You are here

Boycott anti-Christmas department store, Boscov's

See here.

Pass it on!

Forum: 
Share/Save

>(I’m married to a Catholic Walloon who has raised our kids Catholic.)

Given your having a Belgian connection, what do you, and/or your wife, think about the Vlaams Belang, and Belgium’s troubles in general - do you sympathize with the Walloons or the Flemings, notwithstanding that your wife is Walloon? (For example, for my part, as an English-Canadian, while I don’t want to see Canada break up, I can understand why Quebecois see themselves as distinct from the rest of Canada - they are, plain and simple - and why some feel secession is the only way they can preserve their distinctiveness, in the face of a nation that is 3/4 non-French-Canadian - and next to an English-speaking nation ten times bigger, and culturally predominant, making the French-speaking population a tiny island in an English-speaking sea… (Moi, je parle francais - un peu - et j’ai les amies francophones… (I speak some French, and have French-speaking friends…)) So, I have a bit of a different perspective than most English-Canadians, who tend to only consider things from their own vantage point, and not be able to see things from the Quebecois POV…)

Thank you for that question, Will.

I support efforts by the Flemings to preserve themselves as a race(*), culture, ethnicity, ethno-culture, and nation (yes some of those overlap—I wanted to make sure I left no gaps). These are good, salt-of-the-earth people seeking only redress of legitimate grievances. May they prevail and prosper!

I do question the Belang’s preference for republicanism over monarchy. I’m starting to feel that monarchy, for all its faults, forms a slightly stronger bulwark than republican government against the sorts of socially destructive forces Turnabout came into being to question. Yes, yes, we all know how many European monarchies are marching toward their destruction shoulder-to-shoulder with doomed republics and just as enthusiastically. Certainly, the pathology of these Lemmings of the West needs further study before anyone can identify the germ and come up with a cure. I’d encourage Flanders in the meantime to plan on remaining a monarchy if ever it gain its independence from the monarchy it’s part of now.

I also sympathize with the Quebec nationalists, including those who want outright independence for Quebec.

I like countries, nations, races, sub-races, ethnicities, cultures, ethno-cultures, religions, tribes, traditions, languages, dialects, accents, special words, customs, heritages, national myths and legends, folktales, folksongs, folk memories, and so on. People who are strictly allergic to these things, I’m strictly allergic to. I oppose the forced annihilation of these things by governments doing the bidding of interested parties such as, e.g., rival races or ethnic groups, Wall Street, organizations of Marxists who see themselves as future Nomenklaturas, or organizations of self-righteous, selfish Christians who falsely want to appear self-abnegating. Any who support the preservation of these sorts of things have my sympathy.

At bottom what I don’t like is meaninglessness, and what I support is meaning.

“So, I have a bit of a different perspective than most English-Canadians, who tend to only consider things from their own vantage point, and not be able to see things from the Quebecois POV…”

That’s the way I am too.
_____

(* No, leftists, you’re not seeing things—I did say race. And yes, the Flemish are a different race from the Dutch to their north, the English across the Channel, the Walloons to their south, and the Germans to their west, just as all these are different races from them and different races from each other)
________________________

“If a tree falls and an expert doesn’t hear it, is there a sound?” Yes, the sweetest, most melodious sound in all creation: the sound of entropy being brought clanking, screeching, grinding to a halt.

________________________

The Germans to their east, of course, not west.

________________________

… I, too, as a patriotic, traditionalist Canadian, am a staunch monarchist, for a variety of reasons, not least of which is, I prefer my head of State to claim his/her authority to rule as being “Dei Gratia”, i.e. “By God’s Grace” (as each Canadian coin proclaims on the head side, in short form - “D.G. Regina” - “Queen, by the Grace of God”), rather than any such “of the people; by the people, for the people” malarkey; monarchy implicitly, if not explicitly to some degree, recognizes God and His sovereignty, where republicanism largely fails to do so (notwithstanding the “In God We Trust” on the coins). Among several other reasons, one partly related to the previous one is, I like having my head of State (who is chosen by God) separate from my head of government (who is indeed chosen by the people) - I’ve always been both amused and disturbed at the treasonous rhetoric that proceeds out of some Americans’ mouths when their favoured candidate loses - Limbaugh and dittoheads said “America held hostage” during the Clinton years; Democrats said “our REAL president” and “our REAL VP” about Gore and Liebermann, and now some want to move here to Canada because Kerry lost? (Stay home! We don’t want you! And http://colbycosh.com/#mfos stop wearing our flag and pretending to be us when in Europe, you blue-staters!)

