On the latter, in good Chestertonian fashion, Zippy has begun an inquiry into the Thomistic treatment of usurious forms of lending and finance which operates on the premise that maybe, just maybe, it is not the moderns who are wise and the mediaevals who are ignorant of finance, but rather the reverse. As Chesterton himself put it: “Do not be proud of the fact that your grandmother was shocked at something which you are accustomed to seeing or hearing without being shocked. It may be that your grandmother was an extremely lively and vital animal and that you are a paralytic.” Well, modern finance capitalism has produced some extraordinary paralysis, alright. We have right now a securities trade where the big banks borrow money at near zero percent from the Federal Reserve and then lend it at 2 or 3 percent to the Treasury. What a bunch of geniuses these guys are! Meanwhile the financiers develop increasing intricate arbitrage trading strategies that consist of piling up huge capital behind a momentary, fractional irrationality in some arcane market, and turning a big profit on the unearned increment that is available only to the huge player.

In any case, Zippy is back blogging, and, as ever, always worth reading.

When the concern is stated that way, one can understand the danger of such a result while at the same time seeing no problem with the approach in principle. It seems to me that the post author's central blind spot is this: She fails to see that the emotions in question, emotions of guilt, regret, pain, and so forth, are condign responses to reality. She compares what she calls the "wailing women" of post-abortion stories to "wailing women" of yore, feminists who "wailed" about how motherhood and the lack of legal abortion ruined their lives. But that is a faulty comparison on its face. It is unnatural to wail about not being able to have an abortion. It is natural and in an important sense salutary to wail about having had an abortion. A woman who feels unhappy about her abortion and who is allowed and even encouraged to confront those feelings may well be on the way to repentance and grace.

The blind spot is made especially evident when the author compares post-abortive women whose emotions are displayed as they tell their stories with parents in England who are feted after killing their disabled children. But this is completely upside down. The case of the sort she is talking about with which I am familiar is that of Robert Latimer in Canada, who murdered his disabled daughter Tracy. When people sympathize with all that he "felt" and "went through," this is sympathy that pushes (and is meant to push) in the direction of approving his act of murdering his daughter. When we listen and offer post-abortion counseling to women suffering with grief and guilt for having had abortions, the sympathy there moves the woman and society in the direction of disapproving of the abortion. Mr. Latimer doesn't feel guilt! And the people who sympathize with him aren't sharing feelings of pain and guilt for what he did but rather are sympathizing with him for what he did. In contrast, post-abortive women are often told (as the author of the post herself says) that they should "suck it up," that there is something wrong with them if a little voice tells them that what they did was not good. Encouraging them in expressing their misery is encouraging them in at least the direction of admitting wrong-doing, not sympathizing with their wrong-doing.

If you're at all interested in the whole sordid story, please click on my previous link.

But you're not at all interested - are you?

So let me give it to you straight:

"I was talking with some of my good friends in England, where I'm originally from, and in 2005 we all started to question what a country really was," Hemmings said of his decision to form a new nation. "We decided, okay, let's start an experiment. Let's try to found a nation in England."

On June 4, 2005, Hemmings issued a declaration of independence. He founded Kemetia, a secessionist state operating on the terms of the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States: a permanent population, a defined territory, and a government with the capacity to enter into relations with other states.

170 voting citizens, 32 of whom attend the University of Chicago, populate Hemmings' state. Kemetia comprises various parts of the South of England, including Winchester. Its government is a constitutional monarchy that transformed Hemmings into King Adam. It's not just a figment of Hemmings' imagination: Jordan, Syria, Taiwan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo all recognize Kemetia, according to Hemmings.

Whom shall we nominate as Lord Protector of the Chesterbelloc Republic? My vote is for Zippy.

