One area
where this particular form of irrationality is especially evident today
concerns our attitude toward our country.
The sober middle ground here is patriotism, and in previous articles I
have discussed what Socrates,
St.
Thomas Aquinas and Pope
St. John Paul II had to say about it. Chesterton too had something to say about it,
in his essay “A
Defence of Patriotism.”
One vicious
extreme here is what is today sometimes called “oikophobia,” which means a
hostility to one’s own home or country.
It is manifest in those who seem to see in their country and its culture
and history only undiluted evil – “systemic racism,” colonialist oppression,
and so forth. The point is not that
racial hatreds, colonial injustices, and the like have never existed. Of course they have. The point is that the oikophobe sees in his
country nothing but such evils. He sees
them even where they do not exist, ignores or puts a negative spin on the positive
aspects of his country, and so on.
The injustice
and ingratitude of such a mentality are repulsive, but in reacting against it,
many fall into an opposite extreme vice.
Chesterton saw this opposite extreme in the England of his day, and
characterized it as “a deaf and raucous Jingoism.” It was a patriotism of “fists and… boots”
that manifested itself in a “lust of territory,” celebrated “comparatively
material and trivial” achievements such as “trade, physical force, a skirmish
at a remote frontier, a squabble in a remote continent,” “fail[ed] to
appreciate other nations,” and showed a “lack of any generosity or delicacy” and
a “boasted indifference to the ethics of a national war.”
This sort of
crude chauvinism is exactly what too many who rightly object to woke oikophobia
have fallen into today. We see it in
those who cheer on the bullying of allies like Greenland and Canada, in the war
fever of those who rationalize poorly thought out and morally dubious military
adventures in Venezuela and Iran, and in those whose interest in securing our
borders reflects, not a concern with law and order, but an obsession with
ethnicity. It is as if these jingoists
want to confirm rather than refute the caricatures of the woke oikophobes.
Chesterton
argued that this low form of patriotism arises when people have not been given something
higher to celebrate. In the case of
England, he suggested, the educational system should teach children to
celebrate the nation’s achievements in areas such as “literature, science, philosophy,
and political eloquence,” rather than economic and military power. It is “this vast heritage of intellectual
glory” that ought to be “the chief boast of a people who have Shakespeare,
Newton, Burke, and Darwin to boast of.”
Chesterton
is usually insightful, but here I think he falls flat. One problem with his diagnosis is that many
nations lack higher cultural achievements of the kind he cites, yet their
people nevertheless do and ought to love their country just as much as
Chesterton rightly thought Englishmen should love theirs. Moreover, while it is no doubt true that
someone might love his country more fervently because of its cultural
achievements, it is arguably likelier that he loves those cultural achievements
because they are his country’s
achievements. That is to say, patriotism
is more the cause, rather than the effect, of the celebration of one’s own country’s
culture.
This is
natural and proper. For a nation is like
an extended family. With nations with
greater ethnic homogeneity the family analogy is more obvious, but even those nations
with greater ethnic diversity exhibit the same spirit, with different ethnicities
making up one national family by adoption, as it were. And the main reason you love your family is
that it is your family. When a family celebrates some achievement (the
success of a family business, say, or the number of its children who have gone
to college or done well professionally), it is not that its members love the
family because of these achievements.
Rather, they call attention to these achievements because they love
their family. Nations are like
that. Their peoples celebrate what they
celebrate – not only the country’s military and economic achievements, but also
its higher cultural achievements – because they love their country.
This brings
us to another problem with Chesterton’s analysis, which is that the distortion
of patriotism that is jingoism or chauvinism can also manifest itself in celebrations
of a country’s higher cultural achievements.
This happens, for example, when the emphasis is less on the actual content
of a nation’s literary, artistic, philosophical, or scientific achievements,
than on how inferior other nations are in this connection. Certainly one can imagine a jingoist of
Chesterton’s day being quite happy to boast of Shakespeare, Newton, Burke, and
Darwin, not because he understood or cared about their ideas, but rather simply
because it afforded an opportunity to put down nations who did not have similar
figures to boast of.
Contrary to
what Chesterton suggests, then, the problem is not primarily with what a nation’s people are taught to
celebrate, but with the spirit in
which they celebrate it. And the trouble
with jingoism is that it distorts proper love of country into what St.
Augustine called the libido dominandi
or lust for domination.
The family analogy helps us to see what true patriotism looks like. People naturally and rightly have a special love for their own families, but normally this does not lead them to despise or want to lord it over other families. This is precisely why different families can take an attitude of solidarity toward one another and see themselves as part of the larger whole that is the nation. In the same way, people naturally and rightly have a special love for their own country, but this need not and should not lead them to despise and want to lord it over other countries. Rather, countries can and should take an attitude of solidarity toward one another, as parts of what Pope Leo XIV calls the single “family of peoples” that is the human race as a whole.
Great Essay Prof
ReplyDeleteCheers
Norm
Thanks, Norm!
DeleteHe gives an example of a man delighting in skinning a cat as an empirical proof of Original Sin later in the book. The dimension of Original Sin he has in mind is more Genesis 6:5 than St Thomas.
ReplyDeleteThanks for this, Dr. Feser. If you've ever asked yourself whether or not Twitter is worthwhile, know that your Twitter fight w/ Matt Walsh over taking Greenland and the idea of nations as families was one of the turning points for me of recognizing my own jingoism. Not knocking Walsh--used to listen to him a lot. But my college oikophobia was knocked out by my 20s interest in Daily Wire-style conservatism, which is slowly, painfully, hopefully, being matured into a more level-headed Catholic point of view on these issues, and I appreciate your work.
ReplyDeleteCheers and God bless!
Very kind, Anon, thank you!
DeleteI second Anon
DeleteI conclude that as an American it is right and proper to wish everyone a Happy 4th of July. So Happy 4th of July....except for those sour-pusses!
ReplyDeleteJumping on @bmiller’s comment — I wanted to wish all our folks here a very Happy 4th of July! May God bless you and your great nation as we celebrate the freedom and independence that make America special.
DeleteQue Dios bendiga Portugal!
DeleteHappy Birthday, America, and many happy returns. Happy visit to all of the World Cup visitors, may you (in good time) return to your homelands with fervor for your nation and with admiration for what America does well.
DeleteMany good points, Professor. Thank you for this.
ReplyDeleteAlongside love of family, how does love of friends also model or serve as an analogy to love of one's country?
Let's set aside my usual complaint that the concept of "nation" or "country" remains vague and underdefined, and seems at best to be an unwarranted "is-ought" generalization based on a historical contingency—the modern nation-state.
ReplyDelete(Pardon me while I pause to come up for air.)
What Chesterton seems to be attempting to offer is a rational patriotism—one based on the nation's actual admirable qualities rather than its success at killing foreigners and despoiling the natural world (or some other immoral or irrational standard, like the purity of the race). What Dr. Feser offers with his familial take on nationality is, in effect, an irrational patriotism, based purely on a subjective feeling he has judged "natural and proper" because of the analogy to the family. I say "irrational," but this naturally depends on how compelling one finds the analogy between family and nation. If you thinks it's mainly imaginary, and have good historical and experiential reasons for holding that position, the analogy is going to be a tortured one, and "love of your country" ends up no more organic or real than "love of the Washington Commanders." Loving things that are lovely will always seem more rational to me than loving things that are yours. In God, as creator, these two are perfectly united.
For us mortals, I think oikophobia may be the safer option.
The "irrational patriotism" would be what Feser called "chauvinism", when tribal impulses override the rational deliberative process. Not exactly like the rational acknowledgement that we as human are social animals and part of a "extended family". No one would automatically become a Commanders fan simply by virtue of coming into existence. However, belonging to a specific human society—regardless of one's own will—occurs from the moment of birth.