The following are some excellent monarchist sites, with many arguments in favour of monarchy:

http://www.monarchist.ca/ The Monarchist League of Canada

http://www.interlog.com/~rakhshan/ Canadian Monarchist Online

http://www.monarchist.org.au/ The Australian Monarchist League

http://www.statusquo.org/ Australian Republic Unplugged

http://www.norepublic.com.au/ Australians For Constitutional Monarchy

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/8881/ Queenslanders for Constitutional Monarchy

http://www.geocities.com/cox_nz/index.html The Monarchist League of New Zealand

http://www.monarchy.net/ The Constitutional Monarchy Association and The International Monarchist League

http://members.tripod.com/~constantian/index.html The Constantian Society - American Monarchist Info Service

http://www.thinline.com/~ccoulomb/ Charles A. Coulombe

http://terrenceberres.com/stelib.html Liberty, Equality, Fraternity by James Fitzjames Stephen

And there’s lots more out there, including, oddly enough, tons at paleolibertarian website http://www.lewrockwell.com LRC.

“If Patrick Henry or James Otis or James Otis’s sister (Mercy Otis Warren) could come back and see what their descendants had done with the liberties they fought for, they would head straight to London and kiss the Queen’s big toe.” - http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/HardRight/HardRight070401.htm Thomas Fleming

“Now and then I’m asked whether the Clintons ever make me miss George Bush. Miss George Bush? Sometimes I miss George III.” - http://www.sobran.com/welcome2.shtml Joseph Sobran

Regarding Flanders: since the Flemings and the Dutch, who already share a common tongue and ethnic heritage, are both seemingly the most acutely aware amongst Europeans, of the dangers of unrestricted Islamic immigration, I’d love to see Flanders join the Netherlands, and come under their monarchy… The conservative Flemings could help the Dutch recover a non-liberal reason to oppose the dar-al-Islam’s conquest of Europe, by rediscovering who they are, what they were, what they lost, how they lost it, and what they must re-become to recover it… The Dutch would bestow on the Flemings the blessings of a monarchy which supports rather than opposes them… Ah well; I can dream…

1)British monarchy is more degenerated,pornographic and blasphemous in Europe,DragQueen Elizabeth of England is greedy,abusive toward workers, corrupted,vicious,scandalous,sexually filthy and permissive,confused in religious ideas and last but no least racialist. 2)Why reference to God in American coin is worthy nothing while mention to God in Canada is important? Acording to Apostle Paul God is no blesser from avarice,somebody living without working with 136 billlions dollars is avaricious,no it is?. 3)Spiritually comitted people in America are hardly criticized by you because his/her wrong political ideas or practices,but secularist,mundane,worldly Queen who never has evangelized,read the Bible or prayed/except in ritualized ways,rezos style/is supported by you,why?.

I recognize the moral degeneracy that infects the entire West, whether republican countries or monarchist ones, and I’m not saying that monarchies are perfect, utopias. I’m saying the cultural rots starts - or, rather, started, with the moral relativism that I believe is inescapable when people feel they, and not Providence, control their own destinies, who rules them, etc.; eventually you see demands by everyone for their “rights”, for “equality”. Liberal democracy leads to radical egalitarianism, naturally; no-one in a society that isn’t highly hierarchical (as the feudal societies of Europe of old were), and that officially endorses social egalitarianism, will put up with being treated differently from anyone else. Hence suffragism, abolitionism, feminism, gay rights, “children’s rights”, and even, sentimentally on behalf of creatures who can’t ask and can’t know enough to care, animal rights.

Naturally, since no country lives in a separate world from everyone else, this attitude spreads to monarchical societies as well.

I don’t see how the Queen and members of the Royal family are any worse than, say, Bill Clinton - and I haven’t seen Bush doing any more than QEII to evangelize, spread the Gospel, promote it, etc. (Bush isn’t a very good Christian, either - see http://www.bushrevealed.com/ BushRevealed.) Mind you, that’s the Church’s role, anyway; individuals are to always be ready to give a reason for the hope they have, as Scripture says, but the Great Commission is actually given to the Church, not to individuals. (After all, the Great Commission mentions the Sacrament of Baptism - I don’t know about you, but I’ve never baptized anybody… That’s the Church’s role. As usual, Anabaptists and their evangelical descendents miss the whole context, and have misunderstood this passage to mean that all Christians, as individuals, are responsible for evangelizing everyone they possibly can, and are directly responsible for leading people to Christ, as individuals, and not corporately, as the Church, through both Word and Sacrament.)

