We must destroy freedom in order to save it.

May you drown in your own shit, Rod.

So. Not. Punk. Rock.

Thank Christ we elected Barack Obama.

Yeah, I agree with Iran, who totally isn’t me.

I want to be free to pay David Vitter’s hooker to take a whiz on Rod Dreher.

Gee whiz, Rod, without The Enlightenment you wouldn’t know how to read your bible because it was in the interest of the One True Boy-Molesting Church to have it be incomprehensible to the laity.

Rod Dreher longs for the days when the local lord could claim “the right of the first night” with Rod’s virginal bride. After all, what’s better than having someone of higher station break her in for you?

TRADITION!!!!

Oh god, someone please give this guy a NYT column so he can yell this stuff from the mountaintop.

Also, someone please stick this guy in a really rotten prison somewhere so we can refuse to get him out. Stupid human rights, grumble grumble.

Even worse than that PeeJ – I don’t think he believes in freedom at all.

For the libertarian, human happiness is the highest goal,

So let me see…the Sixties had free love, free sex, great drugs and great music.

And this was UNhappy….precisely how, again?

Fucking hell, what a rube.

WTF?! Virtue is his measuring stick? Who the hell is it that gets to define what is and is not virtue? I think someone should point out to Rod that silence is a virtue.

I mean, is he really arguing that the Pre-Enlightenment era was more virtuous than Post? Seriously?

Peeance ‘n freeance, motherfucker

Gee whiz, Rod, without The Enlightenment you wouldn’t know how to read your bible because it was in the interest of the One True Boy-Molesting Church to have it be incomprehensible to the laity.

For Rod that would be a feature, not a bug. After all, we can’t just let anybody interpret the Word of God however they choose, can we? That would lead to a disaster of biblical proportions – human sacrifice, dogs and cats sleeping together, mass hysteria!

I’m down 1,000 points since inauguration day.

To mangle a classic quote and cheat the author of attribution: There was a time religion ruled the world. It was known as the Dark Ages.

Onto other fun, I saw a tea party! A group of about 200…er, I mean 30,000 or so gathered in Daley Plaza here in the Fatherland of Chicago to fight for pork freedom or something. Then they paraded past my place of employment. I was outside smoking a cig when their protest march began the stretch past my building. By the time I finished said cig and got a cup of coffee, it was long over. Seriously, I was gone for about 3 minutes tops.

High-larious and freedomy.

This is rare sincerity from the conservative movement. They really are about rolling back the Englightenment, but they usually will never admit as such.

It is as Agre wrote in 2004, they are aristocrats seeking to return to feudalism.

I applaud his forthright march into the realm of political irrelevance. May his compatriots all follow his enchanting piping into the sea like the snakes they are.

I suppose that absent a commonly held source of authority from which we can derive binding ideals of virtue…”

Virtue must come from authority! Authority, dammit! There’s no way I can come to know a personal sense of virtue. Someone tell me what’s important and how I should act, please.

…the right of the first night”

I’m sure that if he knew about ius primae noctus, he figures he’d be the lord. Cuz he’s all so smart and shit.

Gee whiz, Rod, without The Enlightenment you wouldn’t know how to read your bible because it was in the interest of the One True Boy-Molesting Church to have it be incomprehensible to the laity.

He’s Orthodox, so a big believer in the incense-laden mysteries of Churchendom.

He’s Orthodox

He’s Orthodox because he was free to choose it.

It is as Agre wrote in 2004, they are aristocrats seeking to return to feudalism.

Except most of them are serfs.

The Dow Jones said,

I’m down 1,000 points since inauguration day.

And down 7,000 since Bush denied the mortgage crisis in 2007!

In fact, the traditionalist does not recognize human happiness apart from virtue burning heretics and witches, and subjugating women and peasants.

FREEDUMB!!!!!HAPPINESS!!!!

Indeed, RB, it is one of his many logical FAILs.

I’ll take Dreher seriously when he unplugs from the grid, moves to the sticks, and engages in subsistence farming, penning his screeds by the light of hand-made tallow candles, using quills from his own geese and iron oxide ink from walnuts on hand-scraped sheepskin. Until then, he can STFU about the Enlightenment and pretty fucking much anything else.