Strictly speaking, I suppose, we would all be alarmed if, let us say, the learned justices of the Supreme Court, taking in hand a duly-enacted piece of legislation, and scrutinizing its content, adjudged it unconstitutional on the grounds that it failed to “promote the general Welfare” or “secure the Blessings of Liberty.” That would be an open door to extraordinary mischief, which the Philadelphia Convention surely did not intend. In that sense I agree with my lawyerly interlocutors: the Preamble cannot be thought to formally bind statutory enactment as the rest of the document does.

But where I part ways with them — and part ways with the ingrained scholarly habit of what we might call, with a touch of burlesque, “latent anti-Preamblism” — is when they undertake to set aside the Preamble more comprehensively, when they commence a reading of American constitutionalism abstracted from the purposes laid out there: in fine, when they embark on an effort to understand our political tradition without including in that attempt an understanding of that complex, winding sentence which serves to put the world on notice as to what ends “We the People” have set ourselves by constituting ourselves a unified people here in these United States of America.

The best known advocates of distributism were probably Hillaire Belloc and G. K. Chesterton, whose book What's Wrong with the World gave this website it's name.

Note that Distributism is, fundamentally, a consequentialist doctrine - i.e., it seeks to maximize a certain ideal end-state-of-affairs viz., the widest possible distribution of ownership of the means of production - while leaving the means by which this is accomplished pretty much up for grabs.

And that, in the end, is what's wrong with distributism.

Given the vast disparities in productive potential found in nature between individuals, between ethnicities, between races, and so on and so forth, the only means of avoiding the concentration of ownership of the means of production in the hands of relatively few individuals, ethnicities, races, &c is to build a gigantically powerful centralized state which doesn't mind resorting to main force, whenever necessary, to bring about that goal.

Trouble is, once that gigantically powerful centralized state gets built - who do you think stands the best chance of taking charge of it?

Distributist philosophers? or, say, for example...Wall Street Banksters?

The question answers itself.

Seeing that scientism is unsustainable, we must embrace a return to philosophy. Here is the second article in a two-part series on scientism I wrote for Public Discourse.

As an admittedly lazy follow-up to the recent discussion of empire and secession, I thought it might be helpful to introduce the papal "bulls of donation", in which the popes go well beyond mere toleration by taking an active and supportive role in the conquest of the New World. In theory, yes, there is a possibility that the involvement of the pontiffs could have been a moral or prudential error, such acts falling outside the charism of indefectibility, and good Catholics may disagree without censure. However, in the absence of any proof of wrongdoing, the faithful clearly owe Christ's Vicars the benefit of the doubt in this matter.

Contra those whose religion is Americanism rather than Christianity, no Christian can say "Americans are my only neighbors" and to hell with everyone else. Although empire building is seldom an obligation and often ill-advised, it cannot be true that the only just reason for conquest is self-defense. The example of Christian charity in the excerpt below is instructive:

From Inter Caetera by Pope Alexander VI, addressed to the kings of Castile and their successors:

Therefore all things diligently considered (especially the amplifying and enlarging of the Catholic faith, as it behooveth Catholic Princes following the examples of your noble progenitors of famous memory), whereas you are determined by the favor of Almighty God, to subdue and bring to the Catholic faith the inhabitants of the aforesaid lands and islands, we greatly commending this, your godly and laudable purpose in our Lord, and desirous to have the same brought to a due end, and the name of our Saviour to be known in those parts, do exhort you in our Lord and by the receiving of your holy baptism whereby you are bound to the Apostolic obedience, and earnestly require you by the bowels of mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, when you intend for the zeal of the Catholic faith to prosecute the said expedition to reduce the people of the aforesaid lands and islands to the Christian religion, you shall spare no labors at any time, or be deterred with any perils conceiving from hope and confidence that the omnipotent God will give good success to your godly attempts.]]> http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2010/03/catholic_imperialism_the_bulls.html http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2010/03/catholic_imperialism_the_bulls.html Thu, 11 Mar 2010 22:28:41 -0500 I am presently working on research for an article on history and theism for a projected Routledge Companion to Theism. A cause of slight psychological strain in doing the research is a ban on content notes--footnotes or endnotes--in the finished product. I'm not as dependent as some scholars on large numbers of content notes, but I usually have a few. (I just wrote to the editor today asking, in so many words, "Is the prohibition on content notes set in stone?" But it's hard to send the image of big, sad, appealing eyes over e-mail, and in any event, scholars are notably unamenable to the pure emotional appeal. So I kept it businesslike.)

