On Palestine, a lack of history and Catholics

A little history on Palestine has been discussed on Fr. Z. I am going to summarize a few points too long for the conversations. As to Palestine, which is a geographical area and not a nation,  the earliest inhabitants, who were pushed out or killed by the Islamic forces, were pagans, Catholics and Jews. Many Arab Catholic families converted early, as early as the year 200. The Greeks and Romans lived there and many of those were converted as well. It has never been a separate nation since the Jews conquered it. Ezechiel is a good source for the boundaries, as is the Torah, both ancient texts showing claims pre-dating any Muslim claims by at least 1,100 years. The Muslims took it over in the middle of the 7th century and of course, some of the crusades were fought there. The British finally took it back from the Muslims in 1832, but it still was only the name of a geographical area, not a nation. In the 19th century, Jews persecuted in Russia and other places began to re-settle areas of Palestine along with Christians and Muslims. The United Nations decided to follow the Balfour Agreement and the Sykes-Picot Treaty after WWI, and part of the Versailles Treaties included the divisions of the Middle East we see today. Islamic Arabs fought against all of these treaties in wars which have continued to this day.

As to using the term indigenous peoples, one cannot give a claim to those there now, as from the time of the Alexander the Great, Europeans as well as various tribes lived there. One must also remember that before Mohammed, Arab tribes were fiercely clannish and fought each other. They were also in many cases migratory clans, not staying in one place until quite late. The earliest cities after the destruction of the Canaanites by the Jews were Jewish and European, a la the Greeks. If anyone has a claim on it, it is the Jews, as part of the Promised Land given to them by God. “On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram and said, “To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates – the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites.” Genesis 15:18 on. That is a territory much larger than the present day Israel.

In addition, Melchizedek, who honored Abraham, was King of Jeru-Salem,  Jerusalem, which was the capitol from David one. Therefore, as we know David was king in 1000 BC, the claim of the Israelites to Jerusalem goes back over 3,000 years and longer. 

It is too bad America high schools and colleges do not teach world history anymore. And, as Catholics, we are part of the Judeo-Christian heritage, the Old and New Covenants belong to us. If we are anti-Semitic, we are hating ourselves. The Promised Land was promised to Abraham and his descendants over 4,000 years ago. That history is our history as well as Catholics.

Newman's Essay on the Gentleman as Requested

"The Definition of a Gentleman"

by Cardinal Newman, from The Idea of a University, a series of lectures given in Ireland, 1852.

---

Hence it is that it is almost a definition of a gentleman to say that he is one who never inflicts pain. This description is both refined and, as far as it goes, accurate. He is mainly occupied in merely removing the obstacles which hinder the free and unembarrassed action of those about him; and he concurs with their movements rather than takes the initiative himself. His benefits may be considered as parallel to what are called comforts or conveniences in arrangements of a personal nature; like an easy chair or a good fire, which do their part in dispelling cold and fatigue, though nature provides both means of rest and animal heat without them. The true gentleman in like manner carefully avoids whatever may cause a jar or a jolt in the minds of those with whom he is cast --- all clashing of opinion, or collision of feeling, all restraint, or suspicion, or gloom, or resentment; his great concern being to make every one at his ease and at home. He has his eyes on all his company; he is tender towards the bashful, gentle towards the distant, and merciful towards the absurd; he can recollect to whom he is speaking; he guards against unseasonable allusions, or topics which may irritate; he is seldom prominent in conversation, and never wearisome. He makes light of favors while he does them, and seems to be receiving when he is conferring. He never speaks of himself except when compelled, never defends himself by a mere retort; he has no ears for slander or gossip, is scrupulous in imputing motives to those who interfere with him, and interprets everything for the best. He is never mean or little in his disputes, never takes unfair advantage, never mistakes personalities or sharp saying for arguments, or insinuates evil which he dare not say out. From a long-sighted prudence, he observes the maxim of the ancient sage, that we should ever conduct ourselves towards our enemy as if he were one day to be our friend. He has too much good sense to be affronted at insults, he is too well employed to remember injuries, and too indolent to bear malice. He is patient, forbearing, and resigned, on philosophical principles; he submits to pain, because it is inevitable, to bereavement, because it is irreparable, and to death, because it is his destiny.If he engages in controversy of any kind, his disciplined intellect preserves him from the blundering discourtesy of better, perhaps, but less educated minds; who, like blunt weapons, tear and hack instead of cutting clean, who mistake the point in argument, waste their strength on trifles, misconceive their adversary, and leave the question more involved than they find it. He may be right or wrong in his opinion, but he is too clear-headed to be unjust; he is as simple as he is forcible, and as brief as he is decisive. Nowhere shall we find greater candor, consideration, indulgence: he throws himself into the minds of his opponents, he accounts for their mistakes. He knows the weakness of human reason as well as its strength, its province and its limits.
If he be an unbeliever, he will be too profound and large-minded to ridicule religion or to act against it; he is too wise to be a dogmatist or fanatic in his infidelity. He respects piety and devotion; he even supports institutions as venerable, beautiful, or useful, to which he does not assent; he honors the ministers of religion, and it contents him to decline its mysteries without assailing or denouncing them. He is a friend of religious toleration, and that, not only because his philosophy has taught him to look on all forms of faith with an impartial eye, but also from the gentleness and effeminacy of feeling, which is the attendant on civilization.