The Queen does work; she performs her largely ceremonial role, and that is her occupation; she rules by God’s grace - I totally reject any suggestion to the contrary. I don’t feel like getting into any big debates right now re: monarchy - read what people at the monarchist sites I previously linked have argued in favour of monarchy, I pretty much agree, with most of it, if not all, of their arguments. (I don’t know where you get that 136B figure, either, but never mind…) The Queen’s children may be morally problematic, but when did the Queen ever commit adultery, etc? And, like I said, Charles, and Andrew, etc., are no worse than Bill Clinton - and God can and has made use of grossly immoral rulers - God appointed Sampson, David, and Solomon to their positions, in spite of their flaws. He put them in their places, as Judge/Kings over Israel. (That doesn’t mean He endorsed their behaviour; on the contrary, they and/or Israel always suffered consequences - but nevertheless, they reigned.) So His having political servants today who are no better, is no different. The Queen is not Christ, nor is a republic’s president; both are flawed individuals, but that in and of itself doesn’t disqualify either for a God-given role as leader, any more than the same flaws did so for Sampson, David, or Solomon. So she’s anti-egalitarian, has some unfortunate theological misunderstandings (one doesn’t have to belong to the church of which she is the titular head; I certainly don’t - and I don’t consider her my spiritual authority - but she still is my head of State, and I a loyal subject); so it goes, here on Earth…

The Canadian coin - as with the British coins, which have the same head, pretty much - directly addresses the matter of who rules (the person whose image is shown is the actual ruler today, unlike a dead president depicted on a Yankee coin, and the inscription indicates why - she rules by God’s grace. “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; render unto God the things that are God’s”, said Christ, when shown a denarius with Caesar’s inscription on it. The Canadian currency acknowledges this principle, at least implicitly, by showing who rules, and officially recognizing why she rules.) The American coins say “In God We Trust”, which is nice and all; but which God? Even though I’m not Anglican, the fact that the Queen is officially the titular head of the Anglican church, if I’m not mistaken, shows that the God she acknowledges - however imperfectly she does so - is the Christian God, YHWH, and not some nebulous, non-Christ-referenced Deist all-purpose Deity, and how much does the American government trust in God, anyway? (Where public schools conduct a war on Christmas, Thanksgiving, etc.; where city halls can’t permit nativity scenes at Christmas; where a monument to the Ten Commandments can’t be displayed any more in a courthouse; where law permits over a million abortions a year; etc. etc.)

Psalm 1, in my opinion, challenges the State to acknowledge God, the real God, of the Bible - “Kiss the Son; lest he be angry”… By explicitly ruling out acknowledging the God of the Bible as the reason for their authority - and, from my perspective, by rejecting His appointed servant George III (yes, I said it; the revolutionists rejected God’s ordained servant George III, and had to come up with theological justifications for doing so, which I find unconvincing, and reject in toto.), the American revolutionaries denied Christ His rightful place, as King of their land…

I know most Americans reading will disagree, as will Venezuelans and other patriots from countries that are republics, so we’ll have to agree to disagree; I accept that things are as they are, and have been for 200+ years; doesn’t mean I agree that they should have gone that way, but never mind…

Nothing wrong with “ritualized” prayers, IMO - the Lord’s Prayer is a ritualized prayer, and it comes straight from Scripture - so, too, worship involving singing the Psalms - that’s very ritualistic; as is ending with the Aaronic Benediction. What’s wrong with ritual?

I don’t give a fig how sincere and committed “Willow Creek”, “megachurch” Christians are; while sincerely, Godly. Bible-believing Christians, they are wrong in their approaches, and I’ll say it. I’ll criticize the Queen if I think she’s wrong in something, and have done so (not here, so far, perhaps, but privately in conversation with friends, and if something were to happen serious enough to warrant comment here, in the near future, I’d do so). Nevertheless, in the absence of more Godly alternatives (which England had in 1690, for example, and so I am grateful to God for His sending William of Orange to England in her hour of need), I support His servant the Queen, same as, if I lived in the time of Sampson, David or Solomon, and were one of God’s people then, I’d have supported my sinful, all-too-human leader, whom God placed in power, as He did the British Royal Family.

I have read in letters to editor section in newsweek magazine,flemish considers themselves only dutch people,emphasis by belgium in making flemish dialect a different language is considerated a trick to impose illegitimate suzeiranity from belgium crown,and AfricanCrisis.org a website from boer Jan Lamprecht says something similar. What is your opinion about it?.