One side issue that I would probably discuss briefly in a content note, if content notes were allowed, is the issue of the ascension as it relates to what has come to be known as the objective vision theory of the resurrection of Jesus. I'm a couple of months liturgically early in discussing the ascension, but hopefully my readers won't mind too much.

]]> http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2010/03/the_ascension_and_the_objectiv.html http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2010/03/the_ascension_and_the_objectiv.html Christianity Christianity evidence Thu, 11 Mar 2010 17:29:12 -0500 The Moroccan government has begun what amounts to an expulsion of all Christian missionaries. Considering that the speech of a Dutch politician said to be anti-Islamic, or a Swiss law to curtail the building of minarets, is the kind of thing that attracts extensive and often hyperbolic press coverage, one might expect that this Moroccan policy might be worthy of notice. Alas, aside from a few blogs and a handful of New Zealand websites, this outrage has gone unremarked. My brother Robert Cella has some firsthand experience in missions work in Morocco. Here is the note he wrote me about the explusion:

The children’s home that rests on the hills outside of the town of Ain Leuh, Morocco has been a haven for the marginalized orphans of Morocco for nearly a half century. Founded in 1957 by two American women dedicated to caring for the abandoned children of Morocco, the Village of Hope, has been a beacon of hope and healing to the orphans for over half a century — until two days ago, when the hand of the Moroccan government turned against it.

In recent years the campus has provided homes and families for more that 30 orphaned children, placing them in the care of dedicated expatriate couples who have committed to raising each child to adulthood. Most couples and staff have come as Christians, looking to ease the pains of the broken social structure in Moroccan rural life. The couples act, in all senses of the word, as parents to these children, calling them sons and daughters and imparting to each their own last name. They have taken the children into their homes and raised them as their own — a true blessing as they would otherwise be placed in massive state-run orphanages. In addition to taking up these particular burdens as foster parents, the Village also provides numerous services to the local community. They provide free quality education to each child. They provide employment to many of Ain Leuh’s residents — teachers, tutors, cooks, nannies, construction workers, and workers in the apple orchards. They host annual events including a summer camp that brings in hundreds of local youth to learn basic skills, give exposure to English language basics, and play games.

I was lucky to be a part of the Village of Hope in the summer of 2005. The charming hillside community rises up from the vast valley that separates the Middle Atlas Mountains from the Low Atlas Mountains in the central part of the country. I recall my first weeks being surrounded by happy children, who would play in the newly built playground after their lessons, only to be called off to supper by their parents. The Village was a home to three core families then, each composed of about 10 kids and their parents. Throughout the summer I watched as these kids interacted with the only parents they had ever known. I recall now how the distinction between natural and real parents was nonexistent to those kids. I also recall the joy of being a part of their summer camp, shuttling local kids in a broken down Chevy Astro van, up and down windy roads with the overcrowded occupants singing loud songs in their native Arabic.

In recent days the news has come down that this charitable community, at the whim of Moroccan authorities, has been in effect shut down. The parents and all foreign-born workers have been expelled from the country, leaving children in the care of state authorities. Families have literally been rent asunder by the coercion of the state. It is an outrage to see this community, which has so faithfully filled gaps of the broken social structure, torn apart by bureaucratic caprice and the unjust fears from Islamic social pressures.

Contact the White House.

Contact the State Department.

Contact your Congressman and Senators.

