by Hans G. Lundahl on Sunday, 21 November 2010 at 16:04
Joe Hargrave is a friend of mine, but his terminology sometimes puts me off.
Joe Hargrave:
My dear: growing less wheat over all or making less bread would equal genocide. Making less transports, letting bread eaters be in higher proportion wheat growers would not equal genocide. Making less electricty, i e making bread eaters be in less proportion TV watchers, radio listeners, cinema goers would not equal genocide.
As for saying the old fascism was genocide, I take exception at such a BIG slur against Mussolini. Or against smaller fascisms: Franco, Salazar, Dollfuss + Schuschnigg. If you mean that NAZISM was genocide, say so.
[Then I read above comment but still not article]
"The article deals with a degenerate academic scumbag who compared having children to littering. These people must be opposed and stopped."
I would not call that ecofascism, but malthusianism. It is an insult both to ecologists and to fascists to compare Georgia Guidestones cultists to either.
"And you traditionalists reading this had better understand the value of liberty in opposing these people."
I do.
"These are the people who are in charge of the state."
Too true.
"They won't be replaced with Christians."
If so it is about time for Our Lord to come back.
I also understand the use of liberty in getting more ecological. I mean: in France, parents are required by law - or so I was told in 2005 - to have electricity in their houses. If they have not, they are given the choice of installing electricity (if need be on public expenses) or losing their children.
Reading the article I am reminded why I hate the people who have so far succeeded in stopping me from marriage and from rearing children.
It goes to the heart to see what one is missing.
And yes, both Trad Cath anti-liberals and people like you have been collaborating with the Helen Fisher types of my Swedish background.
Both kinds have pretended what the Helen Fishers have pretended: to wit I were unfit to be a family man. Both types have pretended I am unfit to earn my living as a writer:
a) because as ecologically conscious, and against electric over-consumption, I have been made out as being an "ecofascist" not very far from Helen Fisher;
b) the antiliberals have thought me too libertarian about living off begging (while keeping writing without pay);
c) libertarians like you have bundled me along with the people who attack liberty. Because I attack some sorely abused and not so necessary economic liberties. Such as taking interest. Or merging companies.
I am not part of, at least I do not want to be part of a future unchristian anti-liberal government - but opposing it is to my moral consciousness not identical with attacking all and sundry anti-liberal politicians in human and historic memory.
I am not part of and at least do not want to be part of a libertarian-on-all-accounts establishement that erodes the state to nothing and puts all power in private big corporations. Or informal networks.
Dollfuss and Schuschnigg - worst thing that happened to Jews was getting into fistfights. Franco and Salazar - helped Jews escape from Hitlerian persecution, though Franco limited the offer to Shepharads.
Mussolini: start - 38, no anti-Jewish racism; 38 - 43, racial segregation in marriage laws; 43 to the end: Mussolini was captive of the Germans except a few days as captive of partisans.
The mayor of Assisi was a fascist, and helped saving Jews.
CC: "Sir, Mussolini never invaded Ethiopia? Never sided with Hitler?"
Ethiopia was genocidal? About as much as Afghanistan in my opinion.
The goal was not to eradicate Ethiopians but to teach them courtesy with women, more recently known as women's rights. The excuse was customs like a show of bride capture "forced marriages" - as well as, possibly, "female circumcision". I have somewhere heard the Muslims who do that learned it from Ethiopian Christians.
Sided with Hitler? Yes, but not about killing (or even making captives among) Jews.
No Jews were deported from Italy before a date in 1943 known as founding of the Saló Republic. And in that, Mussolini was no longer an ally but a captive puppet of Hitler's.
It may be added that in 1943 Pius XII dealt with Ethiopian cases of "forced marriage" and found evidence of force insufficient for annulment. (Acta Apostolicae Sedis)
Joe Hargrave is a friend of mine, but his terminology sometimes puts me off.
Joe Hargrave:
Eco-fascism = genocide. Just like the old fascism.
http://www.insidecatholic.com/feature/littering-love.html
[I did not read this comment or even the article at first, but answered only Joe's first presenting comment] The article deals with a degenerate academic scumbag who compared having children to littering. These people must be opposed and stopped. And you traditionalists reading this had better understand the value of liberty in opposing these people. These are the people who are in charge of the state. They won't be replaced with Christians.