Shorter Dreher: I can’t handle freedom! Please enslave me!!

Virtue!

Gesundheit.

Is it me or does Rod look like one of the Darrins from “Bewitched”?

protected static… don’t forget, he also has to swear off the use of antibiotics. I doubt he uses soap often.

Alternate shorter Dreher: I say ‘Enlightenment’, but it really all started going to shit with that fucker Luther.

SCENE: Late Middle Ages

Two men are talking in front of a stake prepared for execution.

FIRST MAN: What is going on? Who is being executed.

SECOND MAN: I myself saw to the condemnation of the witch! She heard supernatural voices and did what they told her to do.

FIRST MAN: So why are you burning her at the stake?

SECOND MAN: God told me to.

The question, though, is not whether the Sixties (or the Enlightenment) were good or bad, but whether on balance the Sixties (or the Enlightenment) were good or bad.

Help!

I keep reading and rereading this. I’m CERTAIN I must be missing something. Are those not exactly the same questions?

“The question, though, is not whether I’m holding an orange in my right hand, but whether, at this point, I’m holding an orange in my right hand.”

Does the “on balance” part really change the question?

Ouch. My head hurts…

mikey

“I don’t think he believes in freedom at all.”

Well, as the kids say, Duh. As I said on Rod’s site, he thinks his idea of virtue includes the proviso that it is, whether they know it or not, everyone else’s, too.

There are various names for this, but “crunchy conservatism” isn’t one of them.

Shorter Rod: “But you don’t understand. We’re suppressing knowledge, science, modern medicine, literacy, the abolition of slavery, the rise of republican democracy over the divine right of kings, longer life expectancies, and an overall better physical, intellectual, and emotional way of living for a much larger segment of society FOR YOUR OWN GOOD.”

B4: as well as indoor plumbing, and having the good sense to not shit in your own drinking water.

I’m down 1,000 points since inauguration day.

You’re also down ~6,000 points *before* Inauguration Day, but I don’t hear you complaining about that.

At least Rod’s right about Virtue being a hard sell. Even Nintendo couldn’t move teh Virtual-Boy.

Oh, and FYWP. Anyone got a replacement for the <sup /> tags?

So his idea of perfection is having absolutely no access to healthcare whatsoever, risking starvation every winter, and spending every single daylight hour working the fields with a wooden hoe?

Or is it the complete absence of basic personal hygiene of the era, or is going without shoes fun? Back then, it was common for people to make shoes by taking a piece of soft, uncured hide, straight off the dead cow, and then tying it round their foot and letting it harden in place.

And of course, wasting half of every Sunday morning listening to some twat waffling on in a language you cant understand, strongly suspecting he is talking out of his arse, but being unable to prove it since you cant even speak the language used for all religious and philosophical crap.

Serfdom is freedom! arbeicht macht frei etc.

Personally, I can’t decide if the Fifties (or The Spanish Inquisition) were a good thing or if the Fifties (or the Spanish Inquisition) were a bad thing.

Why does Rod Dhimmiher love Islamofascism so much?

But I question its durability over time. We are free — but for what?

What a douche nozzle. I would like to ask this of his hypothetical Neo-Dark Age:

We are miserable and oppressed—but for what?

A freshman philosophy student could figure out that any justification for the good life will be somewhat circular. You might as well be free to choose your justification so at least it won’t be a vicious circle.

I’ve been saying for years that aristocracy, the divine right of kings, and an oppressed underclass forced to do what it was told by its “betters” is the ultimate goal of conservatism. They’re enemies of egalitarianism; every single element of conservative policy bears that out.

But damn, it’s really unusual for them to say so out loud.

America from 1980 until 2008, represented The Endarkenment.

-GSD

spending every single daylight hour working the fields with a wooden hoe?

I think you could spend day and night working with her, and she still won’t loosen up.

Fuck the Dow, anyway. Consensual hallucination by circle-jerk is, if anything, the epitome of ‘building your house on a foundation of sand.’* I mean, it sounds like an intriguing way to spend a Saturday night, but it’s nothing to base your whole motherfucking economy on.

* Using it as a strictly literary reference, of course; wouldn’t want to have to turn in my coastalfagelitistislamoatheistabortifascist membership card, after all.