DeleteI agree with Thurible that it is better to applaud the love of lovely things, and also that Chesterton did only a modest job of that. He could have pointed to much greater things than Shakespeare and Newton's achievements, e.g. the British movement to end slavery in the British Empire (and leading the charge to end it everywhere); the English development of law that binds kings and nobles (not that they did it alone, but they added to the development), eventually culminating in constitutional supremacy of the people's house in Parliament. Americans can applaud our development - almost without help - of the idea of subsidiarity; our historical generosity and openness to those of other lands (albeit with nuances lately).
DeleteBut what Thurible has missed is that the 2nd Great Commandment to love your neighbor is stated (explicitly) in terms of neighbors. God intends that you love those who are near you in a particular way that is different from loving all humankind. You can love all mankind as a generalmaterially aid and give affectionate kindness to all mankind, you are a finite being with finite attention and resources, so your good actions will be finite. You ought to enact loving actions toward your neighbors, who are close to you and from whom they can make a special claim on you BECAUSE OF their closeness. (This applies to all forms of closeness, not just physical: the closeness of family, of work associates, of neighborhoods, of civic associations, etc.) And with those ACTS of positive benefit to your neighbors (and their coordinate acts toward you, with gratitude now and with return kindness in due season) will (or at least normally will) engender feelings of affection as well as charity. THIS is the proper ground of that feeling of national spirit wherein you love "your people", i.e. those with whom you have a closer bond of affection, friendship, service, and common goals of an actual lived community.
The reality of the common good that exists in the polity is neither simply the material good of many physical goods, nor a "being of reason alone" that exists in the mind but not outside of the mind. It is a real thing that is constituted of a great many goods in proper ordination to the good of the community. It binds the community itself as a real being through the people for whom it serves as the ordering goal of their social natures.
Darn: should be "You can love all mankind in general as goodwill, but you CANNOT love all mankind as giving material aid and giving affectionate kindness to all mankind..."
DeleteI will add that although genuine oikophobes probably do exist (after all, furries are real, so anything is possible), most "woke oikophobes" (like me) would probably have no problem with the defintion of patriotism that Chesteron lays out. Plenty of liberals love baseball and Herman Melville and Duke Ellington and the Federalist Papers and the Chrysler Building (those are America's greatest cultural achievements, right?), and take issue only with figures they believe have been unjustly lionized despite their glaring moral failings (e.g. Andrew Jackson). The idea that woke liberals "hate America" is a delusion of the Right.
ReplyDeleteI've not infrequently encountered the notion that the U.S. is fundamentally tainted down to the root. The idea is that it was built upon literal slavery and then continued to be built upon the servile oppression of immigrant, colored, and native populaces. Hence, anything generally complementary of the nation has to turn a blind eye to these evils.
DeleteSo you can have your characteristically good American things, but it always comes with a mandatory helping of racism and oppression.
This position is, I submit, not the domain of fringe cranks but rather a common talking point among progressive activists and mouthpieces. If that's not hatred of country, it's at least a deep-seated resentment.
The idea that woke liberals "hate America" is a delusion of the Right.
DeleteWhile many might not "hate America" in so many words, the frequency of people in that category disavowing any "love of America" - often quite explicitly - is quite high. In my experience, when asked if they are patriots, quite a lot of them say no, outright, and while there are also quite a lot who say "yes", the typical yes answer is "yes, but". And the explanatory "but" not infrequently so erodes and erases the yes that you come away thinking not "oh good, they love America but wish her faults would be corrected," rather "they wish to be thought to love America while not being able to cite any aspect of America that they love." At least, that's my observation. If a person spends all of his political time voicing hatred of evils in America, (and, not infrequently, designating as "evils" things that aren't really evil), and no time at all noting what's right about America, just how plausible is it that they harbor any affection for America? Certainly no friendship could long endure such behavior.
“Love” does not entail blind obedience and ignorance. The country spoke well of ideals it has never lived up to. A patriotism that recognizes this and redoubles its efforts to achieve what is written, however, prickly, is not “hateful” but a commitment to its actual values.
Delete“I forgot to get napkins so I just wiped my hand on the American flag behind me”—the next Congresswoman from Upper Manhattan and the Bronx. Yes, oikophobia exists, and it exists in the very halls of Congress.
Delete“I would never wipe or joke about wiping my hands with the flag but I will vote for and endlessly support an adulterer, a world historically corrupt and racist man, fundamentally opposed to the better ideals of country” - 77m ‘Patriots.’ You can have it, folks.
DeleteThurible, I cannot fathom how you cannot blush while stating that woke liberals don't hate America. Perhaps you mean "not ALL woke liberals hate America", which would go without saying. But I am friends with many who self-identify as "woke liberals", and many of them absolutely want to burn it to the ground. They wish to write a new story. Ex nihilo. It cannot be tainted by the evil of a white past, so we must start from ash. And, somehow, some way, a phoenix will rise.
DeleteScruton and co have this dubious smell of immanent power politik about them. I think the grotesquery of some of sillier Leftist expressions has distracted from more important concerns. What should one do if one's national identity and national history appears essentially bound up with evil ideas?
ReplyDeleteFor example: Britain has been one of the most ardent and virulent anti-Catholic forces in history. Most of the wicked ideas came from Britain i.e. Empiricism, the Whig theory of History, Newtonian physics, and Darwinism. The French Enlightenment was largely British anti-Catholic ideas interpreted through a Deistic rather than Protestant lens. Likewise in the 19th century Britain supported virtually every anti-Catholic movement it could including Italian atheists. Why should a British Catholic--that is someone who holds Catholicism to be true--not condemn Britain, maybe even more strongly than a Catholic of another nation?
It is horrible to think of anyone as a terrible moral criminal, but is not there a special horror to find one's brother is such a criminal?
I didn't know that Newtonian physics (classical physics) was a "wicked idea."
DeleteThe very idea of "English" isn't per se contrary to Catholicism. As witness: Over 300 years the nation morphed from a base layer of Anglo-Saxons and ruling elite of Normans, into a country of Englishmen, while all parties held firmly to Catholicism. The overlaid opposition to the Catholic Church mainly came from an accident of dynastic moment for Henry which unfortunately provided him with a weapon in Protestantism, but the outflow of such concatenations is hardly the very essence of Britain. Britain could once again become Catholic without losing its British nature. The Ordinariate Catholics in Britain are not guilty of treason in coming over to Catholicism.
Delete@Anon, “classical physics” and the attitudes around it are indeed wicked ideas. On its own the former may just have been a bad idea, but it did not occur on its own.
Delete@Tony, I agree, but how much of that is because there is no inherent essential nature to “Britain” or any other nation at least in any way resembling natural kinds? The only thing I can see pointing to any essential nature is a prima facia intuition that any big change like that would have to be gradual and initially preserve other characteristics. So Britain could become a Catholic nation but it could equally become a Muslim, Jewish or Buddhist one*
*Here I am wondering if there is a confusion between “nation” and “culture” going on.
The question of whether there is a distinctly Catholic British national identity is a different one. There is of course but historically that was bound up with the Stewarts.
I am using Britain here as my stock example because I wanted to focus on the cultural/philosophical aspects rather than the legal/political ones most people think of. One could of course equally use the Soviet Union as an example. It would appear strange to say the Soviet Union should have just became Orthodox and carried on as it was (although plenty of Ex-Soviet military men apparently think exactly this.)
DeleteHistorically, a nation was considered to be "a people" that shared a common birth, but "common birth" was in really a sign of MANY commonalities, usually language, at least SOME history, and religion. In those days, it usually was a small-ish group (e.g. the city-states of Greece), but even 3000 years ago there were ways of looking at it that included larger groups: The Hebrews of Numbers was a million-strong, and the Greek city-states considered themselves independent, but yet ALL TOGETHER they were "the Hellenes", and they shared common gods and common language. There's room for some fluidity to the idea.