André writes,

“I have read in letters to editor section in newsweek magazine that the flemish consider themselves only dutch people”

(First, the rag known as Newsweek is an extreme radical leftist sheet without journalistic standards whatsoever which I’d as soon read as pre-1989 Pravda. Why any conservative person reads that filthy rag—or The New York Times, for that matter—is a mystery to me. Never count on finding truth there.)

The Flemish are different from the Dutch the same way the Walloons are different from their neighbors the northern French, the Yorkshiremen in England are different from the Essex English folk, the Friesians are different from the inhabitants of Maastricht at the other end of Holland, the Virginians are different from the Vermonters, the English, composed mainly of Anglo-Saxons, Celts, Scandinavians, and Norman French, are different from Scandinavians let’s say, the people of Thuringia are different from the people of the Black Forest, and, no doubt, the Venezuelans, André, are different from the Colombians. Every group is different. (The blind, and also certain dishonest self-interested connivers—such as Wall Streeters, Communists, or ethnic groups hoping to eliminate ethnic rivals they’re afraid of or merely sick-and-tired of or both, while working to preserve themselves intact of course—may all claim not to see this.) The Flemish are not the same as the Dutch. They are Catholic, for one thing, while the Dutch are Protestant, and that’s very important to them. They are not subjects of the monarch of the Dutch but of their own monarch whom they share with their fellow subjects the Walloons and the Eastern Belgian Germans, and that’s very important to them: people living in republics may not realize the importance for those living in monarchies of which monarch or royal family they are subjects of. (I, for one, would be proud to be a subject of King Baldwin but would feel uncomfortable as a subject of Baldwin’s little brother Albert who now reigns—and I’m an American. Think how people born into that system feel. The Flemish do NOT consider themselves subjects of the Dutch monarch. When I lived in Europe in the 70s Queen Elizabeth, officially Elizabeth II, visited some town in Scotland in an official capacity. A bomb went off there, planted by Scots specifically to say, according to the message they left, that she might be Elizabeth II of England but was Elizabeth I of Scotland. By the way, events like that give me hope for the future.) The Flemish have an extremely rich and distinctive cultural past consisting of writers, composers, and especially painters, and that’s very important to them. They have a political history different from the Dutch history. Their written language, yes, is Dutch, the same as is written officially in Holland. But their spoken language consists of an exceedingly rich array of dialects truly wonderful to hear, stretching the length and breadth of their country, none of which is the same as any dialect spoken in Holland. One must understand certain things about the old world, such as how beloved ancient pieces of identity like language are preserved. A man from the eastern part of Flanders and his fiancée from a Flemish village on the North Sea may not be able understand each other’s version of Flemish but may need to speak to each other in standard Dutch, which neither speaks in the home town but each has learned in school.

You can travel across the country of Flanders asking people in every city, town, and village if they want to join Holland and not find a single one who won’t gravely shake his head “No.”

Flemish nothing but Dutch? No. They are their own very distinct nation. They are not going to join Holland.

“emphasis by belgium in making flemish dialect a different language is considerated a trick to impose illegitimate suzeiranity from belgium crown,and AfricanCrisis.org a website from boer Jan Lamprecht says something similar. What is your opinion about it?

I’m not sure what you mean here, André. I did look at the web-site you give, without finding mention of it. Can you explain it again? Efforts by Brussels to eliminate the different Flemish dialects by encouraging only the official Netherlands dialect, if that’s what you mean, wouldn’t appear to lead to the strengthening of the crown’s suzerainty over Flanders—but I’m not up on the latest Brussels thinking (or utter lack thereof, more likely …) on this topic.

________________________

“If a tree falls and an expert doesn’t hear it, is there a sound?” Yes, the sweetest, most melodious sound in all creation: the sound of entropy being brought clanking, screeching, grinding to a halt.

________________________

… I guess my faint hope (in my last post in this thread) was just that, but I understand; even the Moldovans want nothing to do with Romania, the Austrians see themselves as quite distinct from the Germans, and so on. (The Acadians, in Canada, see themselves as quite different from the Quebecois, and the “brayons” of Madawaska, New Brunswick, see themselves as not really Acadians, though they are descended from them…)

A couple comments:

1. Becoming a Christian isn’t like becoming a Muslim or (Orthodox) Jew. There’s not a single Christian nation with the same laws, habits, customs, etc.