In the Public Domain

Watch and Pray: Susan B. Anthony List Video on Television Tonight

Wow, check this out. I lived in Illinois when this man was elected. He voted four times against saving babies who were alive after abortions. Look at the witness of this beautiful woman from the Susan B. Anthony List.

I have followed that site for years.

This is also highlighted on LifeSiteNews, a fantastic website.

Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals-Do These Sound or Seem Timely?

“Never let a crisis go to waste”  as said by Rahm Emanuel, was first said in a different way by Saul Alinsky. He wrote in his Rules for Radicals, “in the arena of action a threat or a crisis becomes almost a precondition to communication” taken from Machiavelli’s The Prince “strike and beat down fortune through skilled action ” XXV. Jacques  Maritain has an excellent argument against Machiavelli and the Chomsky view of political engagement. Check out this site. 

Rahm cut his baby teeth on this stuff. The Alinsky, Chomsky Marxist agenda is behind all this nonsense at the DNC.

• RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood.
• RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.
• RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.
• RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.
• RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
• RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones.
• RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news.
• RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.
• RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.
• RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.
• RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem.
• RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

Sounds like the rules for the Democratic National Convention.

Ignatian Meditation Three

Christ is showing us something very daring in the passage from last Sunday. Mark 7:1-8; 14-15; 21-23.

He uses Scripture to teach those who were experts in Scripture. He could, as it were, beat them at their own game. But more than that, Christ was loving the Pharisees and scribes, meeting them in their own arena of expertise.

The fact that Christ engaged them and talked with them, challenging them, indicates a real zeal for their souls.

He was loving them exactly where they were in their walks in life.

He used their own language to stop them from taking their own religion for granted.

He was calling them to a deeper understanding of their own stunted faith.

Christ did not ignore the Pharisees and scribes. But, neither did He compromise the Truth.

He :engaged the culture" to use a worn out Vatican II phrase, but He went on to proclaim the Truth loud an and clear.

No compromising, but engaging. We can learn from this passage about evangelization.

Ignatian Meditation Two for This Week

Staying with the Gospel reading from Mark, I was struck with Christ's follow-up on the idea of what is unclean coming out of the interior of a human being. Christ Our Lord gives a long list of deadly sins which are  truly evil: fornication, theft, murder, adultery, avarice, malice, deceit, indecency, envy, slander, pride, and folly.

What have these sins to do with legalism? At first site, nothing, as the Law, the Ten Commandments demands that all avoid these sins and clearly defines what these are.

Christ is reminding the Pharisees and "some of the scribes" what the serious sins are. Washing hands before eating is important, but, hey, this list of horrible sins is much worse.

This is not to say we should not wash our hands, or follow rituals, which is the mistaken impression gleaned from some who read this passage. We do not throw out good and holy rules, but we know what priorities are in the spiritual life.

One must rid one's self from mortal sin first, then venial, then imperfections, in that order.

Christ is taking the Pharisees back to square one, as it were.

It is too easy to keep the little rules and miss the life of constant metanoia, constant repentance and redemption.

Christ let his apostles eat without washing as an object lesson for the Pharisees.

Christ goes farther than the Law at the Last Supper. He is a teacher and gives us clear parables in action.

Washing is outside, repentance is inside.

On Gentlemen-are they an extinct type?

No, this is not a Peter Wimsey fan club site. I just wanted to create an ambiance of gentlemanly behavior here.

