Fallacies
Probably all societies work better with a certain quantity of comfortable delusions, but America seems to operate with nothing but delusions. Large policies have been and continue to be based on an imaginary view of the world which trumps common sense:
• You can have a First World economy and military with a Third World population.
• Special privileges and billions of dollars in welfare can eliminate the resentments of minorities.
• Billions of dollars of foreign aid can win the friendship of foreigners.
• Being “a nation of immigrants” is a wonderful thing.
• Government subsidy of medical care improves care and lowers costs.
• Calling it “collateral damage” excuses the murder of innocents.
• The war of 1861-1865 was motivated by an altruistic desire to give freedom and equality to black people.
• Guaranteeing the profits of bankers and stock speculators makes for general prosperity.
• Taking off your shoes and belt at the airport and the county courthouse helps in the fight against terrorism.
• Iraq had to be invaded because it was responsible for 9/11 and had weapons of mass destruction. (That the attack was made by Saudi Arabians, from a country with which George W. Bush has profitable connections, is never noted.)
• Wars can be won by vast expenditures on complicated weapons and a military that is mostly a bureaucracy and social engineering agency.
• America has the world’s best military. (Despite the fact that a few morons armed with plastic tableware successfully attacked a major city and the imperial military headquarters and that many overseas expeditions have been mismanaged failures.)
• Politicians care about our wellbeing.
• “Gun control” reduces violence.
• Islam is really “a religion of peace.” (George W. Bush says so, and he is a wise and good man.)
• Presidents are wise and well-informed and know what’s best. (Except Nixon.)
• Democracy will flourish among all peoples if only bad leaders are thrown out of power.
• A society can survive and remain healthy when the entertainment media are suffused with filthy language, depraved morals, narcissism, and nihilistic violence.
• World peace can be maintained by American hostility to Russia, China, and Iran.
Entries(RSS)
Don't forget, "We need more laws to resolve all of our problems, both foreign and domestic."
Another excellent article by Dr. Wilson.
Another insightful and amusing piece by Dr. Wilson!
One more delusion - one the good professor has outlined on many occasions - "Our country has two major political parties that represent two completely different approaches to both domestic and foreign affairs."
One other item mentioned above triggered this reaction from me - in an earlier age, if one went into a courthouse and began to take off one's shoes and belt, wouldn't they arrest you?
"America has the world's best military"
I hate to say it, but even with enormous resources, it has only defeated Granada and Panama in the last 65 years. Just wait till the American she-devil gets in the mix.
"Neoconservatives have America's best interests at heart"
" A nation can be a nation of laws and maintain the Constitution with open and free immigration for all". (As Libertarians would have you believe)
I wish I could disagree with this, but, sadly, I just can't!
"Explaining all of this to the Republican National Committee will get them to stop calling you on the phone."
Seriously - they're calling me about twice a day now looking for handouts. Their appetite for insults must be insatiable.
Obama is American, but Jefferson Davis was not. (U.S. citizen does not equal American.)
All of our problems began with Obama.
Things will be "ok" once Obama is out of office, or if only Romney had been elected!
Americans won't let anyone take their guns!
The Constitution is stilling a meaningful document guiding law and policy by virtuous men.
Over 310 million people, including immigrants legal and illegal from all parts of the fractured globe, living on a vast territory called the United States share traditions, customs and habits which define the common good and which frame for us the rule of law. Things will work out.
I agree, of course. But delusion is misperception.
Today it's accurate perception toward subversion; trojan horsie.
It's sad but secrets & lies always was america since the revolution, just today it's now by aliens no less. Ouch. Our only real consolation is they went 'global' but of course Failed. Inevitable. Man begets man universally, but there's no such thing as universal man. ...
For that reason I would have been one of those colonists who stuck with England. Screw'em, otherwise... twice if needed, dopey revolutionaries. (sorry.)
Dr. Wilson, you should compile these into a book. I have a couple to add, some of which may have been inspired by you yourself:
• Religious belief and practice is strictly a private matter.
• Hostility is born of fear, and fear is the result of ignorance. (It is inconsequential that Marie Curie said that "Nothing is to be feared, only understood" before dying of leukemia because she was not afraid of ionizing radiation the carcinogenic effects of which she and everyone else of the time were blissfully ignorant.)