DeleteThe American enterprise put a formal stamp on a notion that was working its way out but had not yet flowered: subsidiarity. The small entity like the city can be a political reality at one level, AND be a partner with other cities in another political reality at a different level: the state or province. And the state can be a polity at one level, and yet a partner with other states at the federal level. Nobody needs to be as close to "all Americans" as he is close to "my fellow neighbors of Nashville". The long-range effect of these developments is that we have morphed the meaning of 'nation" to a vastly larger sphere of people, but not without some basis, if they share the same language, political history, and religion. The less they share together, the less SOLID is that nation: a truly polyglot group that shares no language, customs, history, or religion probably BETTER NOT pretend they comprise a single "nation", and the fate of regimes like Yugoslavia illustrate that. The concept is NOT infinitely elastic.
The fact that there's sorites problems in identifying the edges of these peoples doesn't mean that there's no such thing as different peoples. Nor that there's no such thing as a one people. But it does make managing them difficult.
A strange form of patriotism is when a nation celebrates achievements that are not compatible with each other. As when the french boast of both the catholic saint Joan of Arc and the anti-catholic french revolution, just because both were french. Unfortunately, this kind of patriotism seems to be very common.
ReplyDeleteI suspect that you have touched on a more egregious example, in the French, than is common among the nations, and this particular French schizophrenic mind-set it has always struck me as something that is a particular accident of their history combined with an (entirely common though indecent) pride in their greatest modern "achievement" of taking over all of Europe at gunpoint. They seem to have associated the success of Napoleon's armies with the special excellence of being French, attributed this to the unleashing of potential that the Revolution made happen, thus tying "the Revolution" into their "greatest achievement". What is especially odd is that they seem to have had this love affair with the Revolution's "success" in this sense even during the period of the restored monarchy, i.e. explicitly rejecting the principles of the Revolution but buying into its "benefits" anyway.
DeleteI dare say other nations have their own disturbed notes of discord in what they profess to love, given fallen human nature.
This world cup is a good example of patriotism. We see people of Norway, Scotland, Morocco, Paraguay etc. patriotically supporting their countries while not disrespecting other countries. The appreciation by world cup visitors for the U.S.A. puts American oikophobes to shame. Many of the teams knocked out of the cup have done their country proud. Tiny Cabo Verde played superbly against Argentina and won the hearts of neutral observers. The way that the U.S. team played when a man down against Bosnia-Herzegovina was also impressive. So far, and I realize that this could change, this world cup has been a paean to patriotism.
ReplyDeleteRight. Not least, though, BECAUSE the fans have (often) appreciated the excellences of the opposing side, and not touted their favorites by denigrating the other teams merely because they are other teams.
DeleteI completely agree, Tony. The event has also been a credit to the U.S.A, Canada, and Mexico, all of whom got through the group stages and then beat their first opponents in the knock-out round. Today, Canada were beaten by a side (Morocco) who reached the semi-finals of the last world cup. But Canada played positively and had plenty of scoring chances; kudos to them. Let's see how Mexico and U.S.A. do in their next matches.
DeleteI am rooting for Portugal,Siuuu!
DeleteBeen a big fan of Cristiano Ronaldo.
As a Portuguese I am obviously rooting for Portugal (although truth be said I have little hope), but boy seeing our coach singing our hymn drives me up the wall. His loyalty should be with his country, not ours; it's all so fake and gay.
DeleteI've never agreed with Chesterton on this point. The most fundamental problem is that he's mixing up phenomena with explanations for phenomena. Original Sin is NOT something we observe - *human evil* is the observable fact, and Original Sin is the Christian *explanation* for this fact. Mixing these up is a fatal intellectual mistake. After all, the existence of human evil is just as compatible with many other explanations - say, because we are made of the flesh of the wicked Titans (as in the Orphic myths), or that we evolved to be violent, or (following what I understand to be the best anthropological data) that we are naturally co-operative creatures whose violent/hierarchical tendencies are for the most part a pathological reaction to the invention of agriculture and civilization, as well as the problems that those inventions brought with them.
ReplyDeleteBut whether you agree with any of these ideas or not, my point is that this "impairment of our ability to understand the Natural Law" is not at all an observable fact. I repeat, it is a proposed explanation for an observable fact. That means it requires evidence to support it over and against other explanations for human evil. It does not just get to win by default unless disproven!
If I remember correctly, Chesterton didn't put it in as strong as terms as that. He said something along the lines of, "If anything in Christianity could be said to be empirically provable, it would be the doctrine of original sin." And he meant that in terms of our tendency to do evil, even though we "Know better." Chesterton often spoke against philosophies that didn't give alternate explanations for this aspect of humanity; rather, they denied it altogether, claiming that people are naturally good, and only did evil due to environment, and with enough education people would stop doing evil altogether.
Delete"After all, the existence of human evil is just as compatible with many other explanations" - let's look at them. And let's note that he himself has offered the definition "impairment of our ability to understand the Natural Law" (it is not a very good definition - our host has correctly used the word "obey" rather than "understand" - but it could be worse).
DeleteThe first one is "say, because we are made of the flesh of the wicked Titans (as in the Orphic myths)" - that's just the same doctrine of Original Sin. What is different is the explanation of it.
The second one is "or that we evolved to be violent" - again, it is an explanation for the Original Sin rather than a competing hypothesis. It is not the same kind of explanation, for it proposes a final cause rather than the efficient cause, but it is still an explanation.
And the third one is "or (following what I understand to be the best anthropological data) that we are naturally co-operative creatures whose violent/hierarchical tendencies are for the most part a pathological reaction to the invention of agriculture and civilization, as well as the problems that those inventions brought with them.". Yep, another explanation for Original Sin.
As we can see, we have no other hypothesis. Thus "But whether you agree with any of these ideas or not, my point is that this 'impairment of our ability to understand the Natural Law' is not at all an observable fact." is pointless. If you prefer, it can be a self-evident conclusion from observable facts. It makes no difference.
Also, it is interesting to see claims like "That means it requires evidence to support it over and against other explanations for human evil. It does not just get to win by default unless disproven!". One might almost bet on the time until the same "EXE" will insist that some hypothesis he likes wins unless it is disproven (and "disproven" here obviously means that "EXE" himself is made to agree that it is false - which is not something mere mortals can achieve with mere arguments).
In principle, there could also be bets on how soon "EXE" will show that "evidence" in his comment mostly means "whatever he likes" (or "whatever "experts" on his team like), but that time period is already over: the mention of "anthropological data" already indicates that.
MP,
DeleteFirst, it is false that I have ever simply asserted my beliefs to be true unless proven otherwise. Whenever I argue for my own beliefs, I present evidence for them. You are free to provide evidence that I am wrong in this regard and have in fact engaged in the behavior you criticize, but if you can't, then shut up, or prove yourself dishonest.
Second, it seems like you're operating with a ludicrously broad definition of Original Sin. This term does not simply mean "humans do bad things sometimes". Per the ordinary understanding of the term, "Original Sin" is the belief that Adam and Eve disobeyed God and thus lost Original Grace, and this is why we are inclined to do evil. You don't seem to understand that this is different from the mere fact that humans do evil things. The Orphic myth absolutely does not line up with Original Sin, it claims that evil comes from the body by its very nature and thus we require liberation from it into a purer, more spiritual state. Likewise, the claim that we simply evolved as violent savages is not a claim that we fell from grace through disobedience, and the idea that most human evil is a response to the Agricultural Revolution is most certainly not the same as claiming that we fell from grace through disobedience. Please define how you understand the term "Original Sin" if you want to use a non-standard definition.
Anon,
DeleteI'm afraid you're mistaken. Chesterton doesn't make the kind of qualifications that you do, he does in fact speak boldly about the topic. Quoting from "Orthodoxy, Chapter 2, The Maniac":
"[The ancient spiritual masters...] began with the fact of sin—a fact as practical as potatoes. Whether or no man could be washed in miraculous waters, there was no doubt at any rate that he wanted washing. But certain religious leaders in London, not mere materialists, have begun in our day not to deny the highly disputable water, but to deny the indisputable dirt. Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is *the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved*. Some followers of the Reverend R.J.Campbell, in their almost too fastidious spirituality, admit divine sinlessness, which they cannot see even in their dreams. But they essentially deny human sin, which they can see in the street."
