies?  St. Vincent Lerins stated the Criteria of the Faith; “What has been believed everywhere, at all times, from the beginning”.  Now tell me Adrianna, when a problem about eating meats arose in the Church in Jerusalem (Acts of Apostles)--Did they all rush to St. Peter to answer the question? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. They held a C-O-U-N-C-I-L! Did not St. Paul Stand up in Peter’s face and castigate him? What I see in the Acts of the Apostles is NOT what I see in Vatican I. Did the Greek Orthodox Church sign the decrees of Vatican I?  NOOOOOOOOO.  Vatican I and Vatican II are NOT Ecumenical Church councils and are NOT binding on the Whole Church.  Sorry, but Caesaro-papism is NOT a Christian Doctrine!!!! Caesaro-papism is an invention of the Roman Catholic “Me-only” mentality and has NO standing in the Criteria of the Faith.  Caesaro-papism has NOT been “believed everywhere from the beginning at all times”.  Sorry. Church problems are handled by Councils--not by Diktats from the Patriarch of Rome of “Me so full of myself”.

@Mr. Wheeler

Please stop calling yourself a Catholic, then.  You are
a Protestant.

@Adrianna, Please look up Old Catholics--those who rejected the doctrine of “Papal Infalibility”. Whole groups of Austrians, Germans and Swiss rejected Vatican I. To be a good Catholic one doesn’t have to adhere to Vatican I. Who says that it is to be Protestant who doesn’t accept Papal Infalibility?  All of the Orthodox, and all of the Old Catholics. What defines Christian teaching is HOLY TRADITION. Papal Infalibility is not Holy Tradition!
-------------And towards John Ball, please google “Natural Order” or “Temporal Order”.  Please go to the Church Encyclical website and search for “Temporal Order” and you will see all sorts of results for the Temporal Order! You, and many “modern” Catholics are forgetting the Temporal Order! The Gospel does NOT abrogate, supercede nor undermine the Temporal Order! Stop listening to Marxist priests and bishops.

@Mr. Wheeler.

Are you of the congregation of the Palmar of Troya, by
any chance (at least that’s how I remember)?

Which anti-pope you follow? I am just curious.

You are not a follower of Pope Luna, are you?

My loyalty is to the Truth. My criteria is “What has been believed everywhere, at all times, from the beginning”. What is the consistent teaching of the Church! That is what I uphold.

Follow the teachings of your Church, as you please.

But do not call it The Church, because it is one
denomination among many, and you are no Catholic since
you claim not to follow the “Bishop of Rome” (how
Anglican of you).

Why this message was deleted I don’t know. Rejection of Vatican I is not Protestant--quite a few Catholics left calling themselves “Old Catholics” there is a minority of Catholics that haven’t accepted Vatican I. Papal Infallibility is not part of the Deposit of Faith. They dissent from the heavy-handedness of Rome.