I know a few gentlemen. All but one is a Catholic.

There are not many Catholic Gentlemen, or even gentlemen left in the world.

In this month's issue of Standpoint, Andrew Gimson reviews in his article the question of the vanishing class of real gentlemen. What happened?

One of the references Gimson includes is from Philip Mason's The English Gentleman, which reveals that gentlemanly behaviour was for 100 years or so a second religion, but a national characteristic from the Middle Ages. Of course, one cannot write an article on being a gentlemen, without referring to Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman's famous essay, which I have quoted on this blog before. For Dr. Arnold, with whom the article begins and with Venerable Newman, Christianity is key to being a gentlemen. I would have liked to have know Venerable Newman. There are not many priests who are gentlemen, either. It is not a quality of manhood which is stressed in the silly emphasis in seminaries on "wounded healers".

So, what are some of the characteristics of a gentlemen as seen through the eyes of all these great men of the past? Well, moral leadership is a key virtue of a gentleman. That phrase contains two ideas-one, morality and two, leadership. Those of us who for whatever reason have read Dr. Arnold's famous sermon on "Christian Education" recollect some of the ideals put forth. His son, Matthew Arnold, the poet, is quoted in this article as well, hearkening back to his father and the lost, receding generations of real gentlemen. They were passing away quickly.

And, if you, like me, have read all of the above, you have probably read Evelyn Waugh's gripping Decline and Fall, here mentioned by Gimson, the rot was setting in after World War II, with the emergence of the "lost generation".  But the sting is in the present generation who may have been raised as Anglican gentlemen, but have tried very, very hard to break with that tradition. David Cameron seems to be running as hard as he can from this category. As Gimson states, it is considered "snobbish and out of date". Too bad, so sad.

Western culture has been enamored with classlessness and with mediocrity for several generations and I am bored to death of both. Part of the "cult" of the gentleman in 19th century and the first half of the 20th century England was that the man was supposed to impose morality and character on the culture. The culture woefully has lost the input of such behaviour. In both England and America, the Predator has taken over from the Protector.

Gimson states sorrowfully that we have lost the gentleman without replacing him. This is a tragedy and will forever change England.  As Gimson writes, "...to have an elevated standard of conduct increases the chances that some people will live up to it..."

Gimson refers to "barren utilitarianism". Well, those of us from across the pond knows what that does to an education system and a culture. Mediocrity and then brutishness becomes the rule of the day. I even heard a priest state that Jesus Christ was not a gentleman. Good grief.

Here is what Gimson states we need, and I agree, "...an ideal which includes modesty, magnanimity and the willingness to sacrifice oneself for the sake of others, especially those who are weaker."

And, I have lost count of all the ladies I know who are single, each one a lady who wishes she could meet a gentleman with or without the top hat. Are they extinct?

Meditation on Sunday's Gospel

In Ignatian fashion, I am meditating all week on last Sunday's Gospel. What has struck me today is that Christ saw, of course, as He is God, the stupidity of modern psychologically and warned us against it.

What do I mean? In the verses here, Christ rebukes the Pharisees and scribes. Note in Mark 7:15 and 21-23:

"Hear me, all of you, and understand:
15	there is nothing outside a man which by going into him can defile him; but the things which come out of a man are what defile him."
21	For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, fornication, theft, murder, adultery,
22	coveting, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, foolishness.
23	All these evil things come from within, and they defile a man."

What Christ is saying is that our Spiritual Nature overcomes nurture and the culture. What is outside of us DOES NOT have to be appropriated by us.

That a man is not made evil by what is outside, but only by what he has on the inside flies in the face of some modern psychology. Some people honestly believe that they are not responsible for their own actions.

Wow! They blame everything and everyone but themselves for their faults, sins, evil.

The financial status of themselves and the world, whether they are loved or not, or recognized or not, whether they are poor or rich, people blame the complications of their lives for evil.

Christ cuts through all of those excuses and emphasizes free will. We choose evil and appropriate it.

We remain in ignorance by choice in the Western World. We are responsible for what we take in-be it porn, food, things, or whatever.

Christ points to the heart as the centre of good or evil. Where is your heart? If it is in politics, you have strayed into idolatry. If you have exchanged your freedom for ideology, your heart is no longer capable of purity without great work and prayer.