Here, Chesterton does indeed say that Original Sin can be "proved", though it seems here that he's taking aim more at Liberal Christianity than atheism. Either way, it sure seems to me that he's engaging in the kind of mental confusion that I was talking about - confusing "humans do bad things" with Original Sin as if they were the same thing. Perhaps this is excusable as simple lack of clarity on the part of a popular writer, but in that case it becomes useless for the purposes that Ed wants to use it for in this column.
EXE,
DeleteThe context of Chesterton's quote makes it clear enough (on a charitable reading), that he is using synecdoche. In fact, I think there is a straightforwardly Chestertonian play on words going on: "Certain new theologians dispute original sin." That which is novel is denying that which is original, primordial, and foundational. If we were to pedantically press him, presumably he would admit that "original sin" is functioning as a stand in for sin in general.
Perhaps this constitutes, to your mind, a concession of your main point, and likewise, perhaps Christians themselves can fall prey to a careless misreading. But Ed himself can't be accused of this, because the part of Original Sin that he focuses in on is precisely our observable tendency to do obvious wrong and not the etiological origin or theological grounding for our sin.
I think we're making a mountain out of a molehill here.
And here we have it.
Delete"First, it is false that I have ever simply asserted my beliefs to be true unless proven otherwise. Whenever I argue for my own beliefs, I present evidence for them. You are free to provide evidence that I am wrong in this regard and have in fact engaged in the behavior you criticize, but if you can't, then shut up, or prove yourself dishonest." - what a thing of beauty!
First, we have your belief: "it is false that I have ever simply asserted my beliefs to be true unless proven otherwise".
Then it is restated: "Whenever I argue for my own beliefs, I present evidence for them.".
So, what is the evidence that you present for this belief? There is none. This alone proves that your assertion is false (as it demonstrates that sometimes you do make assertions without supporting them with evidence).
It also shows that you are untrustworthy (it alone does not show why you are untrustworthy; it might be that you are dishonest, or that you have a bad memory, or that you are inattentive - or, perhaps, that you are using an LLM trained on the writing of various atheists, for this often happens with the atheists).
This, in turn, means that one should not take any assertions you make seriously, unless you explicitly support them with evidence that does not rely on you as a witness.
Which should not be a great hardship, given how you insist that this should apply to everyone else, proudly claiming to do so yourself. Right? Right..?
If we look further, we see "You are free to provide evidence that I am wrong in this regard and have in fact engaged in the behavior you criticize, but if you can't, then shut up, or prove yourself dishonest.". Which, of course, is not easy to harmonise with your previous declaration "That means it requires evidence to support it over and against other explanations for human evil. It does not just get to win by default unless disproven!". For we can see that this is exactly the same way to argue that you so loudly denounced.
As for "Second, it seems like you're operating with a ludicrously broad definition of Original Sin. This term does not simply mean "humans do bad things sometimes"." and the rest, I pointed out that I was using the definition you yourself provided in your own comment.
And, of course, let's note the lack of evidence presented to support the belief that this definition is "non-standard".
OK then, I'm not sure I completely buy it, but for the sake of argument I will concede that Chesterton may well be using mere wordplay here. But I still think I can take Ed to task for this same confusion. The same issue applies to his usage: Original Sin is not data - human evil is the data. OS is the proposed explanation, the hypothesis, if you will. It's meant to tell us *why* humans do bad things are find good difficult. Just pointing out that people do evil cannot provide us with any reason to think that Original Sin is true.
DeleteThe examples Ed uses are also poor and completely unsourced - he claims that people "tend to go to one extreme or the other", but is this really true? Do people really tend towards either gluttony or health fanaticism? Do people really tend towards either drunkenness or being teetotalers and scolds? This claim seems unlikely - surely it's more probable that most people are somewhere in the middle, like it is in most cases? Ed hasn't actually provided any data to show that people tend towards extremes. This is all simply asserted as true. Honestly, I'm not sure how you could prove Original Sin to be true, short of proving that the Book of Genesis is at least substantially true (regardless of how literally you want to read it, at the very least its story about humans being created good and then being brought to a lower state because of disobedience would have to be literally true). And not only does that seem basically impossible, I'd even say there's significant textual evidence against such a reading.
For one thing, nothing in the story ever suggests that Adam and Eve were created immortal and lost that state. In the story itself, YHWH says to them that "in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die". The language used in this sentence is used elsewhere in the Bible, and every other time it means that the thing being spoken of will happen immediately, at once, or at least very soon. The verb used is "tamut", which simply means to physically, bodily die in the ordinary sense. Far and away the most natural reading of this line is "if you eat that fruit, you will instantly, bodily, physically die". As far as I can tell, nobody ever interpreted it differently until Philo of Alexandria's allegorical re-interpretation in the first half of the first century CE. So, it seems like even this type of reading of Genesis is a later innovation, rather than what was understood by the original authors - and that's quite apart from the impossibility of trying to prove that any such thing actually occurred. You can hold it as a position of pure faith if you wish, but then it can't have any purchase on anyone who doesn't buy into the same credences that you do.
Wow, you’re finally realizing that later readings of biblical passages influence our interpretation of the original stories? Lemme tell you what St. Paul was doing in Romans…
DeleteEXE,
DeleteAre we reading the same thing? Ed is not making a substantive post about Original Sin and how empirically verifiable it is. He's using Chesterton's quip as an introduction - a hook, if you will - to the idea that human beings have a common tendency to fall into vices by excess or deficiency, and that this tendency is often manifest in relation to one's own nation. That's it. Ed literally doesn't mention Original Sin in any place in his post aside from his reference to Chesterton's quote.
And my point about synecdoche applies as much to Ed as it does to Chesterton. Even if he opens by mentioning Original Sin, the part he considers relevant here is just the fact that humans tend to do wrong, that we can fail to see or can easily rationalize it, and that even when we do know it's wrong, we often act against our better judgment. This corresponds to concupiscence, darkening of the intellect, and weakening of the will, which are classic consequences of Original Sin. So to reiterate, Original Sin as such and in its totality is not what is being discussed here (either by Chesterton or by Ed), as any reading done with basic care and charity will uncover.
In terms of the examples Ed uses, I think they are largely unobjectionable so long as we take care to give due credit to the work the word "tend" is doing here. A person can tend toward gluttony without being an outright glutton. They can tend toward being a scold without constantly berating others. It's the simple reality that we are usually more inclined to deviate from the mean in one direction rather than another, and many (though not necessarily most) do in fact allow that tendency to land them firmly in the realm of vice. The test for this reading over yours is that on your account, Ed would have to be claiming that most people are either oikophobes or jingoists. It would be a practical denial of a middle ground between these two vices. Yet it is precisely this middle ground that he is trying to shore up. So as long as we understand that all he is claiming is people usually tend one way or the other, I don't see what the problem is.
Lastly, in terms of your reading of Genesis, both the word "tamut" as well as the word "yom" have, at least based upon Strong's concordance, extremely wide and varied ways of being translated. If you want I could copy the list of different translations here. But seeing as it would be a massive comment, I will refrain unless asked.
Suffice it to say, the notion that "every other time it means that the thing being spoken of will happen immediately, at once, or at least very soon," is massively overblown. Not to mention the fact that in a story filled with much symbolic imagery and language (that is, in precisely the kind of context you will be most likely to find the stretching of terms and ideas), the idea that we must translate it in the most literal and wooden way, even if it makes complete nonsense out of the narrative...well let's just say it doesn't have much going for it. So while I notice you couldn't resist the urge to sneer about pure faith (tendency toward vice, anyone?), the committed irrationality of the reading you propose doesn't leave me much inclined to prefer your approach.
"When we aren’t gluttonous, we tend to become overly fixated on dieting and healthful eating. When we aren’t drunkards, we often become prigs who scold even those who drink in moderation. And so on."