The question, though, is not whether Rod Dreher sucks donkey balls, but whether on balance Rod Dreher sucks donkey balls.

I question his durability over time. He sure sucks them donkey balls pretty hard – but for what?

“Fuck the Dow, anyway”

You don’t want our votes, do you?

A bad man who is content with himself cannot truly be said to be happy, in this view.

Then where did Chimpy’s permanent smirk come from?

I was recently browsing Wiki looking up Edward the II (longshanks from Braveheart) and noticed that he and 2 wives had about 13 children, of whom I believe 9 died before adolesence. This was a bloody King with the best of everything available and still less than a third of his kids even made it past puberty.

Yeah, bring back those dark ages. Nasty, brutish and short. Woohoo, conservativism.

We are free — but for what?

Well, checking my calendar, I see I’m free for lunch on Tuesday.

I think you mean penning screeds on Big Chief tablets while screaming for another Dr. Nut from his alcoholic mother in between indignant tirades about contemporary cinema. Except not funny.

Someone wrote:

I’ll take Dreher seriously when he unplugs from the grid, moves to the sticks, and engages in subsistence farming, penning his screeds by the light of hand-made tallow candles, using quills from his own geese and iron oxide ink from walnuts on hand-scraped sheepskin. Until then, he can STFU about the Enlightenment and pretty fucking much anything else.

working the fields with a wooden hoe?

She’s not going to be much help at all.

Well, checking my calendar, I see I’m free for lunch on Tuesday.

Well perhaps you’ll try the Restaurant at the End of the Universe, I hear it’s very nice…

I thought American conservatives valued the traditions of, you know, America. Not the traditions of Capetian France or Hanoverian Britain. Don’t we call those people “reactionary”? I mean, when asshole and fucktard lose their fun.

Let the War on Fun commence!

tigrismus:

He’s Orthodox, so a big believer in the incense-laden mysteries of Churchendom.

I was brought up Orthodox, and I can tell you, a lot of the mystery went out when they started doing most of the Liturgy in English instead of ancient Greek. I liked it better when I didn’t know what they were saying. It turned out to be mostly the usual stuff about explaining to God that God is really God.

Incense still smells really nice, though.

STOP FEEDING THE FUCKING TROLL.

Thank you.

Does the “on balance” part really change the question?

Not at all.

Next!
Anyone got a replacement for the sup /> tags?

Like this: B⁴? ampersandoctothorp8308semicolon.
Use unicode. & # 8303; all mushed together, natch.

Next!

You might as well be free to choose your justification so at least it will be a fabulous won’t will be a vicious fabulous circle jerk.

Next!

Mikey:
“Does the “on balance” part really change the question?”

He’s thinking in terms of absolutes. So he side steps the question of whether the enlightenment was objectively good or bad and moves to the lesser pragmatic question. I think.

I’m counting two trollies. $2 more dollars for ACORN from me! Since there were $20 on the previous thread, that’s $22 so far for the day.

Duck the Fow!

The question, though, is not whether the Sixties (or the Enlightenment) were good or bad, but whether on balance the Sixties (or the Enlightenment) were good or bad.

How does adding the two words “on balance” change the second part of this sentence? What the hell is he trying to say? Besides blaming Galileo, I mean…

FYWP!!!

On balance.

I think Dreher means that he doesn’t judge The Enlightenment by all the good things that came out of it – but he also considers all the Bad Stuff too. Bad Stuff like… ummm… the Constitution!!!

I don’t mean to piss on Dreher’s parade, but people did an awful lot of suckin’ & f*%$in’ during the Dark Ages – not to mention I can’t think of a lot of people more obsessed with virtue than the Jacobins…

So sorry, Rod! Next time rely on someone better than Spengler ‘n Evola for your histories!!!!

Incense still smells really nice, though.

And, Bitter Scribe, you’ll always have spanakopita.

@PeeJ: I’ve been living in Unicode hell for the last 4 days, so fuck Unicode, too. Composed characters, denormalized strings… Gah! Normalizing strings led to unprintable characters being inserted in my text, while leaving them denormalized neutered some (but not all, of course) find-and-replace operations… When is a curly single quote not a single curly quote? Fucked if I know, but there seem to be way too many ways of encoding them, or producing characters that aren’t them but that look like them.

