New links

Some new additions to the blogroll:

3 nonliberal science fiction writers:  Vox Day, Michael Flynn, and John C. Wright

2 traditionalist Catholic sites:  Rorate Caeli and Mundabor

a neoreactionary:  Radish

and the unclassifiable Ron Unz

All of these passed the test that I feel compelled to check them often enough that I was annoyed at not having a link on my own web  page.

In addition, I’ve gotten rid of unnecessary proper articles in link names and removed inactive links.

18 Responses

  1. Some good links up there….but the “nonliberal” fiction writers…really? Both Vox Day and John C Wright are ardent Right-liberals, and Mike Flynn generally swings that way as well. Sure, all three hate left-liberalism (which is a major plus in my book), but I would never call them “nonliberal” anymore than I would use that descriptor for George Weigel. I’d know, as I read them for years before finally making the switch out of the NeoCathsphere and into the Orthosphere.

    Sure link to them, but I would change the post or add a note so as to not mislead. Neither nonliberal nor traditionalist. Just Americanist.

  2. About Mundabor and the likes of him, I’m starting to wonder exactly what it takes to think like a reactionary these days and whether it’s worth it. Would souls perish in hell if he just kept his mouth shut when it comes to Pope Francis? Yes, yes, I realize all papal criticism is not verboten, but how about good old-fashioned suffering in silence in reparation for the sins of the world, and even perhaps, those of the Pope? I find much more precedent for that in the annals of tradition than with Mundabor’s snark. I can hardly visit The Thinking Housewife anymore with that site’s every-other-day tabloid-style “Bergoglio Bombs.” Is this reactionary thinking?

  3. Reactionaries are like everyone else prone to overreacting, maybe more so since we already reject the socially-imposed limitations on acceptable thought; and many Catholics react to the expectations (implicit on the part of the hierarchy, explicit on the part of hacks like Mark Shea) that the laity should be utterly servile and receive every utterance and every policy decision of every bishop everywhere with enthusiastic endorsement* by veering to the opposite extreme of deliberate, reactive disobedience.

    *The product of a malformed ecclesiology which a friend of mine sometimes calls the “Spirit of Vatican I.”

  4. Thanks Proph, though I had thought that the hallmark of the reactionary was proneness not to overreact, to keep always the long term and even the ultimate goal in mind, laboring toward it even while nearly everyone is screaming to indulge and camp out a bit here or there.

  5. That’s certainly the essence of reactionism (?), but we’re not all perfect!

  6. Hi buckyinky,

    I’m undecided on this myself, although by linking Mundabor I’m admitting that I see some value to his way. My impression is that during the Middle Ages, it was more the thing for great saints to be scathing in their denunciations of shortcomings in the Church. On the other hand, Bill has made the argument in comments on this blog that if Pope Francis really is a heretic, pretending that he’s orthodox is the best way to thwart him.

  7. Day and Wright are simply and utterly batshit insane.

  8. There’s some truth to this, but they disagree with liberals on issues where liberals brook no dissent, and those are the issues they talk about most. If Wright and Flynn spent most of their blogs talking about their disappointingly and boringly conventional views of the Civil Rights Movement, I wouldn’t be linking them. Instead, they put their attention on areas where they are interesting and clearly non-Leftist.

  9. batshit insane.

    As a rule anyone who uses this phrase has nothing to say.

  10. Yeah I have to echo the others above, Vox Day is another right-liberal with his own unique heresy, because, you know, he is a member of Mensa. The world doesn’t need any more Anglo-American free thinkers.

  11. There are some people who truly fit that description though- even in rightist circles. Ann Barnhardt for example is for some inexplicable reason adored among many traditionalists.

  12. Merry Christmas and have a happy New Year.

  13. Why, thank you. Happy New Year to you, too!

  14. Mundabor is certainly not the worst, and I agree that he does post some good stuff, whether or not we agree on what stuff is good.

    Being an embarrassing dillettante, or not even achieving that level, when it comes to just about any subject, certainly the Middle Ages, perhaps I’d better keep my mouth closed further. I succeeded in that for several days as you can see, but find that the subject will not leave my mind, and so will perhaps violate what might be better judgment.