ReplyDeleteData, please. I would like some actual research to back up this claim. Is it actually true that people have a strong tendency towards one extreme or the other? Or do most people stay in the middle on most topics? You can't prove that something is true merely by asserting it, Ed! I would also like evidence for this statement:
"For a nation is like an extended family"
What conception of nation are you using here? What is it based on? Does that conception actually measure up to observable reality? Again, you are simply declaring things to be true as if that had any effect on reality. For instance, does the anthropological data on how national or ethnic groups emerged actually back up this conception? Or does it contradict it? Without knowing this, your claims are based on nothing more than vibes. I expect better, Ed.
Such a focus on a throwaway line really shows the weakness of your argument. As for the latter point, I invite you to do a little research on the Aristotelian claim.
DeleteI certainly do not expect better from you.
Do you even understand what criticism is? I am not making an argument here. I am pointing out flaws with Ed's argument - namely that it relies heavily on unsupported assertions. I do not need to "make an argument" in order to point out the problems with someone else's argument. If you don't understand that, then you are totally unqualified to engage in this conversation.
DeleteFurthermore, how on Earth could the definition of a nation be a throwaway line, when the subject of the argument is patriotism and what forms of it are acceptable vs unacceptable? We literally cannot discuss the topic without knowing what a nation is, so calling it "throwaway" is ridiculous.
What is “ridiculous” is your failure to understand that in most circumstances foundational principles are assumed. Nobody here is interested in arguing them with you, because they are not the subject of this column. Sheesh.
Delete"I do not need to 'make an argument' in order to point out the problems with someone else's argument." - of course you do. And you do, only badly.
DeleteLet's take this criticism "I am pointing out flaws with Ed's argument - namely that it relies heavily on unsupported assertions." and make the argument in it more explicit:
1. [That argument] "relies heavily on unsupported assertions". (premise)
2. If an argument "relies heavily on unsupported assertions", it is a bad argument. (premise)
3. [That argument] is a bad argument. (from 1, 2)
See? It was an argument. Now, of course, it is not a very good argument, for "it relies heavily on unsupported assertions", and thus is self-undermining.
In fact, insisting that an argument with unproved premises is necessarily bad famously leads to total skepticism. I think it is Sextus Empiricus that ends up showing that then we can get one of three cases:
1. Infinite regress (premise in one argument is proved in the second argument, which relies on a premise proved in the third, and so to infinity).
2. Circularity (at some point an argument relies on a premise proved using its conclusion).
3. An axiom (not supported by an argument).
And none of those cases is acceptable if an argument with unproved premises is necessarily bad.
So, should I now add "If you don't understand that, then you are totally unqualified to engage in this conversation."..?
(How does one manage to make such silly blunders as this? Isn't it obvious that claiming one's opponent is "totally unqualified to engage in this conversation" is likely to backfire, unless one is extremely careful?)
And "Furthermore, how on Earth could the definition of a nation be a throwaway line, when the subject of the argument is patriotism and what forms of it are acceptable vs unacceptable?" is silly, for that line was not a definition. It was "For a nation is like an extended family.". Here "like" clearly indicates that this is not a definition, but rather an analogy.
Is that another place for "If you don't understand that, then you are totally unqualified to engage in this conversation."?
"Men did not love Rome because she was great. She was great because she was loved." -- G.K. Chesterton
ReplyDeleteYou read EXE's posts and think "I bet you would love some fresh air".
ReplyDeleteEd, I suggest really thinking through your use and adoption of right wing tropes like ‘woke’ - a hijacking of culture term to signify everything the right hates about the left. Putting “systematic racism” in quotes is also ridiculous man. That is a fact - look at the laws on the books, study how people were marginalized. Slavery was a system and its abolition made many of the systems indirect. This is not disputable and makes me really question your motivations for this piece .
ReplyDeleteIs Patriotism a predetermined conclusion that the ‘bad’ parts of your country’s history - that still reverberate- cannot be acknowledged? You have to put it in opposition to celebrating the country’s ‘achievements’ - one of which, theoretically, would be, *legally* ending the discrimination that was present since its inception? It is NOT a manifest contradiction that this country spoke so highly of equality while viciously subjugating an entire people? Frederick Douglas’s “What to the slave is the 4th of July” remains prescient.
Until this country can look at itself honestly, correct its vile wrongs, the jingoism, that you do cite, IS most of these celebrations amount to. Here, again, it is not the people critical or pointing out the contradictions but the Right wing who use Patriotism as cudgel. 250 years to come back to gutter racism, corruption beyond anything the country - even in the worst of times-has ever seen, and a King, essentially anointed by the SC. What exactly is unpatriotic about heeding the call to live up to the values this country praises itself on AND not forgetting the actual schism that was its start? Why are we back to giving all power to one person, who daily, corrupts the entire govt and uses it like his personal toy? The impulse to hand wave away all this is ridiculous to me. Patriotism doesn’t have to be learned blindness.
If you fault Ed for falling for right-wing tropes, he can fault you for falling for left-wing tropes. The notion that we are closer to a king than we were under Woodrow Wilson or FDR is patently absurd.
DeleteUnfortunately, I don't think you'll get a sympathetic hearing here, anon. Feser is Right-Wing, and the commentariat is even worse. I fully expect that you'll get a bunch of responses echoing White Grievance talking points. Prove me wrong, chatters.
DeleteYou easily represent the “worse” of the commentariat, EXE.
DeleteHey Anon, when was the last time Wilson or FDR put up golden statues of themselves? Or put their faces and names on everything up to and including the money? Was the Supreme Court as accommodating to them as it has been to Dear Donald?
DeleteWhat, pray tell, do I have to do with Trump?
DeleteAnon,
Delete"What exactly is unpatriotic about heeding the call to live up to the values this country praises itself on AND not forgetting the actual schism that was its start?"
Extremely impressed you captured the critical essence in one question, well done. I will be equally impressed if you get an intelligible answer to it. The fact three "conservative" SCOTUS judges openly support rewriting the 14th Amendment via an executive order is a full repudiation of the ideals they pretend to cherish.
I am curious, Step 2: what do you think the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is supposed to mean?
DeleteLet's give an example: a French couple is visiting America, wife is 7 months pregnant. She has a health emergency, delivers the baby boy. After 2 weeks in the hospital, all is well and they all go home. 25 years later, they all come to America again for a short visit, and this time the federal government lands on the young man for NOT HAVING REGISTERED FOR THE DRAFT. And for not having filed tax returns and paid income taxes (US citizens are taxed on their worldwide income.)
Does he, or does he not, have a defense in saying "but I am not subject to the laws of the US, I am a French citizen"? (Note that US doesn't care whether some other country considers you a citizen there, your citizenship here depends solely on US law and the root facts. Lots of people are US citizens while other countries consider them a citizen there.)
I doubt 1 person in a 100 would say he has to register for the draft and pay back taxes (with interest and penalties) on his income, because he is a US citizen and has no such defense. So: why?
Hi Tony,
DeleteJurisdiction is based on jus soli; a principle codified in English common law since the 1600's, as was mentioned in the majority opinion. No thought experiment is going to change actual history or bedrock precedent. To directly respond to your question; a natural-born citizen in that situation would have to renounce his citizenship to escape his obligations. Failing to do so means he is in clear violation of the law and his responsibilities.
I agree that originally jurisdiction was based on jus soli. I note that this principle was itself modified by later laws and practices. In addition, the law treated as if absolute sowed the seeds of its own demise.
DeleteIt was already more or less understood that the son of an ambassador for the king, born on foreign territory, was to be an English subject. In 1350 Edward III extended the concept beyond ambassadors to any situation where both the mother and father were English subjects. In 1708 Britain changed the rule so that it depended only on the father, and in 1772 they extended it to a second generation born on foreign soil.
In all of this, the typical English monarchical arrogance was only concerned with extending and claiming the allegiance of such persons, and ignored the fact that this rule, if LEAVING INTACT the original jus soli law for everyone else, meant that a person could be claimed as subject by two crowns. If France had the exact same rules, and a boy was born to French subjects while traveling in England, the French crown would claim him and the English crown would. And both demand sole allegiance.
