This week’s Catholic Herald has an interesting piece by Jordan Peterson on his attempts to battle with his own university’s (to him and many) peculiar definition of ‘free speech’. Jordan’s description cannot be bettered, so I shall quote it:
Political correctness has become a force of sufficient strength to pose a threat to the structure of our society. It is primarily a product of university-educated leftist radicals, who demand the adjustment of our institutions, speech and thoughts to their radical-egalitarian and censorious agenda. Anyone who speaks out against their principles and aims becomes a target of mob action, accused of racism and worse.
In the most recent edition of the house journal of my own profession, The Times Higher there are interesting pieces about how universities might cope with a populist political climate which is antithetical to what one author called ‘campus values’; only 11% of UK academics admitted to voting Conservative at the last election. The casual assumption of the piece was that ‘campus values’ were superior to those of the populists, and that universities, especially those in regions where the surrounding natives voted for Brexit, had a duty of education. Here we have had our own experience of this censoriousness, as the blog went private for a while because complaints had been made at my university about it. I blog pseudonomously (not, as one drive by shooter from the Academy accused me of, anonymously) precisely because my views are mine, not those of any institution for which I work. Were I to use my title and affiliation, then I could understand someone saying I was abusing my position; but as I don’t, I find it laughable when they do so all the same.
Even writing this, I am conscious that somewhere there is a troll-like creature sitting in her pants noting every word, as she tries to find yet another way of complaining that in deliberately logging in to this blog she has had her finer feelings offended; she could, of course, not read the blog, but it is its very existence which bugs her and other inhabitants of the same censorship mill.
But ideas which you don’t like, and which you are able to suppress do not vanish. They gather strength and end up breaking out in Brexit or in Trump. Our civilisation has been based on the notion that if an idea is bad, the best thing to do with it is give it oxygen and it can be shot down in open intellectual combat. But perhaps those on the Right (because that has its own version of PC, it is simply that because it is not dominant here, we hear less of it) and those on the Left have no confidence in their ideas or their ability to convince others of them, so they prefer to proceed by way of censorship.
For my own part, as I say, I am conscious that even writing this pseudonymously, it might be wiser not to write it at all, and I have seriously considered taking the blog private again – but that would be to give the trolls their victory. But should we disappear in the near future, you’ll know why.
I heard the president of Hillsdale College speaking on the news the other night about the campus craziness of the PC progressive left. Hilsdale is known for its non-PC, rather ordinary type of institution for higher learning that people of my age still remember and which were practically everywhere when I went off to school.
He said that here in the US, the biggest change came with the taking of Title IV financial help from the government. Nobody, he said, can even understand the ‘cost’ of what is contained in Title IV because it is unreadable; 500 pages of legal mumbo jumbo that lawyers wrangle over all the time. There are many strings attached, needless to say, and only their point of view is accepted. So say goodbye to the idea of academic freedom is you apply for Title IV monies from the government.
What has happened is that most schools in the US do take Title IV money and they hire professors who largely fit the mold of the ideas and viewpoints of the government contract and now they have molded the minds and viewpoints of most the young men and women who have ‘educated’ in this system to make more like-minded folks far more prevalent than they otherwise would.
This same model has now entereed our schools at a much lower age . . . starting with the youngest of our citizens as they learn Political Correctness almost from the time they are capable of walking and speaking. It is a propaganda machine extraordinaire and it prepares these kids to fit into the neat little box that only accepts one view by the time they enter university; the view of our educational experts and government surrogates.
Progressives have so thoroughly entrenched their leadership and ideas into our educational system that unless the entire system is destroyed, academic freedom will no longer exist . . . and it is practically this way now with few exceptions. They have even taken it into our military schools and we are now dealing with that preposperous set of problems for our army and navy to deal with.
We need to run this PC crowd out of office, out of power and out of our towns as far as I can see. They are a blight on our civilzation and have nothing good to show us as the fruits of their labors. They have made our children the ‘snowflakes’ they are and the complaining little jerks who think that they are entitled to everything in life . . . including starting at the top. Working one’s way up is just another form of victimization for these little brainwashed progressives.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Well, this needs to be “liked” by more than one person, so come on guys and girls!
LikeLike
And so we come back to the point. I can’t say I am surprised, and I say to C. Do what you have to.
But freedom of speech is misnamed – it is really the freedom to think. Some people are easily offended that we don’t think like them. Some people are bullies. And yes, some people are both. But a robust discussion, trying to be without rancor (as we do here) can shed much more light than heat. For some people, I suspect that is the problem.