• Not only is there a sacrosanct realm called "science," but also every affair either belongs or does not belong, and anything that does belong, does not need to follow the rules from outside. (The traditional postulates and assumptions on which most 'scientific' observations rest are also inconsequential.)
• If you oppose spending more of a specific person's money (particularly confiscated money) on X, you must be against X.
• If you oppose *MY PLAN* X for dealing with problem Y, you must believe that Y is not a problem.
• If you have a personal interest in doing something, it is not good.
• Deficits don't matter.
• The problem of excess immigration can be resolved through a more stringent regime of "assimilation."
• It makes sense to shed a tear for a few deceased children when you have personally ordered the extrajuridicial and non-wartime killings of several dozen.
• 1980 marked a rightward turn in American culture and politics.
• All men are created equal.
• There is no biological difference between men and women which would have consequences for their physical and societal capacities.
Forgot:
• There is no difficulty in life that cannot be classified as a "problem" (i.e., there exists a solution)
• It is the responsibility of society to find the solutions to the aforementioned problems at any expense.
The union is indivisible.
All our problems were caused by whites.
Together, united, we can solve all our problems.
and:
We can go on forever just like we are doing. (this is the head-in the sand Americanist equivalent of, 'the great Soviet Union will last through the ages'.
We are the 'exceptional' 'nation'.
America is a force for good in the world.
Never stated but always taken or granted: We should make the rest of the world just like us, then it'll be a decent, civilised place.
The United States of America, the country founded in 1776 and governed by our Constitution, still exists.
How well and bitterly do I remember being pounded with the mantra "your hostility is only due to your fear, which is founded upon your ignorance". All those high toned voices on television exhorting us peasants to overcome our ignorance-based hostility toward the black race, to see them as "just like you", only even more noble and good, for having patiently endured their "centuries of suffering" (at the hands of people like you.)
During the civil rights era one who had no access to sources of information other than television and newspapers would have thought that there were only two kinds of people in the world: those who knew the revealed truth about the evils of racism and the nobility of the negro, and who therefore bravely welcomed the negro as a neighbor; and those who did not. That there persisted a great body of folklore (and a body of patriotic Americans experienced in these matters, aka Southerners) to the effect that the races were different, and that these differences could have serious and unwholesome consequences when ignored, was explained away as being due to the continued existence of ignorant and cowardly people. The few voices crying out that the ignorance went the other way, that "you'll see when they're living next to you" were to be faulted for their lack of understanding or scorned as spreaders of unfounded rumors. So, experimentation conducted in ignorance, as in Madame Curie's case, produced not hostility, but grievous harm, to the body politic, and to millions of inner city whites sacrificed as lab animals to the god of progress.
That the ignorance was not uniform, that it was enforced by certain elites, and that these elites knew better, as evidenced by their policies toward the former inhabitants of their new homeland – purchased for them in two wars costing many lives from these same white families they now wanted pushed out here – this does produce hostility, and in my case undying hostility.
the mantra "your hostility is only due to your fear, which is founded upon your ignorance".
Yes, justice for the left always means justice according to the left. The recent Boy Scout issue for instance has little to do with"gay rights or gay anythingh and everything to do with stomping out every living vestige " however crippled and bewildered -- of Christian culture from this New American Century. I remember speaking to an old Mormon Scout Leader in New Mexico years ago when my son was out there on a Philmont wilderness winter camp. The old leader who had been involved in scouting for years said it was coming within another twenty years because other than the Lutherans, Catholics and Mormons, most of other "christian " churches wanted the contemporary morals --- Souting and churches are connected like the arm to the shoulder.
"Gay Rights" is not the only issue the Boy Scouts have been attacked on by liberal special interest groups. Firearm-phobic groups object to BSA participation in shooting sport and gun safety courses, along with geo-caching and fishing. Atheists groups oppose the reference to God in the Scout oath. The most puzzling is the opposition from environmental groups. The Boy Scouts have a long history of promoting conservation. The concept of "leave not trace" has long been a principal of Scouting. It seems environmental groups object to any use of the wilderness and promotion of outdoor skills.
When I was in Scouting it was done through schools, and our "pack" was based around the public school I attended at the time. Indeed, if it were only based upon churches as is usually the case in some other countries then the atheists would be much easier to shake. Regrettably, many naïve Christian Americans still send their kids to state schools under the mistaken belief that there is still a God-fearing politick beneath all the rot. As bad as the NEA/ACLU/Americans United etc. are, Christian parents REALLY ought to know by now how to avoid them - and where to go to do so.
other than the Lutherans, Catholics and Mormons, most of other "christian " churches wanted the contemporary morals
I suppose it depends on when said conversation took place, but that exemption is definitely NOT true for the ELCA.