Theophan the Recluse

t

Single Catholic Ladies in Georgia, Take Heart

Just in case you missed this-

Switzerland and Singapore retained their positions as the most competitive economies, coming in 1st and 2nd, respectively.http://www.cnbc.com/id/48905756

THE GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS INDEX 2012–2013

Country	2012-2013	2011-2012
Switzerland	1	1
Singapore	2	2
Finland	3	4
Sweden	4	3
Netherlands	5	7
Germany	6	6
United States	7	5
United Kingdom	8	10
Hong Kong	9	11
Japan	10	9

Source: World Economic Forum

You have got to read and look at this shambles of a DNC

http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2012/09/05/charlotte-democrat-nightmare-now-dems-put-god-and-jerusalem-language.aspx

Biased BBC

The Beeb has lost all credibility. Michelle's speech last night was boring and lacked conviction. She looked like she was going to a dance rather than a political meeting. Her voice betrayed anger (why-she has nothing to be angry about-successful in her own right and a millionaire in her own right). The Beeb went on and on about how excellent a speaker she was. I use her first name as that is how she is addressed here.

Mrs. Romney's speech was genuine and clear. She, sadly, was not praised by the Beeb.

I cannot watch the BBC anymore. I get more objectivity from RT.

I have trouble with this. Does anyone else? Poll.

A reference to the Messiah in Judges is applied to Obama. Poll at side.

http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2012/09/04/artwork-portrays-obama-jesus

Venerable Fulton J. Sheen on Love and Joy in Receiving Holy Communion

The basis of this plea for communion is Love, for Love by its very nature tends to unity. Love of citizens one for another begets the unity of the state. Love of man and woman begets the unity of two in one flesh. The love of God for man therefore calls for a unity based upon the Incarnation, namely, the unity of all men in the Body and Blood of Christ. In order, therefore, that God might seal His love for us, He gave us to Himself in Holy Communion, so that as He and His human nature taken from the womb of the Blessed Mother were one in the unity of His Person, so He and we taken from the womb of humanity might be one in the unity of the Mystical Body of Christ. Hence, we use the word "receive" when speaking of communion with our Lord in the Eucharist, for literally we do "receive" Divine Life, just as really and truly as a babe receives the life of its mother. All life is sustained by communion with a higher life. If the plants could speak they would say to the moisture and sunlight, "Unless you enter into communion with me, become possessed of my higher laws and powers, you shall not have life in you."

If the animals could speak, they would say to the plants: "Unless you enter into communion with me, you shall not have my higher life in you." We say to all lower creation: "Unless you enter into communion with me, you shall not share in my human life."

Why then should not our Lord say to us: "Unless you enter into communion with Me, you shall not have life in you"? The lower is transformed into the higher, plants into animals, animals into man, and man, in a more exalted way, becomes "divinized," if I may use that expression, through and through by the life of Christ. Communion then is first of all the receiving of Divine Life, a life to which we are no more entitled than marble is entitled to blooming. It is a pure gift of an all-merciful God who so loved us that He willed to be united with us, not in the bonds of flesh, but in the ineffable bonds of the Spirit where love knows no satiety, but only rapture and joy.

Gramsci and the Democratic Party: three

Gramsci noted how to bury religious and spiritual views of history and culture. He noted that language was key in the revolution. The more I read him, the more cynical he seems to me. He claims to have hope, but his hope is in a process. His hope is merely based on idealism. Does this sound like someone who is in power?

We are all conformists of some conformism or other, always man-in-the-mass or collective man. The question is this: of what historical type is the conformism, the mass humanity to which one belongs? When one’s conception of the world is not critical and coherent but disjointed and episodic, one belongs simultaneously to a multiplicity of mass human groups.

Note 1. With regard to the historical role played by the fatalistic conception of the philosophy of praxis one might perhaps prepare its funeral oration, emphasizing its usefulness for a certain period of history, but precisely for this reason underlining the need to bury it with all due honours. Its role could really be compared with that of the theory of predestination and grace for the beginnings of the modern world, a theory which found its culmination in classical German philosophy and in its conception of freedom as the consciousness of necessity. It has been a replacement in the popular consciousness for the cry of “tis God’s will’, although even on this primitive, elementary plane it was the beginnings of a more modern and fertile conception than that contained in the expression ‘tis God’s will’ or in the theory of grace. Is it possible that ‘formally’ a new conception can present itself in a guise other than the crude, unsophisticated version of the populace? And yet the historian, with the benefit of all necessary perspective, manages to establish and to understand the fact that the beginnings of a new world, rough and jagged though they always are, are better than the passing away of the world in its death-throes and the swan-song that it produces. [...]SPN, 323-43 (Q11§12), 1932

In other words, create a completely new philosophy ignoring, indeed, burying the old ones. Creative a political philosophy based on a new concept of history, which is a mad combination of political messianism and pragmatism.