I also noted that article in the Herald. We have become a culture where tolerance means intolerance, and free speech is censored. But the equation is true
Free speech = Thinking = Offensive speech
That doesn’ mean that we should intentionally offend people, but people are offended these days when told the sky is blue, and it is our right, nay it is our duty, to tell the truth as God gives us the ability to discern it.
The have the right to be offended, as do we, we have the right to free speech, even if offensive, as do they.
The world is not a safe space, it’s a tough, brutal place that runs on the rules that Darwin wrote about.
LikeLiked by 1 person
True, and when it comes to ‘do I blog or do I have a job?’ The choice is brutal
LikeLiked by 1 person
C, protect those you love, your wife and kids. How best to provide for them? When you retire you can “let it fly.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
That is rather the plan 😏
LikeLiked by 1 person
Very much so.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I find this to be mostly on-topic, and besides if you haven’t run across them, I believe you’ll both enjoy and profit from them. Yes, there are a whole series available.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hello everyone! Just got done watching a marvelous documentary made by EWTN called “Wolf In Sheep’s Clothing,” which is a bio of Saul Alinsky. I thought of Chalcedon mostly while watching it, but the rest of you may very well enjoy it as well. It is long though, two hours plus, but very much worth it. So, grab some popcorn and a notepad, (as you’ll want to jot down a few details) and learn a bit about some of the deals with the devil made by a few bad men and women who left their marks on our society. Claw marks of the beast. The whole thing fits in a bit with the theme of free speech, which for those mentioned in this expose’ became the vehicle by which their filth could spread its corruption. But that too, is a sting from them since to stop them, from doing that very thing, we’d be duped into surrendering said freedom as a “preventative” measure. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vny6OXXBSfM
God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
P.S. I forgot to add that in this bio is the truth about genesis of the phrase and philosophy of Political Correctness. That is actually part of the Alinsky model of corrupting influence.
LikeLike
Pingback: November 5 2016 – Article of the Day – “Free Speech – at a price?” | Gatwick City Times
BTW: this is an interesting piece . . . http://catholicozarks.blogspot.com/2016/10/the-coming-storm-and-how-to-prepare.html
I might have a few disagreements but I think that he is mostly right. Where I might disagree, in fact, is his thinking that Europe will implode before we do. Although that seems highly plausible, I think that there seems to be a race developing to reach the bottom. As to who will get there first is a matter of complacence . . . but it will happn to both Europe and the US.
I also have grave doubts as to whether or not a traditional or traditionally incultured parish will even be found in the public square once the implosion occurs. They may be here now but I doubt they will exist for long. If they last, then Europe will implode first. If not then we might very well be the ones that lead the way to the bottom. My thoughts anyway.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scoop, implosion or not, the gates of the netherworld will not ever prevail. So, whatever your preference in worship may be or if those ministering to you in your chosen locale are faithfully bringing you all our blessed Lord willed for you and the others there to have, there is Heaven to prepare for in all conditions. Lose sight of that and it won’t matter one little whit whether or not you are in the holiest possible place for your worship or not. Even under Communism, the faithful found their Way to Heaven. And that is the only place all of us should be preparing for. Get that part right and rest falls into place. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ginny, wasn’t that the point of the entire article . . . to recognize that there is a persecution coming and to prepare for it? So I’m not sure you are making any other point than the author made or myself for that matter.