Mr. Jacobi, what exactly do you feel must be done about the Negro Question? As troublesome and il-mannered and rude as most of them are(I have been subjected to unbelievably rude behavior at the hands of an Ebonics-spewing surly-attituded Negress "nurse"(thanks Affirmative Action!) as a patient in a hospital quite recently), our Church, the Catholic Church bristles at any criticism of this race because racism is a sin as the Holy Mother Church rightfully states.
But that doesn't exactly help our troubles. What exactly can we simplefolk do?
Nick,
That conversation was eighteen years ago near Taos, New Mexico. I agree with you about " when I was a kid", that's the way I got involved in scouts too, through the public school, but that was fifty years ago!!. The schools dropped scouts decades agao in America because they were not "with it" and so the scouts dropped the schools too. Today of the more than 110,000 scouting units across the U.S., nearly 70 percent are chartered by religious organizations.
Two of the biggest sponsors are the Mormons, whose units serve roughly 420,000 scouts, and the Roman Catholic Church, which serves about 280,000 Scouts.
The United Methodist Church, the second largest sponsor of Scout units after the Mormons, expressed support for the change — saying it was in line with church policy opposing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/news/texas/article/Scouts-future-uncertain-if-ban-on-gays-is-dropped-4233100.php#ixzz2JUI3OkrB
In France the same thing has happened as well. The only scouts the old french military familes promote are those affilaited with traditionalists. I know this because I know sveral officers in the French Foreihn Legion as well as the French Army. The New American Century is already here and we deserve it.
Amazing, because my affiliation with that school and its scout troop ended... eighteen years ago!
In France there is not one scouting organism; scouting troops of a particular religion belong to an exclusively confessional umbrella. It is worth pointing out that there are Catholic scouting groups accounting for 'old family' military/noble/bourgeois offspring that are not "traditionalist" in the sense that an American usually understands the word to mean.
Also, there are a number of Catholic groups (many linked to the SSPX) which do not in fact have (and do not seem to have sought) recognition by the World Organization of the Scout Movement, the Association des guides et scouts d'Europe or Scouts et Guides de France (this is also true of several Protestant and even Mormon scout groups).
In the U.S. this policy move, if implemented, may well result in a schism not unlike that seen between the ELCA and the LCMS, or more likely, the PCUSA and the PCA, with the latter being seen as "fringe." I can imagine a number of somewhat sensible if naïve and not exceptionally religious families being corrupted: "Hmm, well, maybe that 'old' view IS a bit narrow-minded after all, if the Scouts say so... I don't want to join an 'extremist' group" etc. (We might dismiss such chaps as "un-needed," but things get more immediately critical when we pass from breaking Divine Law only to breaking the Law of Nature as well.)
" It is worth pointing out that there are Catholic scouting groups accounting for 'old family' military/noble/bourgeois offspring that are not "traditionalist" in the sense that an American usually understands the word to mean."
Yes, I understand. There is a difference .
Theologically, yes. Sociologically, the differences are not (always) as great as one might expect...
Just remember in all of the above calculations logic too as the Greeks themselves discovered after first believing 'logic' - (which they arrived at themselves as well - what do we have really that didn't stem from them?) - was a key to the city (microcosm) or universe (macrocosm) ... they also debunked it, since if "A" is equal to "B" by virtue of sameness. "A", however does not equal "B" necessarily in the next moment in Time. Rather A and all that is around A = B and all that is around B. Mathematics therefore also (obviously) doesn't apply Humanly per se, as an aside. And therefore neither is logic always rational. Logic can be rational, or, on the other hand - logical and irrational. Aristotle pointed this out, that the "rational" always inevitably contains an element of its opposite the "irrational" of necessity (since it too exists), but the rational contains it in small enough measure to make something- rational; or if 'allegedly' without any of the irrational, [then BS] it was on its face irrational 'sophistry', posing as the 'completely rational'. [I.e. for example like the PC, today.] In other words there's no such thing as the 'purely rational', i.e., = [really] the irrational.