Does this sound like something you have heard in the past few days?

A Tree and a House of Hearts

HOLY SONNETS. John Donne XIV. Batter my heart, three-person'd God ; for you As yet but knock ; breathe, shine, and seek to mend ; That I may rise, and stand, o'erthrow me, and bend Your force, to break, blow, burn, and make me new. I, like an usurp'd town, to another due, Labour to admit you, but O, to no end. Reason, your viceroy in me, me should defend, But is captived, and proves weak or untrue. Yet dearly I love you, and would be loved fain, But am betroth'd unto your enemy ; Divorce me, untie, or break that knot again, Take me to you, imprison me, for I, Except you enthrall me, never shall be free, Nor ever chaste, except you ravish me.

Many years ago, my son and I could not be together in the same place for Christmas one year. We did not have our usual magnificent Christmas Tree. By the beginning of January, we were ensconced in a new home and happily getting on with life. But, I missed the tree. So, I set one up later, around January 6th. I started with creating some new ornaments, which I did every year.

We had an Eastern Christmas, that is, a bit late. And, for several years, almost 35, I had many strange and wonderful heart ornaments from all over the world. Everyone knew I was "Mrs. Christmas" and decorated profusely, as this is one of my favourite times of the year. I had many ornaments from Germany and Czechoslovakia. My favourites were those my mother had made as potpourries, and my second favourites were created by an artist in Iowa, made out of wood and wire, with different designs on each.

My mother ended up making many of her hearts full of lavender and other herbs, as my friends could not get enough of them. These are all over Western Alberta and Saskatoon, and I hope on trees at Christmas.

Every year until 2010, I made many new ornaments by hand. I have made bread-dough ornaments, metal ornaments, cardboard ornaments, ornaments from material, and many other kinds using things from nature. Every year, our tree was slightly different. My last tree with my small family had about 400 ornaments on it. They now hang on other trees. My last tree with myself was pink, yes a pink tree with gold ornaments. I went retro for one year. Again, many of the ornaments were hearts. Many were made by me. I finally gave away my glue guns in 2011 to a young family. But, the memories of joy will stay with me always.

Before I left America, I made a tree for my parents with lights and ornaments all on the inside of a cone, wire gold tree, so that it would easy for them to put it away, as they are older.

The heart adjusts.

The symbol of the heart has been with poets and artists since the days of the Bible. In the psalms, we hear David singing of his heart. In Roman times, the heart was also considered the place of love and life. Those who are married wear the wedding ring on the finger which supposedly is connected to the heart by an artery. I think this myth is as old as the Romans.

In our Catholic tradition, we have many devotions to the Sacred  Heart. But, Mother Marie Adele Garnier, foundress of the Tyburn Benedictines, was given a great grace of insight into the Heart of Jesus. In her spirituality, given to her by Christ in mystical experiences, she saw that the Heart of Jesus was the Eucharist. Through the Eucharistic Adoration, she called her nuns to see the Heart of Christ in the community. She was called to be one of those special souls espoused to Christ in a Mystical Marriage. For her, daily Communion was a renewal of her "marriage vows" through the Eucharistic Heart of Jesus.

Now, this type of union is far above me, but lately, one of my friends who is a priest, repeated that all men and women were called to this intimacy in and through Christ. This is also the belief, as I have shown here on this blog, of Garrigou-Lagrange. This is a mystery.

We are all called to union. How? There is only one way.

For those of us who have loved a human being with our hearts and souls, we can understand a tiny bit of what this union must be like. To love without expectation is real love and is creates an interior fire which cannot be contained.

For Mother Marie Adele Garnier, at the Eucharist, in Adoration, her heart of fire was given fuel from the union of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

I ask all my readers to ask God to show you where it is He wants you to be loved and to love. He has a special place for us to receive and to give.

When I decorated the tree and house in hearts at Christmas, I was reminding us all that the Heart of Christmas is the Incarnation. That vulnerable Baby in the Manger would fill our hearts with joy, if we would only be open to Him.