My dear: growing less wheat over all or making less bread would equal genocide. Making less transports, letting bread eaters be in higher proportion wheat growers would not equal genocide. Making less electricty, i e making bread eaters be in less proportion TV watchers, radio listeners, cinema goers would not equal genocide.
As for saying the old fascism was genocide, I take exception at such a BIG slur against Mussolini. Or against smaller fascisms: Franco, Salazar, Dollfuss + Schuschnigg. If you mean that NAZISM was genocide, say so.
[Then I read above comment but still not article]
"The article deals with a degenerate academic scumbag who compared having children to littering. These people must be opposed and stopped."
I would not call that ecofascism, but malthusianism. It is an insult both to ecologists and to fascists to compare Georgia Guidestones cultists to either.
"And you traditionalists reading this had better understand the value of liberty in opposing these people."
I do.
"These are the people who are in charge of the state."
Too true.
"They won't be replaced with Christians."
If so it is about time for Our Lord to come back.
I also understand the use of liberty in getting more ecological. I mean: in France, parents are required by law - or so I was told in 2005 - to have electricity in their houses. If they have not, they are given the choice of installing electricity (if need be on public expenses) or losing their children.
Reading the article I am reminded why I hate the people who have so far succeeded in stopping me from marriage and from rearing children.
It goes to the heart to see what one is missing.
And yes, both Trad Cath anti-liberals and people like you have been collaborating with the Helen Fisher types of my Swedish background.
Both kinds have pretended what the Helen Fishers have pretended: to wit I were unfit to be a family man. Both types have pretended I am unfit to earn my living as a writer:
a) because as ecologically conscious, and against electric over-consumption, I have been made out as being an "ecofascist" not very far from Helen Fisher;
b) the antiliberals have thought me too libertarian about living off begging (while keeping writing without pay);
c) libertarians like you have bundled me along with the people who attack liberty. Because I attack some sorely abused and not so necessary economic liberties. Such as taking interest. Or merging companies.
I am not part of, at least I do not want to be part of a future unchristian anti-liberal government - but opposing it is to my moral consciousness not identical with attacking all and sundry anti-liberal politicians in human and historic memory.
I am not part of and at least do not want to be part of a libertarian-on-all-accounts establishement that erodes the state to nothing and puts all power in private big corporations. Or informal networks.
Dollfuss and Schuschnigg - worst thing that happened to Jews was getting into fistfights. Franco and Salazar - helped Jews escape from Hitlerian persecution, though Franco limited the offer to Shepharads.
Mussolini: start - 38, no anti-Jewish racism; 38 - 43, racial segregation in marriage laws; 43 to the end: Mussolini was captive of the Germans except a few days as captive of partisans.
The mayor of Assisi was a fascist, and helped saving Jews.
CC: "Sir, Mussolini never invaded Ethiopia? Never sided with Hitler?"
Ethiopia was genocidal? About as much as Afghanistan in my opinion.
The goal was not to eradicate Ethiopians but to teach them courtesy with women, more recently known as women's rights. The excuse was customs like a show of bride capture "forced marriages" - as well as, possibly, "female circumcision". I have somewhere heard the Muslims who do that learned it from Ethiopian Christians.
Sided with Hitler? Yes, but not about killing (or even making captives among) Jews.
No Jews were deported from Italy before a date in 1943 known as founding of the Saló Republic. And in that, Mussolini was no longer an ally but a captive puppet of Hitler's.
It may be added that in 1943 Pius XII dealt with Ethiopian cases of "forced marriage" and found evidence of force insufficient for annulment. (Acta Apostolicae Sedis)
Joe Hargrave scripsit Hans, I'll say again briefly what I said on my own thread.
RépondreSupprimer1. I don't think Franco, Salazar or Pinochet (who you didn't mention, but who is considered by commies to be fascist), were fascists.
2. I think Franco and Pinochet were economic li...berals (which in itself presents problems for anti-liberal traditionalists).
3. I know that eugenics was championed by "progressives" in the US and Britain - people who were fascist-sympathizers.
4. Mussolini started adopting Hitler's racial laws once it became apparent that Hitler's brand of fascism would triumph over his own if the Axis powers won the war.
5. I don't know who Helen Fisher is.
respopondi
RépondreSupprimer5 - look up your own link, first couple of words.
