Roman Calendar

Random Greco-Roman Image

Saturday, August 23, 2008

Without Chaput the Democrats are Kaput Again:MCCAIN FOR PRESIDENT


There are years that are watershed years, intellectually and politically. 1968 was a watershed year; American politics and the Democratic party would never be the same. All my life I have loved the classics and writers of the Enlightenment and one of the reasons is THESE AUTHORS and THINKERS have not had their thought CONTAMINATED BY HEGALIAN OR MARXIAN THINKING. Marx, of course, was in is words “openly avowed himself the pupil of that mighty thinker” Hegel.

The Hegelian dialectic is very clean and logical. The process towards the ABSOLUTE IDEA is a series of UNCONTROLABLE CHANGES caused the dynamics of his dialectic.
Thesis is opposed by antithesis and this struggle forms a new synthesis which in turn becomes a thesis which is opposed by a new antithesis and so on indefinitely. Because every synthesis is the thesis of a new dialectic SOCIAL CHANGE is inevitable. This change of course will lead mankind to progress in history until we reach the “ABSOLUTE IDEA”, ultimate synthesis that will give rise to no antithesis. This is mostly if not all German philosophical humbug, in my humble opinion.

From this view of history Marx developed his “dialectical materialism” that is to say FEUDALISM gradually replaced by bourgeoisie elites who in synthesis create a new system (Capitalism) which create the oppressed and alienated proletarian class which will cause a REVOLUTION (synthesis) of a perfect world order in which human needs are put over mere individual profits. The ultimate synthesis is ‘that golden future time” in which Communism reigns and the ‘state will wither away.”

The later is certainly one of the most stupid and obviously false of many of Marx’s stupid intellectual “castles in the air”. Marx felt that the WHOLE of human history is a class struggle and the story of human labor. To him Capitalism is evil and prevents men from reaching their full potential as determining beings (quite ironic really when it is Socialism/Communism which DESTROYS TO THE ROOT the ability of individuals to develop their talents and reaching their full potential).

A major criticism of Marx must be his notion of INEVITABLITY that class differences INEVITABLY will lead to conflict resulting in a new world order. For one thing if this theory were true then we should have seen the rise of Communism is Britain and the USA for example not in backwaters like Cuba, Russia (and previously China). Marx spreads the unhappy lie that workers in a capitalistic society are “deceived” when they think they are free because in fact they embrace a false consciousness which hides the fact that the workers are “slaves” of the “Bosses” or “Owners”. Workers who believe in social mobility will find that this is all an illusion so eventually they will turn on the Bosses. This laboring class or proletariat will become ‘class conscious” and struggle for control with the Boss class or bourgeoisie. In their struggle of course the proletariat will overcome and confiscate (or abolish to use Marx’s euphemism) private property. .In order for Socialism to triumph of course all traces of bourgeois society must be exterminated and a ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ is of course just a temporary necessary inconvenience. What will be the duration of this dictatorship and its cleansing of society of its “exploiting class”? Marx does not say but he does say that once a classless society in achieved the state will wither away. There will be no need for an army or police and presumably the ‘beasts of England, beasts of Ireland, beasts of every land and clime …{will know} the Golden Future time.”

I know I have only a primitive ‘ape-brain’ and I don’t ever pretend to understand the loft philosophy of Hegel and the lofty political theory of Marx but I say is it possible to understand?

That is to say can their philosophies be reconciled with REALITY , HISTORY and MANKIND as I understand it?


There the answer has to be a resounding no.

There is such a thing as continuity and I will fight for the preservation of the essential things all my life. What are these essential things that know NO SYNTHESIS?

MARRIAGE, FAMILY, FAITH (religion), MORALITY (right and wrong), JUSTICE, COURAGE, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS including PROPERTY. Show me a man without means, without property , without a job and you have a slave or serf. A man can only be free if he is able to pick himself up and go elsewhere TOMORROW and start all over again. You have to be able to vote with your feet. If you have nothing your choices are effectively foreclosed. This is why the people of Cuba are essential slaves and serfs and also the occupants of public housing in Glasgow (60%). The saddest thing about Scotland to me is that with each day that passes it is less of a free country. It matters not who is in charge if all the people are drunken oafs and serfs of the Bold State. Unemployment is high but they cannot even find enough fit volunteers to man a single Regiment. They have to enlist Welsh Muslims and Fiji Islanders. (over 10% of their force).