2. You can’t impose your truth on others, but you can present what you see as true. If the other accepts it because he also sees it as true then you haven’t destroyed his identity, you’ve helped him achieve it better.

3. To the extent Christianity as it actually exists leaves out something good and true I don’t think it will succeed in converting everybody in any event.

I do think that some Catholics think of Catholicism as something like nationality or ethnicity rather than something that converts nationality, ethnicity and the like while preserving them. So if they think American life as it stands is unsatisfactory their solution is to import some other nationality, Mexicans or whatever, who they think are more Catholic. I find that point of view deeply anti-Christian. The point is that Catholic Christianity would make Americans more truly what they are and bring out what is best in them.

Rem tene, verba sequentur.

Rem tene, verba sequentur.

“I do think that some Catholics think of Catholicism as something like nationality or ethnicity …”

I think I see your point, but it should be acknowledged that Catholicism *is* something like nationality or ethnicity: i.e., it is a family. Furthermore, it is a family that transcends other kinds of families and, indeed, takes precedence over them in many ways.

” … rather than something that converts nationality, ethnicity and the like while preserving them.”

Catholicism does convert nationality and ethnicity, but it does not necessarily preserve them or keep them from changing. It sees nothing wrong with their preservation, of course, so long as a right order of things is observed.

“So if they think American life as it stands is unsatisfactory their solution is to import some other nationality, Mexicans or whatever, who they think are more Catholic.”

And conversely, there are those who think American life is unsatisfactory not because it isn’t Catholic enough, but because it isn’t white enough, and their solution is to “repatriate” those immigrants that are insufficiently white. How you diagnose the problem has a lot to do with how you see immigration.

“The point is that Catholic Christianity would make Americans more truly what they are and bring out what is best in them.”

No argument there. And if immigration helps bring Catholic Christianity to Americans, what is anti-Christian about that?

Catholicism isn’t on the same plane as nationality or ethnicity. To be a Jew is to be a member of one particular ethnic people. To be a Muslim is to be a member of a universal nation that cancels all other nationality. To be Catholic isn’t like that.

Catholicism does not leave ethnicity just as it was, any more than it leaves personality just as it was. It sets each in a larger setting but doesn’t wipe out either and views each as a good. Support for that view in the case of ethnicity can be found for example in the current Pope’s comments on the importance of cultures. To say something is a good is not of course to say it is the one ultimate good that trumps all others. I haven’t the faintest idea why in reason Mr. Culbreath should feel compelled repeatedly to argue against that view.

Nor do I understand why immigration on any large scale would help bring Catholicism to Americans. There are already scores of millions of Catholics here who can present the faith. When Saint Paul tried to bring Christianity to one place or another his strategy was not to organize a resettlement campaign to populate the place with people who were already Christian. He made his pitch to those who were there already. That’s been the approach of evangelists and missionaries generally.

Rem tene, verba sequentur.

Rem tene, verba sequentur.

“Catholicism isn’t on the same plane as nationality or ethnicity. To be a Jew is to be a member of one particular ethnic people. To be a Muslim is to be a member of a universal nation that cancels all other nationality. To be Catholic isn’t like that.”

Right, Catholicism doesn’t cancel out nationality.

“To say something is a good is not of course to say it is the one ultimate good that trumps all others. I haven’t the faintest idea why in reason Mr. Culbreath should feel compelled repeatedly to argue against that view.”

The reason Mr. Culbreath feels compelled to repeatedly argue the point is that there are commenters here who, in his opinion, repeatedly give race a significance and importance that it does not merit. Such as the recent example of a commenter saying that some races should not be Christian.

You will notice that race is the only thing I ever talk about around here. That’s because I agree with (or can at least accept as legitimate) almost everything else that is said.

“Nor do I understand why immigration on any large scale would help bring Catholicism to Americans.”

That is not hard to understand at all. Immigrants brought Catholicism to me, a native-born Protestant, for instance. The idea that immigration can influence a culture should be a familiar theme to readers of Turnabout/VFR.

“There are already scores of millions of Catholics here who can present the faith.”

If they could, one presumes they would. But they don’t. That’s because 80% of America’s “scores of millions” of Catholics need evangelization themselves.

“When Saint Paul tried to bring Christianity to one place or another his strategy was not to organize a resettlement campaign to populate the place with people who were already Christian. He made his pitch to those who were there already. That’s been the approach of evangelists and missionaries generally.”

I think we also have the example of European colonization which Christianized the New World. Both are workable approaches.