1 - I do not consider Pinochet a fascist either. I do consider Perón a fascist or close to. Salazar yes, though more liberal and conservative than either Mussolini and Perón - so were Dollfuss and Schuschnigg. Franco "had no ideology" except anti-masonry and anti-communism. One moment (like just after 39) he was fascist, another time (like when talking to Pinochet about Hispanidad) he was economic liberal.
2 - I agree about Pinochet without reserve, about Franco for a certain period.
3 - I do not consider progressives of Britain and US to be a coherent fascist movement, they were a coherent eugenical movement, which Mussolini was definately not, he led a coherently (more or less) fascist movement, which Margaret Sanger did not.
4 - Mussolini adopted racist marriage legislation before the war, in 38. In 43 Mussolini was as much a captive as Pétain.
back to point 5 But Danielle Bean does not just mention Helen Fisher, she is also linking to an article that says "Big Families Are the New Green" - and I remember times when they were the old green as well, here goes:
http://www.faithandfamilylive.com/features/big_families_are_the_new_green1
To avoid two possible Red Herrings:
RépondreSupprimera) Swedish Social Democrats were pro-Sanger before Hitler was.
b) neither your article nor this last link is the article of Helen Fisher, both are solidly pro-life.
CC: "Do you suggest that the United States should have conquered Europe to teach its remaining population courtesy with women too?"
RépondreSupprimerWhy? Europeans have no tradition of bride abduction which can be construed as forced marriage. And Europeans do not practise genital excision on girls. Besides, in a way US did just that with Germany, imposing feminism as an antidote to the supposedly too machist sex ideology of nazism.
Also with Joe Hargrave, on the other blog because it fits into label jihad there.
RépondreSupprimerThat other debate ran into questions like this one, and latter comments on it are therefore posted here:
RépondreSupprimer" To have anything more than laissez-faire in practice is to ultimately grant special privileges to the few at the expense of the many, and to store up fiscal burdens on the government that will eventually lead to ruin. ... I think laissez-faire would reinforce the value of family and friends in a number of important ways."
That is not arguing for laissez-faire, it is arguing against welfare state. As mentioned, where European traditions differ from laissez-faire is that they outlaw certain kinds of gain, not that they tax more (in fact they taxed less, since renewed necessities for welfare state is a byproduct of laissez-faire capitalism).
As is presently, companies profiting from laissez-faire agree with welfare state that families and particulars under a certain level of income or fortune shall not profit from it, but have more bureaucracy than the rest.
Hans,
I get your point. Perhaps you misunderstood mine - people ASSUME that laissez-faire = individualism.
I oppose welfare-statism too, though.
I do not and I think laissez-faire can be as oppressive by informal solidarities (how many people here in France could have printed out my work, sold it and sent me some money but did not due to informal solidarites?) as by individualism.
Opposing welfare statism should get you into opposing too big companies. Even if so far it doesn't.
Big companies are either voluntary organizations, or they aren't. If they are, I don't oppose them. Who am I to say that a company is "too big"? It's what they do that matters. I don't mind bigness, I never did. What I mind is when big companies use the state to suppress competition.
RépondreSupprimerIn the Marxist view, "big capital always destroys little capital." Anti-bourgeois traditionalists agree. If this happens because of legitimate competition, I don't care. We all benefit from that process. If it happens because regulations make small businesses cost prohibitive, then your problem is with the state.
Answering first off "In the Marxist view, 'big capital always destroys little capital.'"
We do not all benefit from the process. When a small company is destroyed, not all get work in the bigger that destroys it. There are new that is more people looking for work, and there are less employments to go. Qualified people who previously ran their own companies are now in competition with less qualified people who were wage earners even before that. Some of them get sacked. And more people are in competition for doles or whatever kind of alms there are, until they get a new job, and more people are out there looking for that. That does so NOT benefit all.
And in the Chestertonian view it is not even true. Serbian farms have kept small for centuries. Regulations - kept up in part by "les jurandes", but partly also by legislation - can keep towns' companies small for centuries. The proof for the Chestertonian view is that it has already happened during centuries on centuries back in Europe. Middle Ages, hope you've heard of them.
"That does so NOT benefit all."
RépondreSupprimerBut it does, if the net result is that goods and services are produced more efficiently and real prices decline accordingly. Even your out of work former company owners benefit from that.