Acton recognized Hegel to be an enemy of freedom and I would add that Marx is too every bit and more so than Hitler. Hitler and Mussolini both were cancerous growths from the parasitic vine of Socialism; I think it clear that without Lenin and Stalin and the rise of totalitarian communism , fascism could not have come into existence . The doctrines of racial determinism and class determinism deny free will (which exists), deny individual responsibility (we all must take charge of our lives) and supplant morals and individual choice with COERCION, UNIFORMITY and PHYSICAL FORCE. Yes, the blood is strong; race (heredity) counts for something but the teaching is strong too. Ultimately determinism –either racial or socialistic- diminished the importance of individual choice and freedom and so is a denial of freedom itself. The most successful dictators (each succeedingly worse Sulla, Octavian, Nero, Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Mao, Castro, Saddam Hussein and now Chavez were the most criminal. Let us not deceive ourselves Castro is and always has been the enemy of liberty and the United States and Chavez is and always will be the enemy of liberty and the USA. (all the more reason we should liquefy coal and build nuclear plants like mad but that is another story).

The premises of both Hegel and Marx are false and flawed. Let’s just talk about Marx for instance.

I find his analysis of history bizarre. Marx pretends that democracy and freedom never existed previously. He dismisses Christianity as a positive force in history AGAINST SLAVERY, AGAINST SELFISHNESS, AGAINST EXCESSIVE MATERIALISM and FOR the common good and for the moral equality of women and the poor.

By embracing ‘determinism’ and inevitability the story of the struggle for freedom as embodied in the stories of Marathon, Thermopylae , Wallace, Washington etc. are meaningless.

One thing that strikes me is that according to Marx I , since I am descended from the working class of Britain, must be an ardent Socialist. or even perhaps an ardent Capitalist. Now I have no objection, really to calling myself a capitalist IN ECONOMICS but on a daily basis I do not think in those terms. Capitalism or free enterprise is only one part of my world view. If I lived on a desert island I could live –if I had the basic things of life- without Capitalism. When I pray I do not think of Capitalism. When I think of education I do not think of capitalism. When I sing I do not think of capitalism. Capitalism is not my chief delight and interest. Perhaps this is why I am poor and altruistic. But I believe my relative poverty has its virtues. It shields me from selfish superficial types and my own children are less likely to be spoiled. They have to work hard to get ahead and pass AP exams because I am too poor to pay for their higher education. This challenge will make them more self-sufficient and stronger.

I learned about Socialism first hand from my father and grandfather who were in a very real sense refugees from the Red Clyde. Why did my father and grandfather ultimately reject Socialism and why do I condemn it and fear it? They rejected it and I reject because they recognized the totalitarian temptation that is inevitable with Socialism. Socialism can only triumph through the tyranny of bureaucracy and the Bold State and in fact the truth is PERFIDIOUS Socialism is the worst enemy freedom has ever encountered. Far worse than “Longshanks” the tyrannical monarch of England, far worse than Nero the anti-Christ and far worse than Darius or Xerxes and far worse than the Pharaohs of Egypt.

The truth is Socialism can be achieved only by the bullying and the wearing down of individual distinction, identity and property via the DESPOTISM OF THE LAW and the BOLD STATE..

If Socialism fulfills what is promises –and of course it has never been able to deliver- we would have the individual crushed beneath the wheel. For ultimately Socialism (the Bold State) uses its power to coerce obedience.

To me freedom cannot be separated from my individual economic security. I have a right not to be robbed by my neighbor but I also have a right NOT TO BE ROBBED BY MONSTER called the BOLD STATE. In my lifetime the State has done me much more harm than any individual. Big Liberals (the Democrats of today ) are Bold State Persons and they forget if they ever knew that “POWER TENDS TO CORRUPT and ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY.”

I have come to hate Democrats (but I remain skeptical about Republicans as well) primarily because Big Liberals have no reverence for God, for the roots of American order, for our ancient heritage. I hate them because they teach an insane moral relativism and Affirmative Action Quota mentality which teaches that Toni Morrison and Amy Tan are equal in interest and importance as Shakespeare , Dante, Homer or Cervantes.

There was an article by a prominent Democrat in the WSJ today, “How the Election of 1968 Reshaped the Democratic Party” by Ted Van Dyk. Of course, Van Dyk is correct that the 1960 (JFK) "Kennedy coalition" as he calls it –really the 1932 FDR coalition- “is still what it takes to win.” Dyk is right that something went wrong in 1968-1972 when middle-American democrats began abandoning the Democratic party or feeling instead that the Democratic party had been hijacked by Quota Mongers and Special Interests. This is not a small point but a big point. Allowing 10% of Democrats to brink a minority plank to the general convention floor ABJURED minority groups and factions from having to make coalitions and compromises to get SOME of their agenda across.