Not wanting to grasp this philosophically (instead, clinging to I'm right, you're wrong, I'm the 'real' "A" you're not the real "A" = B), out of our own immaturity or hubris, we LOST the race to similarly understand 'gravity' as also another part of the elecro-magnetic field. So even with all the Greeks gave us, still we were bested, under God, by a Persian. http://www.keshefoundation.org
I'm not the thorn in your paw, I'm the one who offerred to remove it. But you preferred it. 'As if' it was sacred. -?- Well, in that your preferred it under God, maybe it was, [For i.e. in favor of, you], or sacred For you. Enjoy!
The flaw in the metaphysical construct of 'christ'. Get real brothers. A lot in Christ is true & actual, some is not. Better than only being a Jew in upbringing, but you Have sadly 'our' Achilles heel. You don't need, God to 'incarnate' His whole creation IS incarnate. IF that ain't good enough For you, F#ck you. Get it? Now get off you're f'ing asses, you biTHches. (sorry). Don't worry bithches, I'm a god, relatively speaking not the supreme God, and in that I'm here today it means I'll protect you. See? ... by the way, the flaw in the past was perfect, within context, but it's Not context Today. So, get off thy asses, bithches. Get it? Dr, Thomas does, or he would have censored this. Cool. Any of you have any balls! ... No. So strap on a pair. OR go to Hell! Questions, whores? Die instead in virtue! Put down those drinks, cunts!
It's silly (I'm embarassed too) not really. Get passed this, bithches we can pick up our drinks again ... I'm celt after all.
Michael,
Are you by any chance a retired Catholic Bishop or perhaps a former editor of the NYT religious section ? A professor of philosophy at Notre Dame or Yale? . Heck, I have noticed recently if one is willing to throw in a few crack pot genetic theories about the Celts he can live forever in the minds of men-- either as a hero or a goat. I certainly think you have a future.
Are you by any chance a retired Catholic Bishop or perhaps a former editor of the NYT religious section ? A professor of philosophy at Notre Dame or Yale? Heck, I have noticed recently if one is willing to throw in a few crack pot genetic theories about the Celts he can live forever in the minds of men-- either as a hero or a goat.
The first thought that wandered into my mind was "Stefani Germanotta groupie." (No, I don't own any of her music, and no, it's not worth knowing who she is, but at my age if I didn't put up with contemporary parties I wouldn't have much of a social life.)
Sorry if this is off-topic, but I know a few readers were interested in Roberto de Mattei's book on Vatican II. The English translation is now available through Loreto Publications.
Mr. Svar,
Sorry for the delay in replying to your most interesting question. I see the sun rose anyway even without benefit of my wisdom, though the strain of waiting appears to have been too much for Mr. Yurick. I think about this question all the time; answers continue to be elusive.
Perhaps there was a time before the civil rights storm broke, with pragmatic people, people who knew the clay they had to work with still in charge, when ameliorative and preventive steps might have been taken regarding the Negro Question. Black congressmen like Chicago's William Dawson knew how to better the lot of their constituents without inciting hatred and provoking confrontation. Arthur Mitchell, the first black Democratic congressman, said “I don’t plan to spend my time fighting out the question of whether a Negro may eat his lunch at the Capitol or whether he may be shaved in the House barber shop.” Even Adam Clayton Powell, the first black to represent New York, for all his confrontational tactics, never crossed the line into advocating open rebellion, even going so far as to aver his continuing friendship with a white segregationist congressman who had punched him. The Chicago Defender newspaper, whose influence among blacks was at least the equal of that of the New York Times among whites, while it complained of injustice, preached education, continence, work and thrift. Could these forces have effected enough incremental change in time to head off the revolution? Impatience to share in increasing post war prosperity and the prodding of white politicians such as Chicago's mayor Kelly to ask for more government help in return for votes may have doomed gradualism in any case. Whatever might have been, the last people to have means and opportunity for this undertaking, who had close ties with negroes and an unsentimental understanding of their problems, the white Southerners and Northern black leaders of that pre civil rights era, are no longer with us.