Not that I’m bitter, or anything.

Seriously, though? Thanks. Good tip.

That bong should be a crack pipe.

There’s a whole web site of this stuff (medievalism without religions freedom == happy), and it’s one of my favorites.

Tradition in action

Really it’s a goldmine.

“I’ve been saying for years that aristocracy, the divine right of kings, and an oppressed underclass forced to do what it was told by its “betters” is the ultimate goal of conservatism. They’re enemies of egalitarianism; every single element of conservative policy bears that out.”

If this is where Rod’s coming from, I must say it’s pretty fucking naive of him to assume he’d be up in the Palace, living in (relative) splendor with the King, Queen, Duke, etc. and not struggling to get by, living in squalor, as a slave. As would be the case with most of the people.

protected static,

I understand your pain. Here’s a great cheat sheet that might help. Added advantage that you only see exactly what works on your browser.

http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/user/iwi/charmap.html

That bong should be a crack pipe.

Better still, a
Pear.

FYWP!!!!

Of course, I meant;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pear_of_Anguish

“If this is where Rod’s coming from, I must say it’s pretty fucking naive of him to assume he’d be up in the Palace, living in (relative) splendor with the King, Queen, Duke, etc. and not struggling to get by, living in squalor, as a slave. As would be the case with most of the people.”

The thing about the authoritarian mindset is most of them don’t actually insist on being in the Palace themselves so long as someone they identify with is in the Palace.

“Nobody wins unless somebody else loses” is the way they see the world. There has to be a hierarchy of winners and losers. It’s okay to be a loser, as long as there’s an even bigger loser to look down on.

Ooh, good reference, PeeJ!

Adding to my angst? Beyond browser issues, we have cross-platform JVM issues as well. I’m ready to start a list: Apple’s JVM devs, MSFTs JVM devs, Sun’s Java devs, and as many of the Unicode brainiacs as I can get my hands on – not necessarily in that order.

First on my list, however, is the useless sack of protoplasm who thought Unicode needed to support Klingon, just out of principle. I loves me some Trek, but man… lines need to be drawn and examples need to be set.

A libertarian is just a Republican who has given up all pretense of giving a shit about other people.

And, Bitter Scribe, you’ll always have spanakopita.

Along with through-the-roof blood cholesterol.

I suppose that absent a commonly held source of authority from which we can derive binding ideals of virtue

Authoritarian brain (not mind)-set? Check!

Use of words that have never had much actual meaning, & have now been stripped of all meaning through their totemic use by people like Dreher? Um, lessee, oh, “virtue!” Check!

Colossal fucking asshole I would love to put a lot closer to his non-existent “Gawd?” You know it, baby!!

Along with through-the-roof blood cholesterol.

So much for the Mediterranean diet!

From Mandos’ linky

Society Becomes Corrupted When Women Wear Masculine Clothes

1. Masculine clothing changes the psychology of women In truth, the motive that impels women to wear the clothing of men is not always to imitate him, but rather to compete with the man who is considered stronger, less encumbered and more independent. This motivation shows clearly that masculine dress is a visible support to bring about a mental attitude of being ‘like a man.’ Further, since the existence of man, the clothing a person wears conditions, determines and modifies the gestures, attitudes and conduct of a person. Thus, just by its wearing, the clothing comes to impose a particular state of spirit in the person.

Permit us to add that a woman who always wears the clothing of men more or less indicates that she is reacting to her femininity as if it were inferior, when in fact it is only different. The perversion of her psychology is clearly evident.

The question, though, is not whether women wearing pantsuits is good or bad, but whether on balance women wearing pantsuits is good or bad. I answer in the negative.

Alternate shorter Dreher: I say ‘Enlightenment’, but it really all started going to shit with that fucker Luther.

If he’s Orthodox, his complaints about deviation from the true path go back much longer than Jew-hater Luther.

Went to a Russian Orthodox wedding once. Those fucks are weird!!

BWAHAHABWAHAHAHA
via TPM, redstate.com makes their mark in self pwnag3. It’s teh funnay.

mikey!!!!

As a perpetual lurker and occasional commenter, I must say, we miss you buddy.

Went to a Russian Orthodox wedding once. Those fucks are weird!!