This is obviously impossible to give, and if something is literally impossible, true law cannot truly demand it. Thus the RULE must, necessarily, be taken to be modified. It notionally would be possible to simply go back to the original stance and just say, for absolutely EVERYONE, that you are subject based on where you were born, NO exceptions, but the development over the centuries proved WHY that rule was inappropriate. (For one thing, sometimes the king's own son might be born on foreign soil.) But the most central reason is the reason WHY Edward and Parliament modified the rule: you are NATURALLY going to feel allegiance to the king your parents give allegiance to. This bedrock fact is - obviously - more important than mere the location for where you were born, and it represents the natural law on the matter. Jus soli was merely a very good approximation of the natural law, in a time when most people were serfs and most people didn't travel 50 miles from home in entire their lives. It shouldn't ever have been understood to be absolute, and the adjustments in law shows attempts to fix the matter.
I have no doubt that there is a perfectly muddy muddle in the jurisprudence on this matter, but I can also guarantee that in practice there was hardly ever a full carry-through of prosecution against a person being (as you offer) "in clear violation of the law and his responsibilities" when the only connection they ever had to a place was their parents (short) visit to the place. And by the way, at least early in the period, there was no such thing as "renouncing citizenship", it wasn't held to be possible for someone subject to the king to simply renounce that. Jus soli (as then conceived) simply didn't have room for that.
Given that the rule of jus soli was NOT absolute, and hadn't been thought of as absolute since (at least) 1350, none of the Founders would have understood it to be absolute. It is a proper place for positive law to not only declare what the common law is, but to clarify ambiguities in the common law. The common law doesn't need clarification for the ordinary cases but it needed clarification for exceptional cases. And this is exactly the situation which would otherwise result in parents and their baby being subject to different laws and nations.
I don't think the Framers - any more - held the belief that it is impossible to renounce being subject to the British king.
Aside from my clarification about jus soli and common law above, I want to commend Step2 for being willing to bite the bullet and accept the extremely unpalatable (but internally consistent) position that the French young man outlined just is a US citizen and has to accept the consequences.
DeleteWhat, do you think, is the best way to understand the 90+ % of the other people who broadly agree with the jus soli concept and the SC's ruling, and yet who would NOT countenance the demand that the French young man suffer the consequences for not having fulfilled his obligations as a US citizen? Are they more to be considered unprincipled in wanting their cake and eating it too, or is better to think that they have sight of a larger principle than that of jus soli on its own?
If a prosecutor uses discretion to not pursue a charge in a particular instance that doesn't mean the law itself has been removed, nor the obligations under the law. If you want to change the amendment to some new reading divorced from the history and debates surrounding it, it should be done through the amendment process.
DeleteFurther, pointing to contradictory outcomes between the laws of different nations is absurd. Every nation's laws have a distinct historical grounding, claiming natural law somehow invalidates such contradictions implies there can never be national laws.
some new reading divorced from the history and debates surrounding it, it should be done through the amendment process.
DeleteI GAVE some of that history surrounding the application of jus soli. It's not unitary and absolute.
Further, pointing to contradictory outcomes between the laws of different nations is absurd.
Many nations have a jus soli position of one form or another. But that's not my point. My point was to use the possibility that other nations simply having the same absolute rule you claim would produce absurdities, and law SHOULDN'T harbor absurdities. It is possible that the amendment just plain had that absurdity, but the HISTORY of Britain's laws doesn't make that conclusion the only logical possibility.
If you want to change the amendment
It does appear that due to the SC's ruling, this is the only pathway left to instill some sense into the matter. I propose a law that raises the stakes by clarifying that it is grave child abuse for parents to knowingly make an infant a citizen of the US by birth when they are here illegally, meriting long prison sentences, and that their act of claiming the rights of that citizenship for the child (e.g. the right to stay in the US) constitutes definitive grounds for separation from the child, as they cannot possibly raise the child to properly understand true allegiance to the US that they have invaded and abused for personal gain. Perhaps
a prosecutor uses discretion to not pursue a charge in a particular instance
or, perhaps not. Or they can, on his behalf,
renounce his [US] citizenship to escape
the just and natural consequences of their harmful actions.
Glad you demonstrated how Christian charity and family values react when over a century of black-letter law is affirmed.
DeleteI wonder if there were any people the South considered to be immigrants illegally smuggled into the country who they wanted quickly deported, or if the text of the amendment settled that current dispute. I guess we'll never know the answer to that mystery and should instead rely upon an allegiance test to the crown and head of a national church found nowhere in the text.
It isn't Christian charity to violate laws for your personal benefit. It is part of Christian charity to uphold laws - through enforcement and punishing violations - for the general welfare and the common good.
DeleteWhen presenting a scenario of enforcing the law upon a natural-born citizen you stated it would be unpopular and unpalatable to do so. Because of that aversion to enforcement you built this narrative about ways to fix the law that removes its core premise. All that is needed is to uphold the law; the dilemma you created is immediately solved by doing so.
DeleteLet me ask a different question: suppose that Congress proposed an amendment to the Constitution along the lines that (I urge) would repair the nonsensical aspect of this current reading of the 14th. Make it narrow if you want (e.g. children born to parents here illegally, or here only as visitors, are not citizens.) Or make it more expansive, if you like, e.g. children are subjects of the same nation and governments their parents are subject to. etc.
DeleteAnd suppose it goes to the states as referendum. Would you vote for such an amendment, or against it? And why?
Obviously, I would tend toward voting for it, as my arguments above show why. I think it is morally and naturally incoherent to have a child considered to, and required by law to, hold an allegiance different from that of his parents, and yet have him be raised by those parents here illegally and thus in manifest defiance of our laws, parents who reject the very same common good that the child is supposed to support.
If it is true that the SC ruling correctly identifies what the 14th says and what it meant to its framers and those who approved it, then it's a flawed law and needs repair.
I would vote against it. As my own arguments have stressed I think the amendment settled the floor criteria for being a citizen and was deliberately placed as a new pillar of civil rights sealed by the blood of war. It notably does not establish a ceiling which may include other factors; including allegiance oaths. However, even under the alternative principle of jus sanguinis there is a grounding in a physical fact instead of an explicit allegiance test. So I find this obsession with a feudal society's historic oath of perpetual fealty to be very dubious. I have other reasons related to the current administration to suspect an allegiance test would be cover to broadly revoke citizenship.
DeleteGoing back to the jurisdiction issue, saying someone is outside of US jurisdiction would grant immunity for crimes committed here, as it does for diplomats, which seems to be the polar opposite of what you want to happen. So good luck attempting this strategy in a courtroom.
"...then it's a flawed law and needs repair."
By virtue of being an amendment it was meant to be difficult to change. I have no quarrel with the attempt if done through the amendment process but allowing it to be removed by an executive signature is at odds with the entire Constitutional framework. Referencing the title, I can legitimately say it is my patriotic obligation to uphold that framework.
In the abstract interest of fairness I will provide a scenario where all my instincts would reject the legal requirements. For the infamous trolley problem I have previously argued the circumstances require the lever be pulled to reduce the amount of harm, comparing it to medical triage. Yet under a legal lens it is a clear case of murder. I don't go around insisting the laws for murder be rewritten because of a horrible outcome where multiple more people would wind up dead. There is legal logic and there is moral justification, and those two are rarely in perfect alignment; it is hubris to believe they should be.
OAPoliceJuly 5, 2026 at 3:22 AM
ReplyDelete@Anon, “classical physics” and the attitudes around it are indeed wicked ideas. On its own the former may just have been a bad idea, but it did not occur on its own." You just re-stated your bizarre comment without explaining it.