    I consider the criticisms by people such as Mundabor or Laura Wood of the Pope to be in a different category than the criticism of prelates that occurred in the past. If the Pope sired a child while supposing to be practicing celibacy, for example, his failure in virtue in this instance is undeniable, and the authority to judge his actions as lacking in virtue falls to anyone, since a fallen human nature that is susceptible to vice is something we all have in common, from the Pope to the lowest layman. For scathing criticism of this sort in our day, I would point you to Anthony Esolen or Leon Podles on the subject of pederasty among the clergy and the weak handling by the bishops as a matter of administration. They remain appropriately in their own sphere of judging actions as virtuous or vicious without stepping over the bounds of making a determination on matters outside of their “jurisdiction.”

    But the matter of judging whether the Pope, to whom the Catholic believes is entrusted by our Lord Himself with the charge to feed His sheep, or for that matter, even a bishop, is orthodox is in a different category of criticism, one that I do not see simple faithful laymen ever having the audacity to take upon themselves throughout all of history. If a bishop is heterodox, it is left to the Augustine’s or the Athanasius’s to point out, not the layman, no matter how much collaboration they have among themselves. The Pope is an even entirely different matter, as the orthodoxy of his official positions is not a matter to be judged even by a lower prelate, let alone a layman. For all the honoring of tradition among Catholic traditionalists such as Laura Wood, why is this tradition of not infringing upon the sphere of authority that belongs to another so wholly neglected? If a bishop turns out to be heterodox, “what is that to you?”

    I appreciate Proph’s reminder that no one is perfect, and I do not wish to be too hard on folks, understanding that these are difficult and confusing times, that having a heterodox bishop or even a pope who dons clown noses is a difficult cross to bear, and also understanding myself to be at the mercy of my betters on account of my own confusion. However, it seems to be a pattern that the inordinate criticism I speak of above is considered a virtue rather than the insubordination that it is. For all the clear sight on the pervasiveness of liberalism in these corners, unequaled among your “typical” faithful Catholic groups, there is largely darkness, or at best silence about this matter.

  15. @buckyinky

    Laura Woods “traditionalism” typically entails her defending Victorian culture not authentic Catholic culture. That is the problem. The “traditionalist” websites she frequently links to such as the website “Tradition in Action” a website that criticizes ChestertonBelloc as Marxists, a website that supported the Iraq war, should such a site even be taken seriously? The other day she sunk to a new low when she quoted a notorious sedevacantist priest. And every other post reads like a chapter out of Jane Austen. No thanks.

  16. I seem to have a much higher opinion of Laura Wood than you do. I don’t experience nostalgia for Victorian England myself, but I don’t begrudge it in other people. Wood defends Christian patriarchy, and that’s the number one issue of our time. I also think I notice a slow rightward drift in her writings over the years. I get the sense that she and Larry Auster soured on the American Revolution at about the same time, and she’s become more open to criticism of Jewish activism and Catholic pandering to Jews.

    “Tradition in Action” strikes me as a genuinely traditionalist website, just often not intelligently so. It’s at its best when defending discarded minor customs but much less helpful in its theological writings. I remember being especially disappointed by its attacks on Cardinal Newman. It’s perfectly fine and useful to point out that Newman’s writings on the development of doctrine are imperfect, but I sense no acknowledgment that Newman was grappling with an important issue that theologians and apologists must face and that he was trying to defend Catholic orthodoxy. Similarly with their treatment of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI. There needs to be a different treatment given to imperfect defenses of orthodoxy (with problematic “throw-away” lines embedded in an otherwise solid work) and writings that are primarily designed to agitate for heresy.

  17. And every other post reads like a chapter out of Jane Austen. No thanks.

    What do you mean, “No thanks”? What’s wrong with you, and what aesthetic would you prefer? Jane Austen is enduringly popular for a reason. If you can’t appeal to humanity’s romantic nature, you will never have a successful movement that attracts family-oriented young people. Laura Wood is enjoying success in great part because her writing has this appeal.

    For the benefit of everybody, let me be the one to point out that Jane Austen represents Georgian culture (she died two years before Victoria was born).

    I don’t experience nostalgia for Victorian England myself

    Yes, but you’re a physicist and don’t have a soul, which we already knew.

  18. what aesthetic would you prefer

    Oh I don’t know a Catholic one?

    For the benefit of everybody, let me be the one to point out that Jane Austen represents Georgian culture (she died two years before Victoria was born).

    Thanks for the cultural history lesson but my comment still stands that much of what Laura Wood defends is 19th century culture. She defends capitalism, and has defended the American revolution. Her traditionalism is shallow.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: