Friday, May 31, 2013

"Preserving Anglicanism"

From Ad Orientem.

First question, "Preserving what?"

'Anglicanism' is a relatively new term to me, though somebody has been putting a lot of effort into defining it at Wikipedia. 'Anglicanism' seems to be a post hoc effort by theologically conservative Episcopalians to distinguish themselves from their ideological opponents. ('Episcopalian' is itself a post-Revolution nominative to distinguish the American church from its English roots.)

As the Wikipedia entry itself notes, the ecclesia anglicana was simply the Church of the English nation. And in 1559, that church with its hierarchy, clergy and physical assets, declared independence from the Roman Pontiff. Had either side a sense of orthodox ecclesiology, things could have rocked along and settled down, as when the Russian Church took autocephaly from Constantinople in 1448, a theological and practical reality which the mother Church had no real choice but to recognize.

Of course, we're meandering into long-gone alternate history. With its scholars far more rooted in the Reformation than the early Church Fathers, no serious conciliar or magisterial process, and in error ab initio by drawing up a church in Parliament and putting the head of State in charge, the Anglicans have never had any claim to catholicity and orthodoxy.

Go Catholic, go Orthodox, or go play golf on Sunday.

Wednesday, May 29, 2013

Bruce Charlton is still upset

I last posted about Professor Charlton and the peculiar objects of his ire in December 2012, when he turned his critical eye on, of all things, weightlifting. The professor's bile is rising again, this time over the term "Dark Enlightenment," which is an increasingly popular self-descriptor for the reactionary Right. For Bruce Charlton though, the very use of such terminology is a betrayal, conjuring up images of corrupt, doomed Saruman, hopelessly in thrall to Mount Doom. "Don't say that word!"

Bruce Charlton is an academic, a formidable intellect and passionate conservative. He is kind enough to post my bluster from time to time, as he did here, on the recent spectacle of the English showing their bellies to Nigerian savages in their very streets, in front of their own Army's bases. Mangan and Sailer both link to him. But there is this frustrating tendency for conservatives, both the faux ones like John McCain and Lindsey Graham and the real ones like Professor Charlton to run over and piss on the slightest expression of any grim, contrarian resolve or masculine energy by anybody in the movement. One would hope, to the contrary, that we would use more colorful, "edgy" expression if we are to attract young people and have any future. Unfortunately, as commenter "C." notes, the problem is inherent to Bruce Charlton's own dour, aging Englishness:
I didn't say it at the time, but I think some of the topics that have caused the most controversy on this blog (weightlifting and tattoos come to mind) have caused controversy mainly because of cultural misunderstandings between England and America. With a few exceptions, there is no concept of healthy masculinity left in England, and there is in the US. Americans simply cannot grasp how bad things are in England in this regard.
Professor Charlton agrees with his commenter, by the way.

England just seems to be doing appallingly bad.

UPDATE: I am posting my comment to Bruce's recent post here, in the event he doesn't publish it:
Bruce - I'm having a really hard time squaring your arguments for robust, masculine Christianity with the fits you throw whenever somebody suggests men should lift weights, or when anybody in the conservative movement uses dark or grim terminology. You actually seem terrified of any expression of masculine energy in the conservative movement.

I think you sincerely believe that the great conflicts beginning to roil will be settled in a salon debate, at which the liberals will be rendered speechless in the face of impeccable conservative syllogisms, declare their policies a failure, and tearfully beg us to set things right.

What is shaping up is a war, and the Muslims and other restive, unassimilable minorities in the West have already begun the opening skirmishes.

You and I won't fight this war. We are too old. The young men who will do the fighting for our side will be the ones lifting weights and listening to loud, grim heavy metal music. They will favor lots of dark, violent imagery, like the Death-Head Hussars, the US Special Forces, the Levantine Phalange, Golden Dawn, and other military and paramilitary forces through history.

You better hope that's what's going on among young, conservative men, in any event.