LikeLike
Scoop, to be honest, I thought about martyrdom as I awaited my Baptism over 20 years ago in RCIA even before I knocked on the church door to gain entrance. It didn’t take much thought at all. I was all in then, and am all in now. As far as I’m concerned the crown of martyrdom is the most glorious crown of them all. I’ve read quite a few stories of the martyred Saints and pray to many of them every day. I’d love to have my own blood shed for the Lamb. Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. I do not fear any man, only God. What can mere flesh and blood do to me? Nothing eternal. Death is a reality and it opens the door to my particular eternity. It is to be thought of at least once a day according to St. Benedict who instructed his monks to contemplate all 4 of the last things each and every day. I follow that little counsel ever since I first read it. Very good advice for anyone at all who takes their Christianity seriously. So, since I thought about what might happen to me coming into the Church and made my choice for Christ, I do not fear persecution and know that it is the pruning of the vineyard under the mighty hand of God we were promised by Jesus when he spoke to us 2,000 years ago. There really is nothing to fear except perhaps not having the strength to withstand the trials surrounding such things with one’s head held high and free of despair and sin. In fact, I trust that if that hour comes my way, I will be given the words to say, as Jesus promised us in Matt. 10:19. That hour is God’s alone and He it is who is most glorified by the witness of the martyrs. Keep in mind for a few hundred years the only names enrolled as to be considered among the Saints were those who had shed their blood for the Lamb who shed his blood for them. I’m not dismissing those who keep watch over the walls of the City of God for the signs that there is a time of persecution. But that is what we’ve been living for over a hundred years and well into the new millennium. Just because it isn’t happening in my own little lane here in Nowhere, USA, doesn’t mean it isn’t happening to me. My brothers and sisters in Christ are suffering all over the world and I don’t consider myself separate from them. It isn’t someone else’s pain and sorrow, but mine as well. What goes on in Aleppo is happening to me as well, not just in spirit, but in truth. So, prepared I’ve always been. I’m grateful too. I do not want that hour to catch me unawares. It is a great blessing and still the greatest honor for man to lay down his life for his friends. Be not afraid. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Who’s afraid? Is being prudent and aware of the signs of the times fear? Is preparing for the worst and hoping for the best a sign of fear? I think not.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Never said you were afraid at all. Sorry if you thought I did. Yes, we need to know certain things and be not afraid to speak up when we see the enemy encroaching. But some are eerily silent in this regard, especially in Catholic media where I’d expect much more aggressive reporting. “Evil prospers when good men do nothing.” Yet a whole lot of silence kept nothing done for years. Sad really. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Though Hobbes is much maligned and Locke continues to be in favour (though not all of his political views since we have drifted into social liberalism), I think we still need to consider the role of the Leviathan in our politics as well as contextual application of our principles.
Free speech is clearly dangerous in certain contexts. If we are to uphold justice as well as grace, then irresponsible free speech arguably should carry some kind of penalty.
If irresponsible free speech is to carry a penalty, then we need institutions to determine what constitutes irresponsible free speech, what kinds of penalty (presumably according to degree) are to be meted out, and to apprehend and try those accused of irresponsible free speech.
Indeed we already have cases of that kind that are presented to judges and magistrates, so we can already concede (if we wish to uphold the current legal system) that free speech must also be linked to context, responsibility, and culpability. For this reason we de facto and de jure do not hold to complete unbridled free speech.
LikeLike
Sorry Nicholas, the only limit I’m willing to concede is the old one of leading to imminent public harm. Such as shouting ‘Fire’ in in a crowded theater. For what you propose, I can conceive of no person or group of persons competent enough to define the terms, therefore it can only be a theoretical, it cannot be practical to implement.
Obviously, speech intended to harm, such as we just saw with “Rolling Stone”, and speech designed to harm (legally with malice) in this case, has civil penalties. That is appropriate, it is, after all, a civil matter.
LikeLiked by 1 person
But that is precisely my point: you are actually agreeing with me or in contradiction. In order for a rule to be absolute it must be total. If there are exceptions it is not absolute.
If you want to prosecute the man who shouts fire then you do not uphold free speech.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No right is absolute, true. But the narrow exception carved here is perhaps the exception that proves the rule. Crowds in a confined space, and attempting to sow panic is, you will admit, and pretty narrow exception. I’d prefer none but that would be overly theoretical. And note that the charge on that is either, disorderly conduct, or inciting to riot, it is undoubtedly both of those.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed and I am in agreement with that. For me the question is not whether speech is free but which kinds of speech are free of state-delivered penalty and which are not.
With regard to C’s situation there are three variables at work:
-Whether his particular speech is free of state-delivered penalty
-Whether a company (in this case a university) may nevertheless impose private penalties with regards to speech in virtue of breach of contract
-Whether private speech not in the university’s context is still covered by the contract
To the first point: I’m sure C’s comments should not be censured.
To the second: a company cannot impose conditions on speech unless – and only unless- they qualify as: slander or libel; a risk to personal safety. Again I’m sure C wouldn’t do that sort of thing.
Point 3: Private speech can only be put under the contract if it connects through a means such as slander or libel. Again C is fine.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Agree, of course. C.’s speech is technically moderate in any case, even compared with some of us here, the reason he is targeted has more to do with his position than his speech, which is, on the face of it, unjust.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Indeed: it is immoral to persecute people for speaking the truth and preaching the Gospel, especially when the Gospel is preached for the purpose of saving lives.