Southerners such as Robert M. Peters have suggested that segregation had come to outlive its usefulness before the revolution broke out. I'm not familiar enough with the Southern component of this history to speak to that, but one can easily imagine how immensely difficult it must have been for Southerners who were aware of the growing problem to change habits, customs and laws that had stood the test of time, in time to head off an explosion. But it was not only human weakness at play. There is a parallel, in the sudden change from the gradualist's labors for justice to open rebellion, with Russia's leap from reform to revolution. In each case, a centralized, ideologically driven cabal, dominated by the same ethno/religious group, took over a broad based slow moving popular movement and perverted it to instal violently and rapidly a new regime, thereby taking power for themselves and dealing a grievous blow to their sworn enemies.
Today's politicians and others in positions of influence and authority, in so far as they are not actively supporting black mischief, have no desire to improve the behavior of African Americans, have no idea that there is anything wrong with them, or know but think it's a good thing. And of course, the people in question themselves may be beyond anyone's help, including their own, by now.
The last part of your question is the most important for us now, and it is right to bring up the Church in this context. Father Steven, in his comments here, has been very illuminating on this. Very quickly, let me mention two key concepts regarding our beloved Church: hypocracy and self-interest. Let me save a few words for my lunch break....
"Hypocracy" above should be hypocrisy.
No, the Church is not as helpful as it could be regarding what to do about people who have thrown overboard the civilization it once so courageously defended and magnificently embodied. John Paul II talked about "the complete moral bankruptcy of racial prejudice and ethnic animosity" (Homily at Germiston Racecourse, Johannesburg [17 September 1995], n. 4: Insegnamenti XVIII, 2 [1995], 581). I think (and hope) we may reasonably disagree, while still being respectful with regard to the Magisterium, about the definition of racism and its effect in each specific case. Steps a person takes to avoid being harmed, to avoid being exposed to immoral behavior, etc., I trust cannot be ruled sinful. Scott Richert's About.com site should be helpful on this.
Gilbert,
I always enjoy and eagerly read your posts. Hypocrisy comes in many shapes and forms. The Church's sinfulness and usefulness has been exaggerated and exploited in the 20th century while her Holiness has been completely ignored. I would not read or consider anything very seriously today *(including or especially, my own posts) that is nor spoken or written by a Saint. One such person has noticed that when a culture starts killing its own children, it is finished. Genetic differences,supposed intelligence tests and superior claims to power are silly when the folks proposing them are at the same time advocating infanticide, sterility and money making as an alternative life style to Christian culture. I remember one of my old teachers debating Mortimer Adler years ago at The Aspen Institute or some institute out there in the Rocky Mountains. Adler held there were as many cultures as there are people in the world and they are all of great importance if not relative importance. My teacher said, "God Help you Mr. Adler if you really believe that." Of course today if a man were to say such a thing, he could be arrested. It is a moot point today anyhow. It's every man for himself. Randians believe this is a good thing and this is of course where they are "dead" wrong.
It is also difficult to overstate the extent to which the clergy, whether they are "right-thinking" or otherwise, are under tremendous pressure. Pressure by a culture that from birth has poisoned their imaginations, in some cases, but in others pressure of a popular opinion manifestly hostile to all that is good and decent. The Church has faced her share of persecutions and slanderers in the past. In the era of mass communications, the inescapability of the incessant teasing and slander makes life in society unlivable for all but the strongest, and even they succumb from time to time. We expect so much from our Cardinals and our Popes - but what would we do in their place? Before we answer that question, we should think about how, step-by-step, we would ever GET to that same place.
Politics is a nasty world and as a human institution the Church is not spared the grievous blows that can be wrought by political intriguing. As a divine institution, of course, she is all the more resilient and in the end, not even the worst calumny, not even death can overwhelm the Body of Christ.
That of course raises the question of what to do right now. If you're worried about that, you're probably worried enough, and we are under orders not to worry about what to do tomorrow. A bit of sleep couldn't hurt.
Nick,
I am convinced that no young man should consider himself educated today who has not attempted to spend at least some time or at least part of a liturgical year in a contemplative house of studies. There are at least five in France (that I know of) that are not much different than they were a thousand years ago ... that is in their essence. ---- what civility is and means for us in the Western World in terms of friendship, work, prayer, study, self-sacrifice or what was once called the conversion of manners.