Van Dyk of course is wrong when he says there are two Democratic parties. There WERE two parties. One was middle class, socially conservative, patriotic, nationalist (heavily Catholic, pragmatic ‘bread and butter Democrats and then there is the other Democratic party the Big Liberal Eggheads (University Academics), better educated, higher income socially liberal –I would say anarchic and far left- Democratic party. The first party –people still speak of it as “Henry Jackson Democrats’ –I considered myself a Henry Jackson Democrat- but that is like calling oneself a Jacobite or a follower of the Clan of the Cave Bear because the Henry Jackson Democratic party they party of Joe Lieberman and Moynihan is dead.

Jackson is dead, Moynihan is dead (and Bella Abzug won in the end in the person of Hillary Clinton) and Joe Lieberman was kicked out of the Democratic party by the same forces which denied Hillary the nomination that is to say by a rigged UNDEMOCRATIC SYSTEM of quotas and bizarre percentages which exaggerates the importance of heavily Democratic districts and heavily Black districts. If the Democratic primaries had been winner take all then Hillary would have won and won easily. She lost because Obama gamed the system. He didn’t HAVE TO WIN ANY BIG STATES. He just had to split the big ones and get 40% or 45% of the delegates and sweep small caucus and primary states where Hillary the Dinosaur didn’t run an effective campaign. Even in Texas, where Hillary WON THE POPULAR VOTE, Obama got, incredibly more than 50% of the delegates.

Now I am not saying that my personal opinion matters a hill of beans to the Democrats or anyone else but I am sure of one thing. I was raised in a strongly pro-Democratic (but strongly anti-Socialist and anti-Communist ) family but now I have come to view the Democratic party as the enemy and I mean the enemy of most of what I love and cherish. Even Mr. Van Dyk says “Will Obama , at the upcoming Democratic convention in Denver, be able to bring the Reagan Democrats home? I am not counting on it “ (he says). I think Van Dyk is right. The Democrats , the party of factions will self-destruct on a national level. They are simply not united enough or nationalist enough to appeal to the entire nation. They think they are unbeatable in New York and San Francisco and they are but that is really a disadvantage. Red State America distrusts San Francisco and New York Democrats. I know because even though I live in a Blue State I live in the Western most edge of the Bible belt. Bakersfield has strong ties to Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Texas, Arkansas , Oklahoma and Tennessee. So the Democrats think opposing prop 8 will have no regional or national effect BUT THEY ARE DEAD WRONG. It is possible that the judges and the Attorney General (by changing the wording of the proposition in an immoral and I believe undemocratic way) may swindle the California electoral but it will be at the price of losing a dozen or more Red States who are mobilizing as I speak to oppose Gay Marriage to the end. The consensus FOR marriage is much stronger than the consensus for birth control and abortion (reproductive rights). Many American women (even cafeteria Catholics) embrace artificial birth control and the right to have an abortion but these same women think that wiping out traditional marriage IS BAD VERY BAD FOR WOMEN. And they are right. Marriage, monogamous marriage has ALWAYS PROTECTED WOMEN and CHILDREN and given married women a special honored status and greater security. If you destroy traditional marriage you destroy that. And also, in my view once you embrace so-called Gay Marriage- you have opened a Pandora’s box. I don’t see how you can –in the long term- block polygamy and incest. Daughters will marry their fathers if for nothing else to get his health insurance and the lifetime benefit of his pension. Why not? If my father could have married my sister she would be set for life now with a lifetime benefit of his pension. If you allow any sort of marriage the protection of children , the solvency of pension plans and the transfer of property will be in a state of chaos. Already Gay marriage promises flurries of law suits. All wasted effort , time and money only so a selfish faction can play act at marriage. Others are afraid to say what they think I am not.