I do in principle agree that we are on a slippery slope: these hate speech laws etc are a tool in the hands of the Enemy to hinder the preaching of the Gospel, which is an evil.
But I think it is a mistake to try and preserve our right to preach the Gospel on purely secular grounds – be they legal or philosophical. In my opinion that is why the Church has suffered such a terrible wound in France. the French are trying to fight fire with fire, and by extension the same can be said of the Americans who share some (but not all) Enlightenment roots with the French.
Our “right” to preach the Gospel (whether the law recognizes it or not) comes from two principles:
A) There can be no just law that prohibits what is good/right.
B) The Kingdom of God supervenes the Kingdom of Man and of the Devil, which gives us the right to countermand their functionaries when God gives us licence.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Respectfully disagree. Here is how I see it, one has a right to say anything, subject to the above, which can well be taken as being personally responsible for what you say. So does everybody else. There is no objective way to favor a Christian over a Moslem, or an Atheist. You, and I, may believe one is correct and the others wrong, but we cannot prove it to an impartial jury. Therefore, all have the right to speak, and the truth will have to defend itself, as it alway has, and always will, successfully at the end of the day.
LikeLike
Precisely, Neo. And that is why traditionally, religion is the largest factor in dividing one culture from another. Otherwise we have no objective criteria to base our decisions on. As long as we were in a Christian culture things proceeded along a fairly stable path. As soon as we became a post-Christian culture and (more enlightened), we have opened up the Christian character of our cultures to other religions and therefore we are attempting to mix water and oil. A muslim culture can in no way be an integral part of a Christian culture. We spent a lot of Christian blood trying to make sure that their culture did not contaminate, control and topple our Christian culture in the past. Best that the two are separated. The moors were invaders and now Europe is inviting them back. It spells certain disaster. We aren’t any better prepared to deal with these two separate views of life and morality than we were back then. It didn’t work then and it won’t work now. We are being duped because sadly we have lost the soul of our culture; which is our Christian roots.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t disagree, Scoop, as you know. But they still have the right to speak publically. The truth stands on it’s own, it did in 3d century Rome and it will today.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Let them speak publically in their own culture. Sadly, they are culture all to themselves; religion, law and goal to rid the world of infidels. They have no place in otherwise Christian cultures; which I suppose is why we can say with certainty that our cultures have left Christianity behind and are now thoroughly secular. To the non-believer a religion is just another religion and has no power. They will find out just how powerful beliefs are how committed people are to them soon enough. When they awaken to the fact that they are incompatible with their vision for the future, it will be too late to avoid bloodshed. Best if we kept them at bay and separated from our society: after all, the Muslim culture is a cancer in our culture.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ah, I think you mistake my point regarding “right”: I am not proposing a state where Christians are favoured over Muslims. My point is an ethical one: how do we justify preaching the Gospel when the state makes it illegal to do so? This is an important point and connected with your post about Bonhoeffer. For a number of Christian missionaries there are difficult ethical problems for how they should act when entering countries that prohibit the preaching of the Gospel or severely restrict it (e.g. Malaysia, Iran, Saudi Arabia). These kind of points are important for people in this situations to have a clear conscience.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Very true, Neo
LikeLiked by 1 person
The problem is who is setting the standards and what morality or lack of such they are using to create this standard. For instance, a pervert may have the right to free speech and try to coerce a child into immoral acts. I, however, used to have the right to beat the pervert to a pulp and have him drug off to jail. Now, however, the educators are doing much the same in the purported sex ed classes in our schools. So if the people who set the rules are the problem then we need to overthrow them. Some form of morality needs to be enforced in the civil realm and sadly Christians will always be in a war against those forces that do not hold to Christian moral views. Without some restrictions, as you say, even perjury could not be charged. It is already being seen when the elites are guilty . . . for they seem to get a pass by their fellow elites for just about anything.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I agree and I think this problem represents the difficult intersection of this current age between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Man and the Devil. In the age to come the theocracy will be absolute. You will rule with the rod of iron alongside King Jesus as per His promise in Revelation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed until His Kingdom is manifest we will constantly be at war with the world. For our Christian morality is, in fact, given to us by the only King that counts; it is objective truth and not subjective . . . which we are always arguing for or against in this fallen world.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There would appear to be an orthographical error – an h is missing from ‘sitting in her pants’..