My cousin had a Greek Orthodox wedding. During the ceremony, the priest intoned three times (they say everything three times–it represents the Trinity, or maybe we’re all just too dumb to get it the first two): “And the woman shall be beholden to the ma-a-a-a-an.”

When they got home, my cousin looked her new husband (who is not Greek) in the eye and said, “You can forget that beholden shit right now.”

Moral: Some of us fucks are weird. The others just play along.

wasting half of every Sunday morning listening to some twat waffling on

Uh, I don’t think the serfs got away w/ half-Sunday morning. It was pretty much as long as the twat could waffle, followed (or preceded) by an ass’t. wafffling twat.

(Ummh, twat-waffles!!)

mikey – I’ve decided to donate $1 to a liberal cause for every troll comment. Today’s beneficiary is ACORN! I’m up to $27, for three threads today!

Mikey:
“Does the ‘on balance’ part really change the question?”

Indeedly doodley, it does.

The first asks whether that period was objectively good. The second asks what effects it has had on the things I happen to care about. It’s all about stopping the scrutiny of the consequences at the time, place and category of Dreher’s choice.

Therefore, although the sixties and the Enlightenment were good for making life pleasanter and freer for just about everybody, they were bad on balance because they de-emphasized religious values, such as being obedient, feeling guilty and fearing the fires of hell.

Dreher, at least in his writing, is more honest than most Christians. They claim to believe in all the Biblical stuff, but it’s glaringly clear that they give material goals a much, much higher priority than spiritual goals. They are out there raving with anger over paying more taxes in order to give a deprived child a chance at getting medical treatment or attending a Head Start program. They are the ones who scream about removing brain-dead individuals from life support, presumably condemning them to months or years of unconsciousness in a hospital bed, rather than allowing them to go home to Jesus. They indignantly reject the idea of regulating their consumption for the good of the planet’s future. Yet they claim to worship the Jesus who supposedly said, “Whatsoever you do the least of these, my brethern, you do to me.”

Christians claim that salvation should be the focus of one’s life, but they are as distracted as any of us by the great products (literacy, long lives, abundant food, availability of pain medication, entertainment, transportation, sexual liberation, fertility control) that came out of the Enlightment and the sixties.

Seriously, if you really believe that the most important thing in life is to be saved from hell by Jesus, all the goodies of this world are nothing but a snare and a delusion, and the Enlightenment and the sixties just made it harder to stay focused on that important goal.

The funny thing about the “on balance” approach to judment is that absolutely anything can be viewed as “good,” if you follow the consequences to just the right spot and then stop. It’s a good thing X got breast cancer, because it made her more empathetic to the suffering of others. On the other hand, the empathy she passed on to her kids set her son up to be conned out of his savings later in his life. On the other hand, if he hadn’t lost those savings, he would have bought that boat that later had its engine blow up and drowned its passengers. Then he wouldn’t have impregnated his wife with their second child. On the other hand, their second child grew up and tried to drive too far one day on a family trip and fell asleep, and crossed the center line and took out his entire family and a car full of lawyers. So on balance it was good that X got breast cancer? But one of those lawyers was Barack Obama. So I guess it depends on whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican. On and on forever, of course.

“Everything happens for a reason.” >gag<

@M. Bouffant: Yeah, I know, but I’m not as up on my Easter/Western Church schisms. Early Modern is more my thing, so Luther seemed as good a milestone as any.

The best things about Orthodox weddings are those Jordan almonds. Plus the wild dancing, and all that ouzo, and the retsina.

OPA!

The question, though, is not whether the Sixties (or the Enlightenment) were good or bad, but whether on balance the Sixties (or the Enlightenment) were good or bad. I answer in the negative.

I just have a hard time making sense of this at all. I agree with all here that Dreher’s intention is to say that the Sixties and the Enlightenment were bad. However, as it’s written, he seems to be denying that, on balance, the Sixties and the Enlightenment were either good or bad.

Well BS, I played along too. The bit w/ holding the crowns over the heads of the B & G was pretty funny, as was standing in a tiny, non-A/C church in So Calif. during at least the spring, if npt summer, for forty-five minutes.

I will not, however. complain about the many bottles of Stoli or whatever that were freely applied to the tables at the reception.

