#moral order

So, tune in to my selection of albums—full of electronica and disorder :

JK Flesh - Prehuman. Fleshstep

Cabaret Voltaire - But What Time Is It Really

Muslimgauze – No Human Rights For Arabs In Israel

EHb - Fragments de sables émouvants

Moral Order – 2017/2020

Converter · Asche · Morgenstern - Erode

Putrid Fauve - Velå

Orbit Service - Leave for good

Simon Henocq - We Use Cookies

THE DESCRIPTION OF SAINT STANISLAUS OF SZCZEPANOW The Patron of Moral Order Feast Day: April 11

The bishop of Krakow and the first Polish-born saint, was born on July 26, 1030 in Szczepanow, an administrative district of Gmina Brzesko, within Brzesko County, Lesser Poland Voivodeship, in southern Poland.

The only son of the noble and pious Wielisław and Bogna, who are both died, who has consecrated him to the Lord, Stanislaus gave away everything to the poor to become a priest. He was ordained priest by Lambert II Sula, the bishop of Krakow, whom he succeeded in 1072, but accepted the office only at the explicit command of Pope Alexander II. He visited his parishes every year, bringing about a spiritual renewal among the clergy and the laity. His house was always crowded with the poor, and he kept a list of widows and miserable people to whom he systematically distributed alms.

Poland, at that time, was ruled by King Boleslaw II the Generous (Boleslaw the Bold), who had kidnapped a married woman to satisfy his lustful desires. Considering the stubborness of the king, the bishop had no choice but to issue a sentence of excommunication. When Boleslaw entered the Krakow Cathedral (now Wawel Cathedral and formally titled the Royal Archcathedral Basilica of Saints Stanislaus and Wenceslaus), he found that the services were at once suspended by the order of the bishop.

The moral world has no particular objection to vice, but an insuperable repugnance to hearing vice called by its proper name.

“Against David Frenchism” strikes back against culturally conservative but politically liberal figures (conservative liberals) on the right, making the case for religious conservatives to support Donald Trump. “With a kind of animal instinct, Trump understood what was missing from mainstream (more or less French-ian) conservatism. His instinct has been to shift the cultural and political mix, ever so slightly, away from autonomy-above-all toward order, continuity, and social cohesion,” Ahmari writes. Central to this endorsement, as the New York Times’s Ross Douthat notes, is “a philosophical reconsideration of where the liberal order has ended up.”

This month will see the release of Ahmari’s most recent book, The Unbroken Thread: Discovering the Wisdom of Tradition in an Age of Chaos. In it, Ahmari expresses a father’s anxiety about the kind of moral guidance modern western culture will offer his young son. Each of its twelve chapters raises a question that our modern world discourages and has trouble answering. The Unbroken Thread turns to historical figures, drawing on the wisdom of a wide range of traditions to articulate answers to these questions. The book’s “primary purpose,” Ahmari writes, is “to explore the possibility that our contemporary philosophy might be wrong in crucial respects.”

yes

...True conscience, Newman taught, was “the interior awareness of an objective moral law.” Traditional authorities like the Church guided the formation of this interior awareness. The counterfeit conscience that rejected this guidance, however, was “privatized and subjectivized.” Liberalism is “a worldview in which the conscience is thoroughly subjective,” and, writes Ahmari, “this is why Newman railed against liberalism as ‘false liberty of thought.’” 

prison of two ideas

...Those who take Ahmari for a “would-be theocrat” will find more to concern them in these pages. But the primary task of Ahmari’s integralism is simply to put the myth of liberal ‘neutrality’ to bed and show us that statecraft is inescapably soulcraft. Ahmari

...Ahmari explains that Solzhenitsyn held the West’s “dogmatic faith that maximizing individual rights is nearly always and everywhere good” responsible for “free men and women and society as a whole, failing to make any distinction between freedom to do what ought to be done and freedom to do what ought not.”

they are describing the questions well, the answers are a problem. Rolling back the hands of time and letting play out all over again isn’t much of a plan. Stagnation leads to fragility leads to collapse. We need to explore wisdom and just adopt the old. 

reversion to what worked is not a reformation against what caused the need for a reversion in the first place

Reversion is not reform

Moral order

The often-tenuous conservative-libertarian alliance has rested upon this truth, with conservatives recognizing the potential for large, unrestrained government to corrode a healthy culture, and libertarians aware that limited government is dependent upon cultural antecedents that promote and protect the virtues required for self-government. Practical libertarianism requires strong families, churches, and communities, which provide stability, a sense of belonging, and the moral instruction that enables self-government.

Many libertarians appear to have forgotten or never learned this insight, as they now seem eager to condemn cultural conservatism as incompatible with individual autonomy. Such libertarianism is hostile to traditional forms of community, especially the family and church, which it sees as repressive and restrictive.

Church isn’t a necessity on that list. Moral order yes

Those of us who value liberty must not only promote virtue in the private sphere, but also wrestle with how government intervention is to promote it and how much intervention is necessary.

you have to decide in that case what is virtuous and what is not. Is it black and white? WHO the Hell makes the call?  There has to bee a common. If it is at all held up by government it will be corrupted for the ends of those in charge. If you are teaching virtue with out the reasoning behind it you must strictly enforce it or it’s defenses will weaken and it will be corrupted. Not  expaining is what got us where we are.

The libertarian challenge is not of establishing government via social contract. Rather, it is to cultivate people capable of sustaining self-government ....

Your never going to be able to do that

...a task that is complicated by libertarianism’s official indifference to family formation, moral instruction, drug use, and other social factors essential to the development of citizens capable of flourishing in a libertarian regime.

That maybe true enough, but the new theocrats strict definition s of these things aren’t exactly adaptable to change.

In the end, the freedom to abandon family, faith, and community is the freedom to be insecure, insignificant, and alone before the Leviathan of government.

to demonize or destroy the ideas all together sure. To abandon their strict construct not so much.

It’s worth the read....

the important point is that  “... it is to cultivate people capable of sustaining self-government “ just isn’t going to be enough. We have to have some sort of common. Advocating for the one before that failed to stand up to the progressive attacks seems a bit insane.

2 further pts.

Fatherlessness bars the transmission of wisdom (spoken / taught and unspoken / absorbed)