LikeLiked by 2 people
Very good Jock. 🙂
LikeLike
Chalcedon says, “and I have seriously considered taking the blog private again – but that would be to give the trolls their victory. But should we disappear in the near future, you’ll know why.”
I have to say, I sadly write pseudonymously as well; however, my feelings are starting to sway the other way. My mind has been focused on a sort of lectio divina on Mt. 10:34-39
34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword. 35 For I have come to set
a man ‘against his father, a daughter against her mother,
and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law;
36 and one’s enemies will be those of his household.’
The Conditions of Discipleship. 37 “Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38 and whoever does not take up his cross[o] and follow after me is not worthy of me. 39 [p]Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.
As Scoop told me a couple of days ago, the time has come to choose sides.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And here I stand with Christ. And Catholicism. And Trump. While using my true name, I might add. Some might ask, are all of these a badge of honor? Damn straight!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I stand with Christ and Catholicism. I cannot say the same about Trump. I certainly do not support Clinton–who is an unprincipled amoral anti-Catholic.
A priest, that I follow on twitter and many of his writings online, by the name of Matthew Schneider, has written a sensible approach to this election for Catholics in the United States–see via: https://cruxnow.com/commentary/2016/11/03/three-ways-vote-tuesday-clean-conscience/
My last blog posts also links to his essay, where the priest graciously commented.
He writes the following which I will proceed in my voting, although he does give other moral alternatives.:
“Voting Third Party
If you really feel like you can’t vote for a major candidate, there are always third party candidates. Some of them might align better with Catholic principles and your own values. Catholics I know and respect are voting for at least four different candidates beyond the major two.
The Green and Libertarian Parties have some support, but still have little chance of winning. And once we get to policy, the Greens and Libertarians seem to have significant issues for Catholic teaching too.
The third party option is mostly a way to show you vote for principles, beyond somebody’s chance of being elected. If such parties get a big chunk of the vote, it shows a direction the other parties might move to appeal to such voters.
This movement can often be easier to see in primaries with fringe candidates who run to move the party one way or showcase a movement more than win the nomination: Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul come to mind (I think Bernie was as surprised as everyone else he came close to winning, but you can see how he forced Hillary to move left to beat him).
If you want to follow this path, it is important to check who the listed candidates and valid write-ins are in your state, which you can easily Google.”
The priest explains that if you live in a state where the vote has already been determined, this is a procedure that can certainly be a moral choice.
Furthermore, he also adds in the article that you can purposely spoil you ballot in protest if the vote has already been decided in a state.
I will say this with my real name signed at the bottom.
Phillip Hadden.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Phillip, with all due respect, that article is standard PC balderdash. Only 2 people have a chance of becoming President. If you don’t want Hillary as your next Commander in Chief, you must find someway to vote for Trump.
LikeLike
Steve, I live in IL, it’s already decided here, in that respect, I have to find another way to matter against the problems in the U.S.
LikeLike
I tend to agree with Steve. Any vote away from Trump increases the prospect of the Dictatorship of Empress Hillary of becoming a reality. Just sayin’. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
Furthermore, I must protest your sentiment that this article is “PC Balderash, Steve, Fr. Matthew Schneider, offers in that article a manner in which Catholics may find a way to morally vote for Trump that befits their consciences
He says, “Voting against someone would follow from the Catholic principle of double effect.
The opening scene of the movie Vertical Limit displays this principle graphically: a dad and his two kids are hanging perilously off a rock cliff by a single contact point and it’s slipping, so the dad instructs his son above him to cut the rope. Cutting the rope saves the boy and his sister, because they’re able to hang there until help comes, but it also causes the father’s fall and death.
This can often get confused with “choosing the lesser evil,” but in Catholic moral theology we can never choose evil. This is choosing the good which is realizable, or preventing evil when not all good is realizable.
To vote against someone technically requires placing a vote for another person, but to qualify as a voter against rather than a vote for, several principles need to be respected.
First, there needs to be no other way to prevent the dreaded result we are avoiding. If millions of Americans got together, a third party could win, but as an individual, it is a fair judgment to assume your vote for a third party won’t make it win.
Second, the person we mark our ballot for when voting against someone else needs to be less problematic from a Catholic moral perspective.
Third, our intention needs to be to prevent one person from taking the office and not to give it to the other person.
Fourth, we must fulfill the norm that our action is not intrinsically evil, because voting is good and we are explicitly trying to prevent the greatest evil from happening.