Yeah, I know, but I’m not as up on my Easter/Western Church schisms.

FWIW, an early biggie was the Filioque clause.

Oh, projected, I don’t know shit from piss concerning that stuff either. Would’ve slapped down a date if I did. (No, that doesn’t sound right.) “Mentioned a datetime.” There. And chances are good that Dreher is a convert from some less rigid lie.

There also seems to be a Greek/Russki schism. Ouzo/retsina vs. vodka.

I agree with all here that Dreher’s intention is to say that the Sixties and the Enlightenment were bad. However, as it’s written, he seems to be denying that, on balance, the Sixties and the Enlightenment were either good or bad.

He should have just said (as I think his intention was to say), “Yes they Sixties and the Enlightenment brought good things to this world, but overall the negatives they brought outweigh the positives. Or something.” When I have to read a phrase more than once, then I’m done with you, especially when you use weasel-word phrases like “I answer in the negative.” Wow, way to write with the force of your convictions, chief.

Ouzo + Retsina = Biggest Fucking Hangover EVAH, including Red Wine and Bourbon.
OPA indeed – by the way, where are my pants?

Pre-Englightenment times — ah, the good old days, when every pregnancy meant losing another tooth and another year of life, and because women were property, they’d have babies until their owners got tired of fucking them, and their owners weren’t even really held responsible for their care, but could walk off with anything they happened to bring to the transaction (which seems to me to be a disincentive to keep your property alive and healthy). Which is the other side of what Dreher wants, but isn’t willing to admit to.

Seriously, if you really believe that the most important thing in life is to be saved from hell by Jesus, all the goodies of this world are nothing but a snare and a delusion, and the Enlightenment and the sixties just made it harder to stay focused on that important goal.

The subtext is that the serfs must be convinced that’s the most important thing, or that there is a life of kingly/lordly indolence waiting in heaven, so the the peasants are kept from revolting in an attempt to get some goodies, by those “pie in the sky, by & by, when you die” stories. Dreher’s probably just stupid enough not to realize that he’s a mouthpiece. Or not. He could just be completely evil.

M. Bouffant: “Dreher’s probably just stupid enough not to realize that he’s a mouthpiece. Or not. He could just be completely evil.”

What’s really aggravating is that his type doesn’t even realize that his own actions are completely contrary to what he thinks he believes. I mean, we all fall short of our ideals out of laziness and the desire for pleasure. But I recognize where I fall short. Idiots like Dreher go on crusades for politicians whose policies have nothing to do with their stated ideals. Except for the gay bashing, I guess. And they are totally blind to that fact.

@M Bouffant: Dreher has been shopping around for a religion – he converted to Catholicism from Iforgetwhat, then left for Eastern Orthodox out of disgust over both perceived liberalism as well as the pedophilia conspiracy.

The boy’s slept around, as it were, and still nothing quite satisfies him. Maybe there’s a moral there… Methinks perhaps something along the lines of “Lighten up, Francis!”

Best comment:

Freddy
February 27, 2009 7:55 AM
Rod – You’ve converted from Protestantism to Catholicism to the Eastern Orthodox Church. I’m curious – who authorized you to do that?

I requested Rod let us know if he finds a more authoritarian religion to which he could convert.

“None so blind as …,” cowalker

“The thing about the authoritarian mindset is most of them don’t actually insist on being in the Palace themselves so long as someone they identify with is in the Palace.”

It’s always difficult to tell when the people making this, er, ‘case’ are being genuine, though. So much of this nonsense is on the same level as the comments shat out by the local trolls, i.e. ugly, childish taunting for its own sake. Rod might as well be rolling around in a puddle of his piss, shrieking, “Lookit me! Lookit meeee!!!”…and filming it live for YouTube.

Not that there aren’t ideological morons who have a pathetic need to place themselves on the side of society’s “Winners” even if they personally get nothing out of it…but that brand of simpleton doesn’t tend to make it as far as Professional Propagandist…or Would-Be Professional Propagandist, as is apparently the case here. That breed of scumbag likes to be rewarded for its efforts.