As I’ve said before, I’m an immigration restrictionist and would like to see a sharp reduction in immigration until America gets her own house in order. But if there is going to be immigration, let most of it be Catholic.

Mr. Culberth’s agreements on other issues are appreciated as well as his disagreements on race. I agree immigrating Catholics is a tool. It does seem we differ on the value of race.

Some say they want reform in the way they want a front door. They want the door to keep out the elements and thieves and a lot of people but not people of any particular race, that is, unless they agree with racially profiling criminals. (Before the so-called civil rights dictates of the Supreme Court, which quasi-reformers consider justice, and mass immigration, people in many neighborhoods could sleep with their front doors open on cool evenings.) Race is said to be important but only if one does nothing to keep it important.

Reformers, however, want the door to function as a device to exclude whomever they choose no matter (or almost no matter) what the basis. Our instinct to recognize an outsider is a basic instinct and can only be suppressed through the tyranny of a Supreme Court. The quasi-reformer actually has and uses the same basic instinct just not in regards to race. The quasi-reformer wants to use a door as a device to exclude (or mabe to lock up) a person of a particular race who wants to do something to retain the integrity of his family’s race or races. The quasi-reformer says he does not want one race but works to prevent others from ensuring there is more than one race.

To be fair, I don’t actually know whether Mr. Culbreth is the quasi-reformer I describe, and it is probably true Mr. Culbreth also thinks the Supreme Court went too far (but not as far as I think it went).

“The reason Mr. Culbreath feels compelled to repeatedly argue the point is that there are commenters here who, in his opinion, repeatedly give race a significance and importance that it does not merit. Such as the recent example of a commenter saying that some races should not be Christian.” (—Jeff Culbreath)

I didn’t say some races should not be Christian. (And in what I said on that topic, by the way, I wasn’t talking about race at all.) I said other cultures and religions both enrich the world by their existence and have the right to continue in existence and it seemed wrong to me to convert them to Christianity. I love the world the way it is. I love the Moslem culture, I love the Chinese culture, I love the Vietnamese culture, I love the Japanese culture, I love the Jewish-Israeli culture, I love the Hindu culture, and so on. I would hate to see any of these go out of existence or weaken. Most of all, I love the Christian culture—my own. But I want all the others to stick around because they are what make up the world—aren’t they? It’s an unbelievably beautiful world—all of it, not just Christianity—though Christianity, for me, is by far the most beautiful of all.

I’ve realized that Mr. Culbreath simply is not interested in race or races as such. That’s fine, and as a result I won’t ask him again about questions having to do with race.

I happen to have been a “green” ever since high school, in full sympathy with what many here would perhaps consider strongly pro-environmental policies (though I utterly reject what we all know as the extremist wacko green Marxist fringe and their shenanigans). I love driving through beautiful countryside looking at landscapes, trees, woods, fields, hills, rivers, farmland—you get the picture—I really, really love it. Once I was in a car riding through some really beautiful countryside and was amazed to learn my good friend sitting next to me was completely indifferent to it. He tried to drive home the point for me by looking around in the car, pointing to the inside of the car door next to us, and saying, “You see the inside of this car door? Well, looking at your beautiful countryside out the window gives me the same amount of pleasure, no more and no less, as looking at the inside of this car door.”

Some things that may interest us simply don’t interest others. Race is one such. I find races interesting. Mr. Culbreath doesn’t. I think that may be all that’s going on here.

Just as my friend in that story wouldn’t be the proper one to ask about environmental or “green” issues, about which he cared nothing, Mr. Culbreath may not, I now realize, be the proper one to ask about race, about which he cares nothing, or seems not to. I won’t ask him again.

________________________

“If a tree falls and an expert doesn’t hear it, is there a sound?” Yes, the sweetest, most melodious sound in all creation: the sound of entropy being brought clanking, screeching, grinding to a halt.

________________________

I wonder if the idea that religion trumps race makes sense. Religion for example is the belief Jesus is the Savior. The believer and the nonbeliever each have a race. So the belief Jesus is the Savior is more important than the actual believer and nonbeliever?

“I wonder if the idea that religion trumps race makes sense. Religion for example is the belief Jesus is the Savior. The believer and the nonbeliever each have a race. So the belief Jesus is the Savior is more important than the actual believer and nonbeliever?”

What I mean is that the most significant and important thing about a person’s identity is his religion, not his race.

And about catholicism and ethnical identity,I think this constitutes problem with christian arabs,they are more interested in secular things than in religion,it affects situation in midle east.