Fifth, there is a complicated point of means and ends: the means (voting for X) of achieving the end (preventing Y from being president) cannot be evil in themselves. Participating in politics to the degree it is possible is in itself good, and, if you are voting for someone with some redeeming qualities (which every candidate I know of has), you can be voting positively for those redeeming qualities.
Thus, casting a vote for one of the two major candidates can be moral if it is done in order to prevent the other from taking the office.
A summary of this view was stated by a moral theologian, whose opening paragraph on who they were voting for was, “I am voting for [X] because they are not [Y].”
LikeLike
If you’d like a simpler way to explain the same thing, any vote NOT cast for Trump makes Hillary very happy. Everyone knows a 3rd or 4th candidate will not win, so it may be a balm to your conscience, however, Hillary knows politics better. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
I get what you’re saying, I’m just saying the reasoning is flawed.
So, let me break it down in a simpler fashion. I am saying, “Everyone knows that Hillary will win IL, so a vote for whoever makes no difference to her or really anyone else for that matter.”
Candidates do not even make stops in this state because it’s already in the bag.
LikeLike
Well Philip, I have to say that the attitude in your reply is rather defeatist. Don’t bother to vote because the State is already Hillary’s? Perhaps you could paint that on a billboard somewhere while there is still time.
Some things about the State you live in that you may not know: The population is around 12.8 million persons. Of those persons living in there, 7.9 million are registered to vote and the numbers are going up daily. Some experts say that it will top 8 million by election day. That means 62% of the persons living there are registered and expected to vote tomorrow. That is a considerable increase since Obama was running. My own perception is folks who haven’t voted in years are going to vote simply so they can vote AGAINST Hillary and her agenda that seeks to continue the butchering of babies in our land. Any woman who states openly and publically that someone who is pregnant has a right to choose death for the life inside her womb has no morals or values left. Add to the FACT that Ms. Clinton has stated that she fully intends to entrench this “family value” in our land and work to make sure it remains a permanent part of our culture, well, that isn’t any culture I desire to be a part of. I call it the Culture of Death. And that is exactly what she is working towards: death to the innocent babies in the womb and death as well to all who desire the end of their lives to be “simplified.” Death on demand at both ends of life is not Christian in the least. Wake up and smell the coffee kid.
Your defeatism tells me you hope some who live their Christianity give up and don’t vote cause your “expert” voice gave the State of Illinois to Hillary. Yeah. So, can I ask who it is you’ll be voting for? Ooooops. Duh. Silly me. I already know: Hillary and you’re working to prevent the landslide that is actually about to happen. Yeppers. Quick hop over to another blog and let Bosco the Clown know that the Gin-free-meister is predicting a landslide victory for Donald Trump.
God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
It appears you fail to understand what defeatism truly is and what is pragmatism.
The problem here Ginny is that most folks here know that I do not support Hillary, but want my vote to be both moral and effective.
After using my ability to reason to determine the direction of Illinois’ due to its current politics, your comments are either delusional, rude, or both.
LikeLike
So, Philip, you’ve proven that you are the rude one. I suppose I gave you and excuse to spit vindictives, but no real reason.
One thing I learned from St. Teresa of Avila a long time ago. She said the truly spiritual soul is obvious when contradicted. They find themselves of an even temperament no matter the circumstances. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
Trump is Presbyterian. Just thought I’d let you know if you don’t already. He tries to be Christian but does believe in keeping it personal. That’s the rub. He may be inclined to agree with the fallacy of separation of Church and State and that will further an agenda that strives to silence the Church in general. It is part of the language of dissent that allows our religious liberties to be compromised. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
Chaput’s book (Render unto Caesar( for me obliterates the idea of “personal” Christianity. It’s simply a lie proposed by those who want Christians to be silent. Folks give analogies exhibiting how it’s a contradiction, so here’s mine. Attempting to be Christian and keeping it personal and not allowing it to affect your public life is like wanting to be alive, but choosing not to breathe. If you are a Christian, you must be so in every single aspect of your thoughts and actions. Of course, this doesn’t mean that we will not be inclined to sin because we have a nature tainted by concupiscence .