Newman put it like this:
"Saint Benedict found the world, physical and social, in ruins, and his mission was to restore it in the way, not of science but of nature, not as if setting about to do it, not professing to do it by any set time or by any rare specific or any series of strokes, but so quietly, patiently, gradually, that often, till the work was done, it was not known to be doing. It was a restoration, rather than a visitation, correction, or conversion. The new world which he helped to create was a growth rather than a structure. Silent men were observed about the country, or discovered in the forest, digging, clearing, and building; and other silent men, not seen, were sitting in the cold cloister, tiring their eyes, and keeping their attention on the stretch, while they painfully deciphered and copied and recopied the manuscripts which they had saved. There was no one that ‘contended, or cried out’, or drew attention to what was going on; but by degrees the woody swamp became a hermitage, a religious house, a farm, an abbey, a village, a seminary, a school of learning, and a city.”
True. I defer. Hero, goat, I prefer my superiors, if either or (more)? ... I at least 'hear' ya... yadah, yadah. Good.
I know a place... ______________. (sorry)
I was going to qualify my charge of hypocrisy, by simply noting the possibility that some clergy and religious sincerely believe that there are no differences of any importance between blacks and whites. Others no doubt consider these differences as simply calling for different tactics in their ministry, which is their prime concern. But there are other clergy who are manifestly anti-white. We had one here in Chicago, one Father Phleger, and a more vile example of a race-baiter I cannot remember.
I do not expect clergy to be immune to popular pressure, but I do not intend to excuse priests who use their position to browbeat white parents into taking their children into dangerous neighborhoods just so their poor deprived black flocks can feel better about themselves. Of bishops and cardinals I expect no more than a just proportioning of their solicitude, between the souls of third worlders and the physical well being of whites. What more whites need to do right now is learn how to discriminate, and cardinals who refuse to recognize any racism but white racism and any victims of racial aggression except non-white ones should be held accountable.
Robert,
You hit upon a point that worries me a great deal about my sons' education. While things seem to be progressing well enough academically, I fret that there is no or very little emphasis on contemplation. The younger one is too young but the 10 year old seems to be trending toward superficiality. Yours are older now, but what do you suggest?
Mr. Chan,
Thanks for the news of Mattei's book. Vat II continues to be a mystery and a sore spot for me and I hope to read this soon.
Gilbert,
When I visited my son at UChicago, I always attended Mass a few blocks south of the University in one of the worst parts of town. The Cardinal gave it to an outift that offers the traditional Mass and has a decent choir for the plain chant and some of the polyphonic stuff that is popular. I never taught my kids much about religion except the three greatest prayers, the rosary, how to confess their sins and behave at Mass, but I did try and always take them with me when I visited good priests, nuns or monks so they could listen in and watch.
Our Holy Religion has been dehorned in America and made the laughing stock of all liberal causes. I hated this fact as a young man but don't mind it at all as I get older. There was an excellent professor at Columbia who once remarked to his class ( I think Thomas Merton may have bee one of his students )
The modern image of Jesus, Van Doren said, was of a man almost unrelated to the one described in the New Testament as a strong and stern leader, ruthless in following his conception of truth and iron in his will. “He was not,” Van Doren said, “an easy man to follow. He was certainly not like our ministers now who try to be one of the crowd . That seems to be their approach today.” The professor paused for a moment, and then he said, “Maybe that’s why we hate them so much.”
I thought of this observation when you mentioned Father Phleger.The idea that the good Christian is a milk-sop could not endure a day in most of the Convents and monasterys worthy of the name.
Mr. Yurick,
Never complain and never explain was an old Okie Motto that served our people well for years until all the petty foggen lawyers moved in along with the temperance movement to civilize us so many years ago. I was reading the other day that the Souix Indians would not allow their warriors back into the tribe for several months after war. A cleansing ritual of the mind and soul had to first be performed because they had seen things, done things, comitted or witnessed horrible acts that were destructive to man, to his family and his community. If the neo-cons and the GOP war party was even half as smart, they would shut the hell up and quit making fools of themselves in public.
Point of all this? You are an honest soul worthy of making an honest man's mistakes in drunkeness or good humor. They are liars and lunatics. So far as I am concerned, it is good to see you posting again..
You're welcome, Mr. Jacobi.
Mr. Jacobi, what did Mr. Peters mean when he said this: "segregation had come to outlive its usefulness before the revolution broke out."?
I personally believe that forced segregation and forced integration are both wrong. I do believe that racism is wrong but the behavior of many blacks makes it extremely difficult for me to not be a racist.