Van Dyk says the ‘Democratic party is still filled with single-issue single interest and social issue “ factions (a word I use not him). He seems afraid to say WHO these groups are. He mentions abortion once but multiculturalism, militant Sangerite feminism, not at all. He does not even mention that the Democrats are not inviting the HIGHEST RANKING CATHOLIC LEADER IN THE STATE OF COLORADO. Denver Archbishop Charles J. Chaput. This would have been unheard of at Democratic conventions in 1876-through 1964. Of course the Democrats remember Los Angeles in 2000 when the Democratic delegates almost en masse BOOED Bishop Mahoney. Chaput is anathema to liberal Democrats and radical Feminists (Sangerites) because he is pro-family and pro-life. Sure the Democrats will find a few cafeteria Catholics –some very old ones like Biden- and some Episcopalians and maybe even a few liberal Orthodox Bishops so they can pretend all is well. They will even scrape the bottom of the barrel and find a Marine Corps color guard and maybe some Boy Scouts (the Boy Scouts ALSO were booed at the 2000 Democratic convention. But most Scout leaders will be at the Republican convention and –something unheard of in 1964 or 1968- Southern Baptists and Roman Catholics will be very prominent as well at the Republican convention. So let me say it : without Chaput the Democrats are KAPUT. The Democrats deceived themselves that a pro-Choice adulterous Catholic married to a non-Catholic like Kerry would win them Catholic votes; now they deceive themselves that an Old Guard Big Liberal Cafeteria Catholic will win them votes WHILE THEY INSULT one of America’s most distinguished Catholic leaders and the HIGHEST RANKING (Indian/Native American ) leader. Chaput is no reactionary. He is a Franciscan monk who had taken seriously his vows of poverty and he has very serious social justice credentials. He is no libertarian Republican who says “pay the soldiers and forget the rest.”

FROM THE AUSTALIAN (August 23, 2008; see “OBAMA’S FETAL MISTAKE” in the Australian http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24225530-5013948,00.html

**Democratic convention in Denver next week, he must be wondering how best to deal with a book that Charles Chaput, Denver's high-profile Catholic archbishop, has just published: Render Unto Caesar: Serving the Nation by Living Our Catholic Beliefs in Political Life.
Chaput is a Native American of the Potawatomi tribe and a Franciscan monk with serious social justice credentials. He is not partisan in a political sense. Nonetheless he's long been one of the most uncompromising members of the hierarchy in insisting that politicians who call themselves Catholics and trade on it to get themselves elected need to be mindful of the church's teaching when framing public policy. In 2004 he argued that Kerry, as an avowedly pro-abortion candidate for the presidency, should have been denied communion. No doubt he will be saying the same thing about Obama's running mate if he describes himself as a pro-choice Catholic. Three mooted contenders this week, Governor Tim Kaine and senators Joe Biden and Jack Reed, all fall in that category.
As the book's title suggests, Chaput covers the whole field, from life politics to wage justice in the US, environmental issues and aid to the Third World. Considering America's political class, he says that more than 150 members of Congress call themselves Catholics and wonders, "What difference do they make?" His conclusion is just the kind of rallying call the Obama campaign team has been dreading in recent weeks. "We need to take a much tougher and more self-critical look at ourselves as believers; at the issues underlying today's erosion of Catholic identity and at the wholesale assimilation - absorption might be a better word - of Catholics by American culture."***



http://www.lifenews.com/nat4171.html


See also http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=28904&cb300=vocations I talk to Democrats all the time. To them Catholic culture does not exist.

I hate Bold State Liberalism (what the Democrats are today –Social Democrats) because it is murder machine of the individual and the family and of religion. So it defines itself, so it proclaims itself so it is organized (not by individual merit but by special interest and aggrieved special interest groups). To the Big Liberal social-Democrats of today, tradition, custom, religion are not important at all. Liberalism in the USA today is a misnomer because it is not liberal at all but only a bundle of cruel ideologies of victimhood and revenge and prejudices. The essence of PC thought idol worship and ideology which frees individuals FROM THE DUTY OF INDEPENDENT THOUGHT. Marx said there was no God, so did Nietzsche, so did the anonymous Fool of the Bible, Darwinists, social and otherwise believe science has proved there is no God which is as foolish as saying calculus can prove what is love, what is faith, what is courage and chemistry can prove the purity of a man’s word or the truth of his loyalty or love.

But I would say that history is against them. What has survived is not FORCE but FAITH and FREEDOM. There are permanent things.

In my view limitation is essential to both liberty and authority. Government must be limited and only a limited government can be legitimate.

Liberty is not and cannot be achieved by coercion. No, liberty consists of the division of power and free choice.

Education at its best is ultimately about free choice. I tell my student they choose how much they will learn or how much they will study. THEY HAVE TO CHOOSE because it IS FOR THEM. And I emphasize that only if they BELIEVE in the POWER OF EDUCATION to transform their lives will they become enthusiastic. I can keep tabs on them during class but ultimately what they do in their little heads IS THEIR CHOICE. I invite my students to learn. It is my job to teach them to WISH FOR EDUCATION AND WISH FOR LIBERTY TO UNDERSTAND THEM AND BE CAPABLE OF BOTH. Liberty and love of learning are in fact very contagious. To fall in love with literature, etymology, language, history, political science. To respect religion (in my private life I am a Sunday school catechist).