LikeLike
Philip, you need to read this before you do something you will regret in the future: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/11/fr-rutler-in-this-presidential-election.html
LikeLike
A great article on point: http://wdtprs.com/blog/2016/11/anthony-esolen-under-attack-by-his-school-domincan-run-providence-college/
LikeLiked by 2 people
It is a shame he is being treated the way he is. I have some of his books. He is a good man and good at what he does. He is also a faithful Catholic, not a progressive or a liberal. His story exposes how empowered these two camps feel towards those of us who are merely faithful. They are twisted in their thinking and think conformity enforced by governments is an acceptable formator for one’s theology. They’d favor a theocracy IF it were their brand of Catholicism that were favored. It won’t be though. They’re just a stepping stone to be trampled under foot by those who are manipulating them. The progressives are much more dangerous than the liberals. But that is simply my opinion and like belly buttons……………..everyone has one. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
Chalcedon – I’m mystified as to what you were writing that was so offensive. Your tones are always measured and ‘middle of the road’.
Sure, you have some from the more extreme end of the spectrum commenting here sometimes and the lady in question might possibly object on the ‘you can tell a man who boozes by the company he chooses’ principle – but your position on most issues seems to take moderation to excruciating extremes and I haven’t been able to see anything that you personally have contributed that could elicit such reaction.
Could you enlighten me?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Has no one watched Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing? C what do you think of Alinsky and his crowd? It would be nice to know. You could do a whole lot on him I bet. I’m just sayin’…………….God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve wanted to see it, but sadly Dish on my level appears to have dropped EWTN.
LikeLike
She gave you a link above to a youtube video. You can watch it on your PC.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I shall ☺️
LikeLiked by 1 person
The best work on him and all of the different spin-off Alinskyite groups has been done by Stephanie Block. She has a few PDF books online that you can download and read if you have the will or desire to do so.
BTW: I wrote a piece but see that I cannot publish it as I used to nor can I add a picture. So I submitted it for review.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t know why that is – it may be the new name – I’ll get onto it now
LikeLike
Dave – I have just published it – will resent invitation if it proves necessary so you can do more. C
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks C.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think it was the new name that did it. Will resend invitation
LikeLiked by 1 person
No worries. I used to send them to you for editing and posting in the past anyway.
LikeLiked by 1 person
OK – well you can now, if you want, just go ahead 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Will do, C.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have been able to change it on the dash – so you can now go ahead whenever you like 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks didn’t see it! Will do!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Philip the link I provided is a Youtube source, not EWTN. You can watch it via the link anytime you want.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I watched it with my wife on EWTN this afternoon. It was excellent and Stephanie Block spoke a bit but if you want to get to the specifics of the 800 organizations operating today under the Alinsky Rules for Radicals banner, her books, articles and interviews are a must read.
LikeLike
Thanks for the scoop Scoop. I added a book of hers to my Amazon Wish List. I’ll get around ti her as well. Thanks much. Glad you enjoyed to video. It is well done. I paid careful attention to the links forged between a young Hillary Rodham and Mr. Alinsky that explain quite a bit of her need for power. Her hubby was a means to an end that well, has yet to end. I sincerely hope that end begins November 9th. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I doubt it will, Ginny but no harm hoping as I am as well. But don’t forget that Obama was a trainer of the Alinsky Rules before he became a senator for IL. He is a devout Alinsky Progressive and he is greasing all the skids to make sure that another progressive with Marxist leanings is going to inherit the throne. Sadly, if we don’t win, I doubt there will be enough resistance to dethrone the Dems in the foreseeable future. The Dems are stacking the decks with illegals and migrants whilst giving them financial aid which will all but buy their votes. Even Obama told an illegal (see Drudge today) that they are not going to stop them from voting in the election. It’s tyranny operating under the mask of a democracy.
Glad you are going to get some of Stephanie’s work on these radical organizations. She is fountain of information on what has gone on since Alinsky died . . . especially in regards to their infiltration and influence on our bishops etc.
LikeLike
Actually Scoop, my own personal understanding of the modern Democrats is flip a coin to guess which are still mere Democrats and which have become Socialist Democrats. You don’t have to observe them very long to figure out who is sincerely working to better our country and who is working to destroy it. Some of the things done by Mr. Obama during his years deeply hurt our country and how he got away with it…………………he hates this land and has a funny smile on his face when he pulls more wool over people’s eyes. He hopes he has struck a few death blows to our Republic. I honestly find him demonstrating clearly sociopathology in his rise to power. He is a very “successful” sociopath. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just another Diabolical Narcissist I guess. It is almost a given for politicians these days and especially for the progressives.
LikeLike
Narcissistic Personality Disorder fits Hillary better. Obama meets the criteria for Sociopath better IMHO. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You mean the I, I , I and me, me, me Obama speeches escaped your notice?