So: Is Rod sincere? Or is he just making up shit in a pathetic attempt at grabbing some attention? If we could send him back to the Middle Ages courtesy of Stewie Griffin’s time machine, I can easily imagine Rod grovelling before the King, snivelling out (amidst the bootlicking), “I live only to tell Ye People of how wonderous ye be, Sire!” only to have His Royal Majesty reply, “That’s nice, slave. Now hold still while we fit this iron collar around yer neck. And don’t whine as we kick all your teeth down your throat. A full set of gnahsers is unbecoming in a slave.” But what would Rod’s response be? To grin happily and try to lick yon hob-nailed boots as the King and the various court lackeys and hangers-on take turns stomping on his face? Or will he gawk in surprise before blurting out, “Buh-buh-but….I’m on YOUR side!!!!”

Which do you think it would be, Sports Fans?

The question, though, is not whether Rod’s thoughts (or mooney pining) were twaddle or not, but whether on balance Rod’s thoughts (or mooney pining) were twaddle or not. I answer in the twad-diddley-oddle-affirming affirmative.

Also, why was the Enlightenment an end of virtue? Wasn’t it supposed to be the highest expression of our virtues that we were able to create a society in which people had both freedom to define and express themselves how they wished and the responsibilities to uphold, defend and encourage those freedoms for others?

And yeah, big models of virtue those nobles of the ancien régime were, with their prima noctae rights and ability to off anybody who dared disagree with their decrees. I’m starting to get me some of that nostalgia for the good old peon-beating days myself…

well, Bouf, he could always join the Taliban…

It’s weird because the RCC is more authoritarian than the Orthodox churches.

You really really have to read that Tradition In Action site. It explains EVERYTHING. I’ve spent hours staring at its hypnotic beauty. A hypnotic beauty that blames the French Revolution (not the 60s) for everything that went wrong, and claims to represent the “Counter-Revolution.”

Also, why was the Enlightenment an end of virtue? Wasn’t it supposed to be the highest expression of our virtues that we were able to create a society in which people had both freedom to define and express themselves how they wished and the responsibilities to uphold, defend and encourage those freedoms for others?

Nonono, the Enlightenment was the highest expression of Masonic/Illuminati/whatever virtue, not the True Virtue of acceptance of your place in the Great Chain of Being.

“human happiness is the highest goal”

That may be news to most ethicists, but I believe most Satanists would agree with that.

On top of the general idiocy, what kills me about fanatically up tight, self righteously clenched poop chutes like Dreher and Larison is that some other twat can agree 100% up and down the line with their political drivel, but if said twat doesn’t agree because of their particular reading of the bibble they’re still wrong. The good side, of course, is that they’ll never influence anyone except the sycophants of (that particular cult of) jeebus.

A remarkable part of the Tradition In Action site is the sublime praise they have for Charlemagne. I swear they are getting boners just talking about The Iron Man. These people are hardcore monarchists.

You mean Charlemagne, the douche who killed five thousand of us Germans for clinging to our traditions, after forcing us to submit to his reign?

Damn hippies with their new-fangled Catholicism. Give me that old-time religion!

I can’t help thinking he’d hate “virtue” if he had to live in a world full of it.

Oh, not just ANY monarchism. Check out their review of Pan’s Labyrinth. Note the disparaging references to Juan Carlos, whom they believe sold the Spanish monarchy’s birthright for a mess of pottage (ie, end of dictatorship, peace in Spain…).

Don’t forget their review of The Matrix.

Bleedin’ idiot, Dreher.

Dan D, I thought Edward I was E. Longshanks? Teddy Two was the red-hot-poker-up-the-jaxy one immortalised by Marlowe and Derek Jarman.

/history geek

Permit us to add that a woman who always wears the clothing of men more or less indicates that she is reacting to her femininity as if it were inferior, when in fact it is only different. The perversion of her psychology is clearly evident.

Fuckin’ hell, noen, those dudes are weird. “Perversion of her psychology” just for wearing pants? Have they never travelled? Do they really believe that god made skirts for women and pants for men, and never ever ever countenanced any other way? I’d love to introduce the writer to some Scots, or Saudis, and try to explain to them how Pants are for Men and Dresses are for Girlies.

“can’t help thinking he’d hate “virtue” if he had to live in a world full of it.”