Sometimes I paint myself green, but it's rare, [almost] never, for WAR, only if it's a real one. Then I say heavenly Father, take me if necessary and let me slay my enemies. Then I'm the FIRST one into battle with the WRATH OF GOD. There is no me just ABSOLUTE VENGEANCE. Happy. Can you imagine if that's the only time we went to war. Today, sadly, so far the conservative stance, (until I paint myself green), is leave well enough alone. I'm just speaking for myself, but you can see-?-what I'm saying. That's
WAR, and I don't go otherwise. Otherwise I KNOW the war is with those who would send me.
Svar, Your view of the vastly important social phenomenon of race relations is too personal and limited.
Not surprising given youth. Try to think about issues in their effects through time and pervasive social effects. The actions of large numbers of people through history cannot be understood when reduced to your personal reactions. Why did segregation exist? Who was responsible for it and what were their motives? Why was it overturned by federal force, who was responsible for that, aqnd what were the consequences? .
The problem is, I think, Dr. Wilson, that too many people from my generation, including many professing Christians, are keen to see positions on "the issues" themselves as defining characteristics of good or bad rather than as servants of some eternal good. Thus, it is (falsely) believed that one cannot sympathize with pre-World War II South or Northern urban ethnic communities without championing some sort of "neo-segregationist" cause today, i.e., wanting to bring back restricted covenants, segregated schools, etc. One is obliged to say "I am against segregation" and to apply this opposition throughout all of history, without regards to the consequences, or else one must be in favor of prohibiting blacks from coming into a "white" bar here and today. One must say, "Slavery is always evil!" or else one must be in favor of enslaving people who have a different phenotype TODAY.
(It is tragic but amusing to note that, numerically, more humans are slaves - even in the FORMAL sense of the word - today than at any other time in history.)
Mr. Svar,
I'd like to let Mr. Peters expand on his meaning re segregation outliving ... etc.; and, in general, I'd much rather hear that gentleman and Professor Wilson on segregation and race relations than myself. For the record, Mr. Peters did not use the term "revolution", at least not in the comment from which I quoted him; that's my own.
I'll offer this, however, on your apparent equating of forced segregation and forced integration. Segregation as it was in the pre-civil rights South came about as a result of and in the wake of the catastrophic destruction of 1861-65; in response to social, economic and cultural chaos. It was directed at a population which had no experience of self-governance and self-support, and little conception of how to fit into a society whose laws and customs had only indirectly, if at all, applied to them previous to their being freed. Forced integration circa late '50s America was implemented in a time of peace, unprecedented prosperity, social cohesion and cultural coherence. The target population, working and middle class whites, was highly competent in performing its civic duties and in providing for itself. In contrast to his postbellum condition, the negro was well on his way toward acquiring all the skills necessary to function nearly as well as whites socio-economically, and had powerful political and cultural voices – of his own race – in his corner making slow but steady improvements for him. But other forces recognized a golden opportunity surreptitiously to increase their own power while at the same time greatly weakening their ideological foes and religious antagonists. They seized their moment, caught us sleeping, and rammed through their revolution.
I would just like to add to the segregation issue...as it eventuated ... there's an insufficient recognition of the 'gods' factor. I like to throw them in, like they throw us around (whether we're aware of it or not). Everything everyone here says has truth, some part of it, included. It's you know like our webmaster says a pretty good blog. But christianity a lot of which in a disinterested fashion I'm in favor of even though it's the nurture part of existence in that I was raised Catholic for which I'm grateful, yet - the gods (not necessarily God) in so far as He delegates, throw us around in some measure based on context. In other words it becomes possible to juxtaposition us in proximity to "blacks" rub our noses in it if there's something seminal to be learned from the contact; we otherwise would have gone on ignoring "as if" our more hermetically sealed cultural state were 'absolute', when it isn't. Doesn't mean as it eventuated, had to have been so (except for context, yes), but speaks, then, to what may be lacking in the mind-set again "as if" it were absolute. Thus, as it were, the 'role' of the gods. Now if you muse something like, "I thought we got rid of the 'gods'," Bingo! Can't get rid of what is [actually] absolute.
Dr. Wilson, as I understand it, segregation was a result of Reconstruction and it was created by Southern whites to keep situations like that of Northern and Southern Rhodesia and South Africa from occuring i.e. to protect the white population from the violence of blacks. Also, it was done to appease poor whites to keep them from feeling like the lowest of the low and becoming disgrunted. And it may have also been done to keep the white race pure of black blood.