I don’t expect I will agree with Big Brother’s view about race anytime soon, but who knows if I allow him to work on me. Big Brother seems to rely on the premise that race is a morally repulsive factor one ought not to consider in deciding what to do next. He might be right. I don’t have a syllogism to prove him wrong, not that we are governed by a philosophical construct in any event.

There is evidence to the contrary though. Birds of a feather flock together. Races segregate themselves. Races are manifestly different: they look different, act differently, and are intellectually different.

Is racial preference a base instinct such as theft, adultery, murder, or envy? Not that I know of. Maybe someone can make a case for the proposition that racial preference violates one of the Ten Commandments.

In any event, I would be delighted to hear rebuttals.

Lest anyone think I’m dodging Mr. Scrooby’s question, I should come right out and admit that I don’t think race is something that needs preserving for its own sake. Racial and ethnic groups change with every marital union. The pace and degree of change may be controlled by various means, but I think this sort of thing is best regulated by the families and individuals involved.

(Cue “Somali Bantu” immigration argument.)

Yes, about those Bantus. Let me just state for the record that the immigration of any people with formidable language, religion, and culture barriers - apart from an effective assimilation apparatus - is a bad idea. Unless, of course, there is a greater good involved, which is certainly possible (e.g., saving lives).

(Cue “But the Somali Bantus are unassimilable” argument.)

Yes, about assimilation. I don’t know enough about the Bantus to have good opinion, but I suspect that most human beings under 30 years of age, living anywhere in the world, are capable of enough assimilation to be functional in American society. Not perfect assimilation, but sufficient assimilation.

I’m an American, and America is a land with people from all over. That’s the America that greeted me from Day One, and I accept it for what it is. There’s nothing inherently good or bad about this. Racial “diversity” is neither strength nor, necessarily, weakness. What is important is that Americans of all races forge enough of a common culture to revive our civilization. If that is not possible on a national level, then it should forged on a local level, not along racial lines, but along religious and cultural lines.

… a direct answer. Sorry it took so long.

Christianity, as I understand it, does not forbid anyone from preferring one particular racial identity or taking “reasonable steps” to preserve that identity. The problem is that there is usually more to the question than this.

The Christian religion always goes to motive. Christ our King always asks, “Why?” I think this is where racialism usually breaks down. The Christian racialist will say only that he prefers, say, whites, because he is white himself, and that he believes races are good things in themselves and worthy of preservation just as they are. Good so far. But that really isn’t enough. Christianity doesn’t just say “Y has value”, it says that “Y has more value than X and less value than Z”. That is, to choose Y over Z would be wrong from a Christian point of view, and racial preservation, in the language of most racialists, usually involves just that.

So we are faced not just with the question of racial preservation as a value, but racial preservation as one value among many competing values. Christianity has something to say about this.

In the first two parts of that three-part response you said essentially that you weren’t interested in “race” or races as such. That’s OK. That’s legitimate—there are plenty of people who either don’t see races or just aren’t interested in them. We’re all made differently.

From the third part:

“Christianity, as I understand it, does not forbid anyone from preferring one particular racial identity or taking ‘reasonable steps’ to preserve that identity. […] The Christian [normal person may] say […] that he prefers, say, whites, because he is white himself, and that he believes races are good things in themselves and worthy of preservation just as they are. Good so far.”

That much I got. The rest of part three I didn’t understand but don’t repeat it. It’s OK. Let’s leave it at that …

Thank you.

________________________

“If a tree falls and an expert doesn’t hear it, is there a sound?” Yes, the sweetest, most melodious sound in all creation: the sound of entropy being brought clanking, screeching, grinding to a halt.

________________________

Schools all across the country are celebrating ‘National Inclusive Schools Week’ this week. But if anything should be banned from the schools, it is this invidious application of inclusion. It is one thing to be sensitive to students from diverse backgrounds, quite another to use the concept of inclusion as a weapon to censor true diversity.”
____

In Michigan’s historic Village of Franklin, they used to have a Holly Day Festival this time of year. But now they have progressed to calling it the Franklin Winter Festival. Why? Because as Les Gorback said (he is a prominent store owner who pushed for the name change), ‘Holly Day had the connotation it was strictly a Christmas holiday festival.’ Gorback said, ‘we wanted to try to make it more inclusive, so we changed the name.’ Why he didn’t simply move to cancel Christmas, he did not say.”
____

The latest Newsweek poll shows that 84 percent of Americans are Christian; Jews represent less than two percent. In other words, the U.S. is more Christian than Israel is Jewish (approximately 72 percent of Israelis are Jewish), yet it is Christmas, not Hanukkah, that is considered controversial to celebrate.”
________________________

“If a tree falls and an expert doesn’t hear it, is there a sound?” Yes, the sweetest, most melodious sound in all creation: the sound of entropy being brought clanking, screeching, grinding to a halt.