LikeLike
No, what convinced me about the proper layman’s diagnosis of the disorder is the funny little smile that crosses the face of the man when he does stuff that he knows will hurt. It is consistently there. Sociopaths take a great deal of pleasure from injury done to those they hate. It is one of the few pleasures that manages to register in their minds. They have no genuine joys and cannot take pleasure in simple things. Part of the “reasons” they hate Jane and John Q. Normal. They cannot look at a puppy and feel the feeling associated with its cuteness that are automatic to the rest of us. They know they are different but eventually accept as being superior in some ways and the emotions they don’t have, are dismissed as a weakness their victims have to live with. Obama fits this MO better than a plain narcissist. The fragility of the personality inherit in a true narcissist fits Hillary. Obama’s little funny smile is the cold cynicism that is an earmark of the sociopath. Obama’s personality is very organized and focused. Also a hallmark of the true sociopath. Disorganized thinking is a sign of delusion. He doesn’t have any delusions. Sociopaths can and do rise regularly in the business world and medicine because their apparent focus and detachment from emotional entanglements is a misunderstanding of their actual lack of empathy and drive to dominate the rest of us. Hillary is very fragile and it shows. That speaks of the Narcissistic personality. But I’m no expert on anything except Christmas cookies and how to make a good cup o Joe. All I got is Mom’s instinct for stuff. Nuff said. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I know very little – he’s not a name one hears in Europe
LikeLike
We don’t hear his name here that much either but we do have his institutions that are quite active as do you: Citizens UK is one such group.
LikeLike
Again, never come across that name either
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, out there in your neck of the woods, you’ve had the same thing going on basically, but with different players. These men and women were committed to working in whatever countries they were in to undermine and topple them so they could become Communistic. The bio exposes the strategy as well as the players. The basic themes are applied by different persons in different places, but once you know the pattern, you can see its weave in the workings of the politics of the various countries of the “free world.” We were told by the Mother of God that Communism would spread its errors worldwide. No country was immune and it is foolish the think so. She was right. She always is. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
In a recent article at TCW, Andrew Cadman spoke of how this entire conflict, not excluding Brexit, and this presidential campaign could be looked at as precursors of the fourth of what Kevin Phillips spoke of as “The Cousins Wars”. That article is here:
http://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/andrew-cadman-riven-politics-unite-the-transatlantic-cousins/#comment-2986710697
I find his conjecture interesting and perhaps possible. Once again ‘we, the people’ find ourselves in a trans-Atlantic alliance, as does our ruling class. And once again our classes have arrayed themselves against each other. When Dr. Cadman says this:
“To say that either of our countries is on the verge of civil war would be hyperbole, but it is certainly not too far-fetched to say the seeds of serious conflict are there. Over the past few decades, economic and social forces have split both America and Britain into two cultural groups that not only neither like nor understand each other, but do not even wish to. Those forces show no sign at all in abating. If Hillary Clinton is elected to the Presidency and Parliament rejects Brexit, then this latest pan Anglo-Saxon insurgency against elite rule will only grow and become ever more radical. Politics in both our countries could be about to become get very nasty in indeed.”
I find myself in reluctant agreement. I spent much of yesterday rewatching the “Winds of War” Herman Wouk’s epic of the descent into World War Two. Perhaps it is merely a melancholy mood that has come over me in the last few days, but I fear that we are once again on that slippery slope. Nor do I see now, as it was then, that we can stop the slide, without abandoning principles dear to us.
As C. has often pointed out, WSC said it better to Jaw, Jaw, than to War, War, but when neither side listens to the other, perhaps the jawing merely speeds up the coming of the warring.
Time will tell, as it does in all things.
LikeLike
FBI Director Comey just dropped a bombshell! https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fbi-director-comey-says-agency-wont-recommend-charges-over-clinton-email/2016/11/06/f6276b18-a45e-11e6-ba59-a7d93165c6d4_story.html
LikeLiked by 1 person
Will the Dems be complaining he commented on an on-going investigation?
LikeLike
No, the tables have turned, we will now be jumping on his case once again!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Never count your chickens before they hatch. This is a corrupt banana republic Stevie and you cannot believe anything you hear or see. A Trump election is highly unlikely due to the power brokers that operate the levers behind the old grey curtain.
LikeLike
Bovine scatology!! Trumpslide coming!! Take it to the bank!! 🙂 🙂
LikeLike