Segregation was overturned by leftists and consequences seem to be the constant victimhood mentality of blacks as well as the hostility and the tolerance of poor black behavior.
You are right about my youth; I am younger than MOSES Nicholas. I come here to learn; I want to understand these things and I would be honored if you were to enlighten me on this topic.
MOSES Nicholas, I am sympathetic to white Southerners; I do live in Texas after all. However, I do, because of what our Catholic faith tells us, believe that segregation is wrong. Racism is sinful.
As for my understanding of slavery, I do not think it is wrong if the slave has sold himself into slavery; it is wrong if the slave has been forced into slavery. I do believe that most Southerners treated their negro slaves quite well and I do not like abolitionists or John Brown terrorist types. I do believe that the Confederacy had a legitimate cause to leave the Union and our pope, Pope Pius IX prayed for Confederate victory.
Mr. Jacobi, I do agree that negroes were better off under slavery. They had lower crime rates(which victimize more blacks than whites), more intact families, less OOW births, and a stronger faith as opposed to the "Black churches" that they have now which instead of preaching the gospel, preach black liberation theology and black power. I guess I do understand now what Robert M. Peters was trying to say: blacks were finally catching up to whites and therefore there was no longer any reason to seperate the white and negro races.
I do, because of what our Catholic faith tells us, believe that segregation is wrong.
I think you are confusing (as do many clergy, willfully or unwittingly) the implications of Christian precepts on charity. Christian charity demands that we treat our fellow human beings with kindness and that we refrain from passing moral judgment or from senselessly harming the reputation of another.
However, on the whole, no man is obliged to accord those favors and privileges which are his to accord to those to whom he is not pleased to accord them. (There are some exceptions: a starving man must be given food and a gravely injured person must be given medical attention.)
Furthermore, if it were forbidden to exercise, as individuals or as society, discrimination or preferences on the basis of intrinsically nonmoral characteristics, then it would logically also be sinful to refuse to allow non-citizens to vote, for example, since after all a man can no more help the country in which he was born in than he can which phenotypic genome he has inherited. (Some people actually do believe that, but for the sake of this argument let us momentarily dismiss them as loony fringe hippies.)
So this begs the question: why should phenotype be sacrosanct in this regard and citizenship not?
Racism is sinful.
Yes, racism as it is defined scientifically is sinful in that one may not treat another as less human with respect to... well, anything. And only tangible deeds--regardless of anything else--may be legitimately held up and punished by human society.
However, the right to vote is not intrinsic to humanity. The right to live in any neighborhood is not intrinsic to humanity. The right to attend the same school as anyone else is not intrinsic to humanity. Leftists who claim that it is and who appeal to some imaginary "radical Jesus" for justification have never been able to answer why Our Lord did not tell Pontius Pilate to "Let My People Vote," why He did not tell masters to free their slaves, why He did not tell the centurion to leave the Roman army, and why He did not rebuke the Samaritan woman for being wary of Jews (of whom He was one!).
We, in our generation, need to avoid two errors. The first is to allow the sensibilities gleaned from what has been a highly myopic and often denatured life experience from 1980 onward to color our understanding of eternal truths. (We should also be conscious of the fact that the foundations of the atomized society we grew up in are unstable to the point where a society founded on the kind of assumptions we hold will not last very long, anyway.) We have probably had at least some positive interactions with people who happen to be black (I have, and two of them I still keep in touch with as casual to very good friends). We can't imagine a time when they would have been barred from entering the places where we became friends?
One might as well say that the Romans would have been wrong to try to keep their empire from crumbling because today he has a French friend of old Germanic stock who wouldn't exist if the barbarians hadn't mixed with the Gallo-Romans...
The second mistake is to detach onesself from a decadent and disgusting culture and retreat not into a physical place of solace but into purely abstract and hypothetical fantasies, hoping to retrofit romanticized visions of better times into the modern world. Such antisocial tendencies incubate the sort of bitterness that drives young people to join Aryan Nations. (If I had to guess, and I have said so repeatedly on these pages, I would wager this same inclination fueled Anders Behring Breivik to get revenge on his socialist upbringing and was the primary motive for his crimes that day.) Live a little and don't miss out on something good just because it was made possible by something that wouldn't have happened in the past better world. (Another part of Christianity is giving thanks in all things.)