]]> http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2010/03/christian_missionaries_expelle.html http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2010/03/christian_missionaries_expelle.html Islam Christianity expulsions Islam Morocco orphans Village of Hope Wed, 10 Mar 2010 21:32:03 -0500 I hasten to add to my title that the law I refer to in it has not yet been passed, though a petition in its favor has gained 100,000 signatures, which will send it to a debate in Parliament. Holland, of course, has an incredibly liberal assisted suicide regime, as Wesley J. Smith has frequently documented. In addition to all manner of legal allowances for assisted suicide for sick people who request it, Holland also has legal post-birth infanticide, and doctors euthanize people (not only infants) without request. The Supreme Court, Smith mentions, has made assisted suicide available to the depressed.

What more could suicide advocates want?

But there's always more. The new law would allow legal assisted suicide to those over the age of seventy who "consider their lives complete." Charming, isn't it? When you consider your life complete, you can just check out.

People love the idea of control. The idea that they should not be able to control their deaths is increasingly unpalatable to people. It does not help that just being old is more and more treated as a disease. I did not really enjoy P.D. James's dystopian novel The Children of Men, but I must admit that this latest legal proposal made me think of the "quietus" in that book, which is exactly this--death for the elderly, just because they are elderly.

(Related post)

]]> http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2010/03/dutch_to_the_elderly_just_die.html http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2010/03/dutch_to_the_elderly_just_die.html Wed, 10 Mar 2010 08:53:19 -0500 Daniel Pipes writes:

"...my mood about Iraq could variously be described as depressed, despairing, despondent, dejected, pessimistic, melancholic, and gloomy.

"That's because the Iraqi regime (along with those of Afghanistan, Lebanon, and the Palestinian Authority) is a kept institution that cannot survive without constant American support. As long as Washington pumps money and sacrifices lives to maintain the Baghdad government, the latter can hobble along. Remove those props and Iranian-backed Islamists soon take over...

"As the American era closes, the Iranian one opens. In a year or two, the current elections will be looked back on as a cosmetic episode..."

So I guess even the most neo-conservative of neo-conservatives are finally saying goodbye to the thought that democratizing the Arab world - even assuming that we could bring it about - would be a good idea.

Good on Daniel Pipes.

]]> http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2010/03/the_end.html http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2010/03/the_end.html Tue, 09 Mar 2010 21:28:23 -0500 Thorsten Veblen's classic sociological work, The Theory of the Leisure Class, divided human societies, for hueristic purposes, into two generic forms, the productive, in which most everyone works and participates in networks of solidarity, and the barbarian, in which a dominant class expropriates some portion of the production of society, rules over the productive segment of the population, and legitimates its status by elaborating myths according to which this idle exploitation is somehow finer and more noble than actually doing stuff.

Verily, the contemporary applications fain would make themselves, and indeed, one Etay Zwick has served as their facilitator:

]]> http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2010/03/the_theory_of_the_leisure_clas.html http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2010/03/the_theory_of_the_leisure_clas.html Politics Finance Meritocracy Theory of the Leisure Class Thorsten Veblen Wall Street Tue, 09 Mar 2010 21:07:53 -0500 ... According to primatologists, demonstrate capacities for humaneness exceeding those of Randroids, the architects of the nineteenth-century British Poor Laws, the British politicians and capitalists who spent the Great Hunger debating the finer points of Malthus, Manchester liberalism, and the imperative of not encouraging the production of surplus mouths, and various and sundry other ghouls who think sharing, altruism, and compassion to be sins against nature.

The researchers do note that it is possible the behaviour is essentially selfish, undertaken with a view to future reciprocation; this, however, does not mitigate the contrast, inasmuch as a simulated compassion is still preferable to actual callousness.

H/T: Yves Smith.

]]> http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2010/03/apes.html http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2010/03/apes.html Politics Altruism Bonobos Liberalism Randroids Sharing Tue, 09 Mar 2010 20:37:16 -0500