You’re a disappointment, my friend. All you ever talk about is society, order, and the death penalty. You don’t question civilization at all—and that stems from Aristotle’s lousy political philosophy: accept the given world as it is, then just keep writing. A philosopher is a questioner; they get to the root of the matter. You have a superficial understanding that assumes you can set things right through political reforms. Family, nation, homeland! You’re the real chauvinist. What you've written about arguments for the existence of God is really helpful, but your social and political views are utterly useless. Take care...
ReplyDeleteThe wisdom of this comment is obscured by a superficial and genuinely stupid take on Aristotle.
DeleteHoo boy, "Take care..." with the nice ellipsis at the end...such a nicely veiled threat! If that's not the mark of doom, I don't know what is.
DeleteFor others who might read his comment: Natural law philosophy, whether Aristotelian or not, doesn't simply assume society, family, nation. It starts with man, reasons to the nature of man, and finds that nature is a social nature. With the (obvious, but still reasoned to) conclusion that man is also rational (unlike other social animals), this implies that man finds fulfillment - thriving - by reason of, with and in relation to, others. That leads to communal goods in addition to personal goods, and from there you necessarily have communities, i.e. societies. None of this is merely assumed.
If you want to dispute the arguments for these, that's all well and good, have at it. Let's not have a straw man projected just so you can have the delight of lighting it on fire.
corruption beyond anything the country - even in the worst of times-has ever seen,
DeleteWhile I have doubts about some of what Anon here has said, I don't much doubt this. I will only note that Trump and people working with him have only STARTED to uncover some of the corruption that was institutionalized in the last 50 or 60 years, there's LOTS more to uncover. The Republicans and Democrats both contributed to the corruption, but I have yet to see solid evidence the Republicans as a whole did it on the scale and institutionalized basis that the Dems did it: The Dems had the education systems and the media systems wholly in their pockets for those decades, and the manipulation involved is just built into the fabric of these. You might think that the Repubs have the moneyed classes and corporations helping them just as much, but this isn't in fact what has happened: for every Koch there is a Soros, and there are 4 times as many huge corporations that pushed the woke agenda as ones that rejected it - because (at least, in part) their corporate heads were edupropagandized in the liberal establishment universities. There's corruption, alright, but anything achieved by Trump in this is dwarfed by what the Dems have done. Which is not to say Trump is to be excused: truly corrupt politicians should go to jail, from whatever side of the aisle. (Of course, Trump was really a life-long Democrat whose party moved too far leftward for him, so...take that into account.)
Amazing, Tony. The right wing and its ‘intellectual’ class continue the same base form: reclassify political defeat and decency as ‘institutional’ corruption. The same people that scoff at institutional racism see plenty of evidence of institutional corruption from Dems. Terminally incapable of honesty - just equivocating literal, actual corruption of the govt - theft, grifting, bribery, self-dealing-.with the fact that *some* Democratic policies were successful. I’m amazed at how your worldviews are nothing but this: Criminalizing any ideological difference so you can claim its success is corruption. The world is against you and not for good reason -because it genuinely disagrees with your gross ideology- but because it ‘illegally’ captured institutions.
DeleteWhere is your evidence?
Bogus trials by this DOJ ( seashells Comey, nonsense Real estate prosecutions, PARDONING rioters and those attempting election tampering, successfully corrupting broadcast license - mergers approved because they’ve paid fees, free plane from Qatar, no bid Pentagon Defense contracts to family members, rerouting funds from non-partisan foundations to partisan ones, extracting cash payments from Universities, endless prosecutorial misconduct with grand juries, and on and on). Show me the evidence of this scale of democratic corruption. Show me instead of these promissory notes of it ‘coming out’ - which like the Epstein files, are just morsels these people throw at you so you spin these lies to yourselves as truths. Show me the volcanic Democratic corruption that is just not you and the right wing upset that everyone else is ‘woke.’
You folks really live in a bubble - I suppose the reason more Republicans have been convicted in schemes over the past decades is not because they commit more of these crimes but because the ‘establishment’ is against them, right?
No wonder the majority of you still hate the Civil Rights movement- this is how you reclassify it - as some crime against you rather than the affirmation of equality of all US citizens. My god man. Here, in the flesh, a literal example of the stories you tell yourselves.
The CRA was abominable and unconstitutional.
DeleteI marvel at how often this particular Anonymous gets my position flat wrong. I don't equate Democratic political successes, where they get their policies enacted into law, as "corruption", I reserve that for actions that are taken outside of and AGAINST law. Laws were passed that illegal aliens were not eligible for various federal subsidies, and yet THEY GOT those subsidies under Dem guidance of the programs. This is just one example of many.
DeleteIt used to be the case, a bare few decades ago, that a political appointee testifying before Congress had to answer, and answer truthfully, or suffer consequences. Now it is commonplace that they can refuse to answer or can lie and never face any consequences. I believe both Repubs and Dems do it now, but that it took hold during the Obama admin and was extended to essentially a farcical extent under Biden, to the point where Biden Atty Gen. Merrick Garland could tell Paul Bunyanesque stories and walk away with his job intact. I would like to see BOTH parties' congressmen agree to force these people (regardless of whose party they belong to) to answer the questions or be declared in contempt of Congress, and if found lying, to go to jail for perjury. As happened once in a while before (see: Ollie North). Trump appointees who lie to Congress should go to jail, too.
That Anonymous (Anonymous the Locally I and IV) does not use the word "corruption" as meaning "bribery".
DeleteHe means something that desecrates, harms, endangers "Their Democracy" (which is suspiciously similar to their side having more power).
So, he is horrified by "PARDONING rioters", when they are the Trump's supporters who entered the Capitol on January 6, but not at all horrified when rioters are supporters of BLM, and thus on his side.
This is an example of why at least some Jan 6 prosecutions were wildly extreme over-reach and needed to be reversed. This kind of thing gravely damages confidence in the prosecution of other cases.
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sU9eBjstPhA
Tony,
DeleteI think Anonymous July 7, 2026 at 8:52 AM hates you as much as he hates her. I suspect he thinks she should have spent the rest of her life in the gulag.
If the rioters were BLM, they would’ve been shot and killed and the entire right wing would be writing stories justifying it instead of rewriting history. The capitol cops would be heralded as heroes instead of being vilified.
DeleteYour constant and silly equivocations remain evidence of your ideology first, principles, logic and values ( BASIC effing decency) LAST, approach to everything. BLM, by and large were not ‘rioters’ and did not rush a capitol building, deface and defecate in the place, and kill police officers. Your only response to corruption is to create symmetries where none exist, NEVER, to fix and deal with your issues.
Again, evidence. Show me the comparable storming of a Capitol building by “BLM”’ and the subsequent overturning of prosecutions in mass of them. Show me - not make up some equivalence.
In fact, what mostly happens is that killer cops and civilians become right wing celebrities and Racists raise millions in Gofundmes from you - all the while STILL acting as if they’re oppressed because people dare call them the horrible humans they are.
No, when I mean corruption I mean corruption.I don’t need to equivocate.
“I think Anonymous July 7, 2026 at 8:52 AM hates you as much as he hates her. I suspect he thinks she should have spent the rest of her life in the gulag.”
DeleteLaughable. I will repeat myself: the hatreds that define your lives are not symmetrical and do not have some necessary opposite on the ‘other side.’ Sorry, but I don’t wake up hating like y’all.
Further, context: in a different conversation, I would rail against the carceral system in general in this country as it is discriminatory, and does more harm than good - it creates more hardened criminals, than repentant people. It is a “woke” position that you and your ilk would argue vociferously against. Irony.
So, yeah, in a better world, the ignorant morons that stormed the Capitol wouldn’t just be “jailed for
Life” but that doesn’t mean their crimes would be blanket pardoned and they be paid for it either. They were tried and sentenced within the bounds of the law. They committed the crimes they were charged with and should serve their sentence. This is not hard, nor controversial- the only issue is that the thugs were not “BLM” so suddenly you all have questions about aggressive prosecutions.