________________________

… it’s high time Christians pulled their children from public schools, and instead place them into religious or traditionalist private schools (or homeschool them)… Of course, these may not be viable options for all, but everyone should consider: sending kids to public schools means sending them into the hands of the anti-Christian elite, who will have them for about 6-8 hours a day (or whatever it is), and hence plenty of time to indoctrinate them with liberalism…

I’m assuming that most private and Roman Catholic schools (and Protestant schools, etc.) won’t have these crazy anti-Christmas attitudes, but of course, perhaps some of them might be infected, too… In any event, I do know a Christian couple who pulled their kids out of a Christian school, and sent them back into the public school system, since they were being taught gross theological errors in that particular Christian school, and they felt it was more damaging for their kids to be exposed to error which they might accept uncritically (given that it was a Christian school, and hence supposedly doctrinally sound), rather than the errors of the public school system, which, in their particular experience, were actually less bad than those they’d encountered in that Christian school, and moreover, they could more easily set their kids straight, since their kids would have a healthy skepticism, or willingness to check things out with their folks, knowing public education’s biases…

So, despite my first paragraph in this post, and despite my previous stated opinion some time ago, http://jkalb.freeshell.org/posts/board/messages//7.html here, I recognize there isn’t a one single right answer universally applicable, and that everyone will have to consider their particular situation, and decide accordingly.

VDARE’s War On Christmas 2004 Competition (IV), http://vdare.com/asp/printPage.asp?url=http://vdare.com/bevens/041209_ch… here.

No surprises, really; Abraham Foxman and his ilk in the ADL are anti-Christian bigots, plain and simple. They seem to think opposing anti-Semitism entails opposing public expression of Christianity…

http://vdare.com/asp/printPage.asp?url=http://vdare.com/francis/041309_w… Here.

(Thomas Fleming had some interesting comments, back in 2000, on the War on Christmas, and elevation of other festivals, http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/HardRight/HardRight122200.html here.)

It never stops. Some Christmas cheer. “The Passion” used as a lead in to a film about Hitler:

Snap Judgment: The Passion of the Fuehrer
Jerusalem Post
12/14/04
Calev Ben-david

Someone at the Tel Aviv Cinematheque either lacked good sense or has a sense of humor (or both) in deciding to schedule on December 24, Christmas Eve, the premiere public screening in Israel of Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ …what I find funny (disturbing, not ha-ha) is that I can hardly think of a ny movie less in the “Christmas spirit” this side of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre …continued here

Michael Medved made an observation yesterday on (Laura Ingraham’s radio show about the animonsity to the film. He said all the criticisms from many (antisemitic, not true to the Gospels, a “Chainsaw Massacre” etc) are insincere. It is loathed for one reason only: The Passion is pro-Christian. That alone is why it is being shunned for awards.e

When someone—not Will S.—a week ago sent me this same item that Mr. Kalb has allowed Will to link, I replied to my correspondent that there were no facts here, only a fragmentary report by one person writing one incomplete e-mail. I told my correspondent that he couldn’t repeat these claims as true, let alone call for a “Christian boycott of Boscov’s”— in the absence of more solid evidence. This was all the more so since the claim is extremely unlikely on the face of it. Does anyone really believe that a major department store simply banned all holiday cards using the word Christmas? It’s inconceivable, and I think any reasonably prudent and fairminded person would not accept it as true in the absence of established facts confirming it to be true.

Here is the entire e-mail on which the claim is based, and which apparently many people are simply accepting as true:

“Boscov’s displays gift cards for sale throughout the store. The Christmas gift card only says “Merry”, because any reference to the word “Christmas” is banned at Boscov’s. However, it is side-by-side with a “HAPPY HANUKKAH” card. Please encourage all Christians to boycott Boscov’s. Please help spread the word soon, as Boscov’s makes the bulk of their annual profits selling the very Christmas gifts they refuse to acknowledge.”

The first thing that leaps out is, does it make sense that Boscov would print cards that only say “Merry”? This frankly sounds like something concocted by a subnormal person, like something you’d expect to see if Monty Python made a movie about anti-Semites.

Pages