Words, books and religion are not dead things but are wriggling with life! They are the exciting and mysterious TOKENS OF HUMAN THOUGHT TODAY AND THROUGHOUT THE AGES. Like human beings they are born, they grow to maturity, grow old and die but sometimes they are re-born because knowledge and faith can be passed down from generation to generation.

There is no synthesis. That is just Hegelian hogwash and humbug. Never forget the Hun gave us Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, Prussian Militarism and Nazism.

Essential truths carry on from generation to generation. As the Gael sang to his beloved from whom he would be separated for years and perhaps forever –“castles are sacked in war , chieftains are scattered far, BUT TRUTH IS A FIX-ed STAR…”!

I do not trust German philosophers and I mean GERMAN philosophers who tell me that LIBERTY and FREEDOM do not exist and never did exist and that LOVE does not exist and never did exist and that FAITH and DEVOTION do not exist and never did exist and that the individual counts for nothing and is just a stick upon a string. That’s just German philosophical humbug.

My son’s college professors say people like me are foolish because the Republican party is the party of the rich and we are not rich (yet ironically of course Big Money is supporting the Democrats in a big way.). Of course, I consider myself to be a small r republican and a small d democrat and a capital I Independent. I am only registered as a Republican since 2000 and I did so for only one reason: I wanted to be able to vote in the presidential primary for John McCain.

So in my small way I contributed to McCain’s rise –he had strong support in California and other places among independents.

My identity as an individual is as a Christian in the Roman Catholic tradition, as a Munro that is to say as a free Gael bydan free, and as an American who served his country of choice in the US Marines and who believes in the proposition that all men are created equal and that we are a nation ‘under God’ by which I understand our nation was built upon the natural rights philosophy that there are essential freedoms and rights such as LIFE, LIBERTY and PROPERTY (so Locke says as so says the constitution); I understand the ‘pursuit of happiness’ to mean the right of individuals to choose how they will live and how they will educated themselves and their children in their private lives or domain.

Marx is also wrong to think that religion is an opiate that that proletarians will necessarily be atheists and materialists. I think the 20th and 21st century has proved otherwise. Most major religions enjoy the prerogative of PERPETUAL YOUTH while philosophical systems come and go rarely lasting a generation or so. Indeed, I would say for most people in America Marx and Hegel are non-entities.
But Jesus of Nazareth, Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln are not. Most Americans have a very good sense of the beliefs and ideas of these men WHOSE LEGACY THEY TRUST.

Most Americans do not TRUST the legacy of Marx and all his communist spawn AND THEY ARE RIGHT because communism means the destruction of the individual, the destruction of private life, the destruction of private and public religion and above all the exterminator of happy families and happy individuals. Small nations have a right to be free and by God so do small entities like families.
Americans want justice but are wary of a Bold State (Big Government) which promises everything at the price of their freedom. This is why I think, in the end, the American people will be scunnered by Obama-Biden and go for McCain. If McCain is wise he will pick Sarah Palin –who like Chaput also has Native American ties (all of her five children are part Native American). If McCain picks a woman the Reagan/Hillary Democrats will flock to him and abandon Obama/Biden in droves. By picking a Dinosaur Democrat Obama has sealed his fate.

RICHARD K. MUNRO August 23, 2008

2 comments:

Ted said...

Despite the Dems and the allied main stream media’s desperation to see Romney as McCain’s Veep, Mitt is clearly out, with (1) Obama doubling down on the class warfare theme (McCain’s 7 houses) and (2) McCain doubling down with ads showing the hypocrisy of Biden attacking Obama in the primaries — Romney did way more than that contra McCain.

This leaves only Govs Sarah Palin and Tim Pawlenty. Pro-abortion Ridge and Dem-Lieberman were never real considerations, despite relentless media goading. Pawlenty’s lackluster TV performances, coupled with Palin pizzazz, the primacy of oil drilling and the ticked off women/Hillary voters, does now portend a McCain/Palin checkmate on the Dems. This is so albeit the Dems and liberal media dare not mention Palin’s name, that is, everyone but…..

And if there’s any question as to Palin being uniquely positioned and able to more than nullify Biden in debate, see the excellent discussion at palinforvp.blogspot.com

Team McCain, well done!!!

RICHARD K. MUNRO said...

Yes, it turned out all the pundits were wrong and I was write. This gives me great confidence that McCain really is a maverick. His choice defied conventional wisdom but isn't it ironic "staid conservative McCain" made a refreshing bold choice and Obama he man of so-called change picked a safe choice which was really "staid and conservative" That choice might cost him the election