If you were consistent, you’d be calling out the current DOJ on their frivolous lawsuits and aggressive prosecutions of protestors and reporters who dare report on ICE, for example. People that have done less than every single pardoned J6er getting FBI visits. But you’re all going to pretend you give a sht about prosecutorial overreach. Give me a break.
Your hypocrisy is never more obvious than in these pathetic deflections.
If the rioters were BLM, they would’ve been shot and killed
DeleteIf only the pesky facts supported this. Of the thousands of BLM rioters over several riots, 9 were killed in the demonstrations, and of those, all but 1 were killed by fellow citizens, not by police.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/31/americans-killed-protests-political-unrest-acled
"Again, evidence. Show me the comparable storming of a Capitol building by 'BLM' and the subsequent overturning of prosecutions in mass of them. Show me - not make up some equivalence." - specifically "of a Capitol building"? Why?
DeleteWouldn't it be because the thing you care about is "Your Democracy", just as I have pointed out?
After all, "BLM" rioters did attack some other buildings (some private, some belonging to the government). Usually the reason why they were not pardoned was that nothing bad happened to them.
"If the rioters were BLM, they would’ve been shot and killed and the entire right wing would be writing stories justifying it instead of rewriting history. The capitol cops would be heralded as heroes instead of being vilified." - I wish we were as united and powerful, as you seem to imagine... Maybe we will be at some point.
"No, when I mean corruption I mean corruption.I don’t need to equivocate." - did anyone say you were equivocating? I have pointed out that you have used the word "corruption" in a sense that is unexpected given the context. Specifically, if one talks about a politicians, "corruption" usually means taking bribes. The examples of "corruption" that you gave were mostly something else. And you didn't even contradict me on this point.
"Further, context: in a different conversation, I would rail against the carceral system in general in this country" - yes, certainly.
"It is a 'woke' position that you and your ilk would argue vociferously against. Irony." - on the contrary, here we are consistent and you are also consistent (although we are right and you are wrong).
You are consistent, for the "normal" criminals are on your side, while the ones who were prosecuted for the events of January 6 were on the other side, "counterrevolutionaries". So, you naturally support the criminals and attack the "counterrevolutionaries".
It was not different in the Soviet concentration camps. There the Soviets were also on the side of criminals and against political prisoners.
We are also consistent, for we do not value "Your Democracy" as you do, and do not see an attack on it (as such) as all that bad. We do hold private property to be far more sacred, and therefore we see looting as much worse than the trespassing in Capitol endangering "Your Democracy".
"Your hypocrisy is never more obvious than in these pathetic deflections." - "hypocrisy"? And "deflections"?
I get an impression that you have not actually read our comments to learn what we think or claim to think, but only to look for fragments that could be recognised as something you have already seen attacked...
"We see it in those who cheer on the bullying of allies like Greenland and Canada...."
ReplyDeleteI'm Canadian. Unfortunately, some Canadians have responded to Trump's bullying with the opposite extreme vice of blanket anti-Americanism. Many Canadians refuse to buy anything produced by an American company and refuse to travel to the US.
Personally, I find Trump's bullying repugnant and I believe he's manifestly unfit to lead the West's superpower. However, Trump's not going to stop me from listening to Duke Ellington, John Coltrane and Aaron Copland. He's also not going to stop me from traveling to the US [assuming, of course, that he doesn't impose a travel ban on Canadians].
I personally prefer the trumpet of Al Hirt. He had incredible breath control.
DeleteI find Trump's bullying repugnant
DeleteI find his bullying of Canada and of Denmark over Greenland repugnant as well. He's a jackass.
There are some plausible reasons to suspect he has been engaging in political maneuvering by these acts, never actually intending to simply take Greenland, for example. I would say that even if this reasoning is accurate, he's still a jackass and shouldn't do this kind of thing.
You guys need a life. You stay home alone and the Internet is your only friend.
ReplyDeleteI guess a dificulty with patriotism is that what we, and even Chesterton for that matter, have as nations is not exactly what Aristotle or Aquinas would have in mind when thinking about it(even these two would have unlikely concepts). The family analogy is way smoother when done by Aristotle than when done by one of us with our modern nation-states. A nation back them was way more united than pretty much any country today, where citizens having diferent backgrounds, worldviews etc is celebrated(which is a good thing, btw) or where some nations were formed by pretty artificial processes.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, i can see where the Professor is coming from. Here in Brazil, for instance, we have a completely diferent history than the USA, a completely diferent position globally etc and while you hardly find someone here who has not a lot of criticism to do about the State, about the laws, about the people, about our history etc you also hardly find someone who does not see whe as a particular people united, who can't appreciate our art, our culinary, our Football Team*, some good aspects of our vibe, who does not lament our potential being wasted etc.
The average citizen knows what being brazilian means, and this is a point of pride, i suppose that is what Chesterton and the Professor have in mind. We knows the right and wrongs of this nation, but is our nation anyway.
*What a sad day was yesterday, man
Here in Russia, patriotism for Catholics is more complicated, just like in the United States.
ReplyDeletePerhaps harder, since Russia is currently deliberately attacking civilians in a war that would be obviously unjust even without that.
DeleteBut, as discourse on death penalty reminds us, to love is to will the good of another, and sometimes the true good of another might appear as not so good unless we look more closely: for it is very good for a murderer to be executed, if that prompts his repentance, and leads to him going to heaven, while his survival only leading to going to hell is bad.
Likewise, it would be very good for Russia to be defeated and humbled, even pretty much disbanded, if that would prompt its repentance and conversion. After all, why shouldn't "And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be humbled: and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted." apply to nations?
The way in which that is different from oikophobia of the Left can be seen in the fact that the Left attacks America for slavery. That is silly, for America has abolished slavery long ago, and has repented of it. Thus, it should be forgiven for this, just as it would be silly to rage at Russia for serfdom (coincidentally, abolished at about the same time).
And it is a really good idea to pray for repentance and conversion of Russia and its leaders (and, for that matter, for America and its leaders).
“The CRA was abominable and unconstitutional” There you have it, folks. And people critical of people like this and the groups they inhabit - Conservatives and the like- need to find common ground and be ‘Patriots’ together - like this is not a fundamental rejection of one group’s right to exist free in this country. Again, keep it. You have more people like this on your ‘side.’ Think through why and why “the wokes” treat so-called Patriotism as the jingoism it is. Disgusting.
ReplyDeleteWell, the whole West is at the stage of "Cold Civil War" or close to it.
DeleteAnd this each side is attacking what is sacred to the other. You are attacking Family, Nation, Church, Gun Rights etc. So, your opponents are going to be attacking what you hold to be sacred. And what do you hold to be sacred? Civil Rights Act, whatever you call "Democracy" etc.
In fact, it seems that your side has escalated earlier.
Thus, did you expect something else?
To deal with another, fatal consequences of jingoism,
ReplyDeleteI would also like to point out the way in which people seem quick to disparage Pope Leo these days.
"Oh look, Pope Leo shook at hands with migrants today , Here look at some dastardly thing this other migrant did, And look Pope Francis shook hands with a migrant, and that migrant went on to do terrible things."
Ergo what ? Pope Leo should not shake hands with migrants ? People forget that to many catholics around the world he is Pope and they love him as The Pope, The Vicar of Christ on Earth and hence when we take into account this spiritual dimension, : "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus".
So many catholics around the world love the Pope dearly because he is the Pope, imagine if he randomly started turning down people's embrace just because they were migrants or something, it would be like your father avoiding you.
I came across this retweet on Peter Kwasniewski's feed so I had to comment.
Obviously there are good arguments against rampant immigration and I am in that campaign, but arguments of the sort on top add nothing of value to the discourse.
I would also like to share a video of Dr Feser, I find to be moving, Prof was taking questions from people in the Church and I think a immigrant mom had some questions, The trust with which she asked him and the care with which Prof answered the question was very moving to me, there's a beauty in the Church community that in it's spiritual dimension transcends our differences.
This was the video for reference,
https://youtu.be/Mwn6zckOcLg?si=IUk3tAZVNHo5gFE0