For many years, I created centrepieces for Christmas, starting in early October and making other things, such as wreaths, door handle decorations, and ornaments. Cranberries, red tree dogwood, red roses, and hearts made my signature look. I also made children's decorations, such as gingerbread men and toy centrepieces. My making was part of who I am. Our creativity is part of being made in the Image and Likeness of God. Making made me joyful and pleased my friends and customers. My son and I decorated an entire Church hall one year for a parish Christmas dinner. We made everything ourselves. God blessed us and other through us. This was all done out of love.

We shared in the Sacred Heart of Jesus. Others brought food and drink. Some greeted and served. This is the Body of Christ and He is the Heart. But, we are called into that Heart of Jesus. That year was one of the happiest experiences of a real community in a parish we have ever experienced. It was in Alaska, where the hearts of people are as big as the state.

We can be restored to purity through God's Love for us. We should not be afraid, but it can be scary. Even Mother Marie Adele had misgivings. Pray to her for miracles, and if you receive any, let the nuns at Tyburn know.

By the way, these are not photos of my ornaments, although some are similar. I do not have those photos on my computer here. God made the clouds and wonderful heart leaves. Look around you for hearts. These are everywhere to remind us of God's Love for us and our love for Him.

In the midst of all the political turmoil and difficulties of this week, I wanted to return to the heart of all things. Be holy, be perfect, even as your heavenly Father is perfect. Christ said that and the way to the Father is through Christ. Open your heart and pray I can open mine to the wonders of Love, Who is a Person.

Gramsci and the Democratic Party: two

Here are some points from Gramsci on how to teach the proletariat to change so that the old ways of religion and culture, including natural law, as thrown out. My comments are in bold, large, not italic. Listen to what is being said at the DNC and compare.

1. Never to tire of repeating its own arguments (though offering literary variation of form): repetition is the best didactic means for working on the popular mentality.

Keep saying the same thing. Keep up racism talk and speeches of division. Keep up saying change and hope. Blur distinctions and deny or ignore natural law philosophy.

2. To work incessantly to raise the intellectual level of ever-growing strata of the populace, in other words, to give a personality to the amorphous mass element. This means working to produce elites of intellectuals of a new type which arise directly out of the masses, but remain in contact with them to become, as it were, the whalebone in the corset.
This second necessity, if satisfied, is what really modifies the ‘ideological panorama’ of the age. But these elites cannot be formed or developed without a hierarchy of authority and intellectual competence growing up within them. The culmination of this process can be a great individual philosopher. But he must be capable of re-living concretely the demands of the massive ideological community and of understanding that this cannot have the flexibility of movement proper to an individual brain, and must succeed in giving formal elaboration to the collective doctrine in the most relevant fashion, and the one most suited to the modes of thought of a collective thinker.

Keep talking about government, not the people. Keep the focus on group, not the individual. Do not speak of individual or religious rights, but civil rights, as if these are the same.

It is evident that this kind of mass construction cannot just happen ‘arbitrarily’, around any ideology, simply because of the formally constructive will of a personality or a group which puts it forward solely on the basis of its own fanatical philosophical or religious convictions. Mass adhesion or non-adhesion to an ideology is the real critical test of the rationality and historicity of modes of thinking. Any arbitrary constructions are pretty rapidly eliminated by historical competition, even if sometimes, through a combination of immediately favourable circumstances, they manage to enjoy popularity of a kind; whereas constructions which respond to the demands of a complex organic period of history always impose themselves and prevail in the end, even though they may pass through several intermediary phases during which they manage to affirm themselves only in more or less bizarre and heterogeneous combinations.SPN, 323-43 (Q11§12), 1932

Push revisionist history, revisionist law, revisionist relativism as morality and these will be accepted.

Gramsci and the Democratic Party: one

At last, it is very clear to more than us philosophical types, that the Marxist agenda has taken over the Democratic Party. Faith in politics and intellectual democracy has taken the place of Faith in God and religion.

Read Gramsci here and look at the boldface parts.