A second update, Bruce's bizarre comment addressed to me on his site:
@Anti-Gnostic - I didn't publish your comment because you are tilting at windmills - you've got me almost completely wrong!

Have you had a look at my book Thought Prison (link at sidebar to the left). That should cure you of some of the mistaken notions you have about my opinions.

I would just add that to be anti-Leftist is *not* to be virtuous; although to be virtuous (nowadays) one *must* be anti-Leftist.

Incidentally, here's Bruce's Three Point Plan Of Action:
1. If we simply start-out from a different place - not this place - then things become straightforward.

2. If the people who start-out are different people - and not these people we see around us, certainly not them! - then we ought to be able to deal with these matters.

3. Different people, starting from a different place would certainly be useful - but even without these, victory could so easily be ours if only people wanted different things than people want.

I challenge anyone with an active Y-chromosome to come up with a more inchoate, effeminate non-action action plan.

England really is appalling.

Wednesday, May 22, 2013

Rivers of blood

Soldier beheaded in London terror attack
A British soldier was beheaded Wednesday on a London street in a “sickening and barbaric” attack by a pair of cleaver-wielding jihadists, officials and witnesses said.

The brazen and heinous slaying occurred in broad daylight in front of stunned witnesses, who said the attackers screamed “Allah Akbar.” British Prime David Cameron Cameron said the atrocity appeared to be “terror-related.”

I am not sure what else is to be expected when the West invades barbarian lands and then invites the barbarians here. Cameron is a pathetic sissy calling this "terror-related." No, Prime Minister, it's far worse than anything you and the rest of the Cathedral's blank slate adherents can imagine. It's just the sort of thing that barbaric primitives in thrall to a hostile creed are going to do when placed in an unarmed, passive society. The immigrants are what they are; they do not belong and never should have been invited. If there's to be outrage, it should be directed to the people who dream up these awful social engineering schemes.

Enoch Powell was right, and there will be blood.

Tuesday, May 14, 2013

Apparently, the World's Most Beautiful Woman

Forty-year old Gwyneth Paltrow

How old is People Magazine's demographic? This is ridiculous. As admirable as Gwyneth Paltrow may be as an entrepeneur, wife and mother she is by no stretch the "world's most beautiful woman." Historically, people were grandparents by her age. I will spare Mrs. Paltrow the indignity of posting any number of women in their 20's more beautiful than her. There is a reason for this: women in their 20's have viable eggs in their ovaries; Gwyneth Paltrow does not.

Incidentally, I was motivated to write this post by seeing some old (in every sense) Sex In The City re-runs. I had never watched the show before, and didn't realize how heavily it was targeted toward middle-aged and geriatric women.

Here's a TED talk that made a lot of people in the linked comment thread uncomfortable: Why 30 is not the new 20.

By the way, 40 is not the new 30, nor is 50 (which I will be in six months) the new 40.

"It comes as a shock when the truth dawns that every young person is just an older person waiting to happen, and it happens a lot sooner than anyone ever thinks." - Ben Elton

Wednesday, May 1, 2013


Health care is for sick people.

New results from a landmark study, released on Wednesday in The New England Journal of Medicine, go a long way toward answering those questions. The study, called the Oregon Health Study, compares thousands of low-income people in Oregon who received access to Medicaid with an identical population that did not.

It found that those who gained Medicaid coverage spent more on health care, making more visits to doctors and trips to the hospital. But the study suggests that Medicaid coverage did not make those adults much healthier, at least within the two-year time frame of the research, judging by their blood pressure, blood sugar and other measures. It did, however, substantially reduce the incidence of depression, and it made them vastly more financially secure.

Via Marginal Revolution

In summary, a study of Medicaid recipients found that socialized medicine resulted in people using more socialized medicine without getting any healthier.

I could have told them this and I wouldn't even need a federal grant. Health care is for sick people. Wellness means eat a balanced diet, exercise, don’t smoke and drink in moderation if at all. Obamacare will be a money pit that does nothing to improve public health.