Yeppadoodles! See earlier reference to the Jacobins’ obsessions with virtue. Because we don’t know our own history, much less that of other people, we don’t realize that “virtue” is as much a double-edged sword as any other abstract concept.

Robespierre was a very, very virtuous man. Some of this virtue was of the commonplace variety: he believed that religion (or some kind of organized spirituality) was important for society, for example–he abhored atheists. He never took a centime from the State that was not legally his (and sent people to the guillotine who did). Surrounded by adoring women, he had one longterm, monogamous relationship (the woman was later recognized as his widow, even though they had never married, and given a pension). He was known as “L’Incorruptible” for a reason.

The other side of virtue? He could not wrap his head around the fact that other people simply could not always–or ever–live up to his standards. He believed that the unvirtuous needed to be extirpated from society, allowing the inherent goodness of humanity to flourish. It’s easy at this point to just say, “Hey, look at the Terror!,” but we need to be careful about associating it so closely with Robespierre since that was an event that was going to happen whether he had influcence with the government or not. His views on virtue and morality certainly played their part however…

The upshot? What wingnuts always fail to understand is that all abstract concepts are problematic.

Um. Okay. Get back to snarking, please…

Permit us to add that a woman who always wears the clothing of men more or less indicates that she is reacting to her femininity as if it were inferior, when in fact it is only different. The perversion of her psychology is clearly evident.

Permit me to add that a culture that is so het up about what women wear that it has to define apparel in terms of masculine = superior and (naturally) feminine = inferior, and then proceed to label female appropriaton of “masculine” apparel as “perversion of psychology,” is reacting from a mindset of such binary rigidity that it has its own erect penis up its own ass.

Its telos is not happiness, but virtue.
Has anyone used the word ‘telos’ since Herbert “The telos of tolerance is truth” Marcuse?

A bad man who is content with himself cannot truly be said to be happy, in this view.

I claim that all swans are white.
A black swan cannot truly be said to be a swan, in this view.

i can’t help but think about jacobus and his video blogs from the 14th century. this one, about cats, is especially good:

.

Read The Doomsday Book by Connie Willis, then come back and tell me about how wonderful pre-enlightenment times were.

Traditionalist is the direct meaning of the word “Conservative”
At least it was back when I walked up hill both ways to school in a peaceful driving storm
At least it was when the hippies conquered the known world before their 28 birthday (Beating both Alexander and Caesar , sigh …)

Happy Birthday Megan ! (Off Topic)

Doo bee doo bee due
Outlook not so good
tis the question and answer
Wine is the game
Dust of Cheese’s , The prize
Play if you dare !

Now that’s “the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, might be happy.”

I’m sure Rod would be more than happy to be a martyr for the cause and be a nasty brutish short serf, as long as most of his fellow humans were in the same boat. You know, losing half your children before age five and dying in huge numbers in plagues and being horribly oppressed by yr master and his liege, etc etc, definitely would make a lot of people concentrate their minds & lives on god, religion, and the next life.

Shorter Shell Goddamnit: Immiseration is the real aim of the Dreher anti-enlightenment.

Cowalker says,
…It’s a good thing X got breast cancer, because it made her more empathetic to the suffering of others. On the other hand, the empathy she passed on to her kids set her son up to be conned out of his savings later in his life. On the other hand, if he hadn’t lost those savings, he would have bought that boat that later had its engine blow up and drowned its passengers. Then …

Now you’ve done it! You have triggered a flashback to the funniest goddam ethical discussion on the Internet or anywhere else:

The Brain in the Vat operates a trolley car, or Can bad men make good brains do bad things?

See, I kinda agree with Dreher.

The Age of Reason (late 1600s-1700s) was all sorts of cool. That’s the time period that gave us Locke, Hobbes, Hume, Franklin, Jefferson (all the founding fathers, for that matter), Liebniz, Linnaeus, Rousseau, Smith, Newton…

The later period of the Enlightenment (1800s) gave us all the pseudo-intellectual wankers and concepts like “the prevailing cosmological view during the Middle Ages saw the Earth as flat, instead of spherical.”

tekss The later period of the Enlightenment (1800s) gave us all the pseudo-intellectual wankers and concepts like “the prevailing cosmological view during the Middle Ages saw the Earth as flat, instead of spherical.”