That the mechanicist conception has been a religion of the subaltern is shown by an analysis of the development of the Christian religion. Over a certain period of history in certain specific historical conditions religion has been and continues to be a ‘necessity’, a necessary form taken by the will of the popular masses and a specific way of rationalizing the world and real life, which provided the general framework for real practical activity. This quotation from an article in La Civilta Cattolica ('Individualismo pagano e individualismo cristiano': issue of 5 March 1932) seems to me to express very well this function of Christianity:
Faith in a secure future, in the immortality of the soul destined to beatitude, in the certainty of arriving at eternal joy, was the force behind the labour for intense inner perfection and spiritual elevation. True Christian individualism found here the impulse that led it to victory. All the strength of the Christian was gathered around this noble end. Free from the flux of speculation which weakens the soul with doubt, and illuminated by immortal principles, man felt his hopes reborn; sure that a superior force was supporting him in the struggle against Evil, he did violence to himself and conquered the world.
But here again it is naive Christianity that is being referred to: not Jesuitized Christianity, which has become a pure narcotic for the popular masses.
The position of Calvinism, however, with its iron conception of predestination and grace, which produces a vast expansion of the spirit of initiative (or becomes the form of this movement) is even more revealing and significant. (On this question see: Max Weber, L'etica protestante e lo spirito del capitalismo; published in Nuovi Studi, volume for 1931 et seq. and Groethuysen’s book on the religious origins of the bourgeoisie in France [Origines de l'espirit bourgeois en France, Vol. 1. L'Eglise et la bourgeoisie, Paris, 1927].)
What are the influential factors in the process of diffusion (which is also one of a substitution of the old conception, and, very often, of combining old and new), how do they act, and to what extent? Is it the rational form in which the new conception is expounded and presented? Or is it the authority (in so far as this is recognized and appreciated, if only generically) of the expositor and the thinkers and experts whom the expositor calls in in his support? Or the fact of belonging to the same organization as the man who upholds the new conception (assuming, that is, that one has entered the organization for other reasons than that of already sharing the new conception)?
In reality these elements will vary according to social groups and the cultural level of the groups in question. But the enquiry has a particular interest in relation to the popular masses, who are slower to change their conceptions, or who never change them in the sense of accepting them in their ‘pure’ form, but always and only as a more or less heterogeneous and bizarre combination. The rational and logically coherent form, the exhaustive reasoning which neglects no argument, positive or negative, of any significance, has a certain importance, but is far from being decisive. It can be decisive, but in a secondary way, when the person in question is already in a state of intellectual crisis, wavering between the old and the new, when he has lost his faith in the old and has not yet come down in favour of the new, etc.
One could say this about the authority of thinkers and experts: it is very important among the people, but the fact remains that every conception has its thinkers and experts to put forward, and authority does not belong to one side; further, with every thinker it is possible to make distinctions, to cast doubt on whether he really said such and such a thing, etc.
One can conclude that the process of diffusion of new conceptions takes place for political (that is, in the last analysis, social) reasons; but that the formal element, that of logical coherence, the element of authority and the organizational elements have a very important function in this process immediately after the general orientation has been reached, whether by single individuals or groups of a certain size. From this we must conclude, however, that in the masses as such, philosophy can only be experienced as a faith.
Imagine the intellectual position of the man of the people: he has formed his own opinions, convictions, criteria of discrimination, standards of conduct. Anyone with a superior intellectual formation with a point of view opposed to his can put forward arguments better than he and really tear him to pieces logically and so on. But should the man of the people change his opinions just because of this? Just because he cannot impose himself in a bout of argument? In that case he might find himself having to change every day, or every time he meets an ideological adversary who is his intellectual superior. On what elements, therefore, can his philosophy be founded? and in particular his philosophy in the form which has the greatest importance for his standards of conduct?
The most important element is undoubtedly one whose character is determined not by reason but by faith. But faith in whom, or in what? In particular in the social group to which he belongs, in so far as in a diffuse way it thinks as he does. The man of the people thinks that so many like-thinking people can’t be wrong, not so radically, as the man he is arguing against would like him to believe; he thinks that, while he himself, admittedly, is not able to uphold and develop his arguments as well as the opponent, in his group there is someone who could do this and could certainly argue better than the particular man he has against him; and he remembers, indeed, hearing expounded, discursively, coherently, in a way that left him convinced, the reasons behind his faith. He has no concrete memory of the reasons and could not repeat them, but he knows that reasons exist, because he has heard them expounded, and was convinced by them. The fact of having once suddenly seen the light and been convinced is the permanent reason for his reasons persisting, even if the arguments in its favour cannot be readily produced.

Three interesting articles to read over lunch...

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/09/04/now-there-is-no-hope

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/09/04/the-dncs-bold-lies

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/09/04/obamas-ideological-convention

Recognize the lunch?