As for the Middle Ages, are you kidding? Do you think medieval agriculture could support today's population? Don't confuse technological limitations with human preferences. Our task is to choose from among the options made possible by modern technology. Great for Serbia for keeping their farms small with regulations, but a country that feeds not only its own but much of the world has to think about ways to get the most product to the most people.
That said, you want to blame someone for putting small farms out of business, at least in the US, blame the government once again. Subsidized farming ended up destroying competition and allowing a few successful farms to grow and displace the rest. The percentage of Americans living on farms dropped from 25% to 2% almost overnight after the farm subsidies kicked in, because they help the large farms stay large and not the small farms grow larger. And no matter how successful modern agribusiness gets, the subsidies stay as fat as they were when they were thought to have been necessary.
Answering above, one by one:
RépondreSupprimer"But it does, if the net result is that goods and services are produced more efficiently and real prices decline accordingly. Even your out of work former company owners benefit from that."
More effficient production = less people involved in each production = more unemployed.
"As for the Middle Ages, are you kidding? Do you think medieval agriculture could support today's population?"
Apart from lack of Chile Salpeter, yes. Lack of tractors means more of the population had to be on the farms = less unemployment. Chile Salpeter does increase productivity as long as applied. I have also heard it destroys the own vitality of the soil, as too much sugar in the diet does with entrails: that might be wrong. What is right is that Chile salpeter will not last forever, since it is accumulated guano. Pesticides are very two edged, as you might guess. Less of the crop is destroyed, but then the crop includes a poison.
"Don't confuse technological limitations with human preferences. Our task is to choose from among the options made possible by modern technology."
Including Mediaeval technology, I presume. It has not become totally forgotten.
"Great for Serbia for keeping their farms small with regulations, but a country that feeds not only its own but much of the world has to think about ways to get the most product to the most people."
RépondreSupprimerNot with regulations. Without them. The point of Chesterton et al. was that farming is sufficiently simple to keep property small with only the kind of honour farmers have themselves, even without legal restrictions. But town business is not.
And why should one country feed so many others, as if they could not feed themselves? If productivity per acre is lowered (as will be the case when Chile salpeter runs low), more acres have to be farmed in order to feed the world. But if productivity per farm hand is lowered, more people should be on the land, and less off of it, it is as simple as that. No genocide either intended or risked.
In some areas - African soils, notably - replacing farm workers by tractors has even destroyed the soil and spread the desert.
"That said, you want to blame someone for putting small farms out of business, at least in the US, blame the government once again. Subsidized farming ended up destroying competition and allowing a few successful farms to grow and displace the rest. The percentage of Americans living on farms dropped from 25% to 2% almost overnight after the farm subsidies kicked in, because they help the large farms stay large and not the small farms grow larger. And no matter how successful modern agribusiness gets, the subsidies stay as fat as they were when they were thought to have been necessary."
Ah. There I am with you. Governments have overrated successful big farms (a national counterpart of the international business of "one country feeding the rest of the world").
In Spain (late régime of Franco), France (de Gaulle), Sweden (Social Democrats) a change of taxation has ruined the smallest farmers. de Gaulle was worse than Franco, SD worse than de Gaulle on that one.
Joe Hargrave (five minuits ago):
RépondreSupprimerYou can't stagnate technology just to keep people employed. It didn't work when people started smashing machines at the start of the industrial revolution and it won't work now.
It did not work in England, because England had already two hundred years earlier smashed its jurandes. Because the Protestant parliamentairans and cabinet members were all for free enterprise.
Also it did not work in England because its successful trade gave an illusion - or even a real but temporary success - of technological advance being a gain for everyone.
In an age where some of the most advanced technological societies are talking about technologies for limiting human population, there is some indication that that is no longer so.
Joe:
RépondreSupprimerIt's not an illusion. We're having this discussion because of it, two people on opposite sides of the globe. That's not a benefit of technological advance? No one practices what they preach.
I'm all for decentralization when and where it will be to the mutual benefit of producers and consumers. I think we would see a lot more of it occurring naturally and spontaneously if governments weren't protecting special interests. The problem I have with Distributism is its ambiguous and sometimes naive assumptions about what governments can and cannot do, what they are willing or able to do. There will be no wise philosopher kings to correctly apportion everyone his lot.
Mass communication has been more often one-sided than two sided. Internet is different from previous advances like television and radio and printing press. It is also different from the phone in being less volatile (unless taped) and private. Which is why I like it.
RépondreSupprimerAlso, internet is not a vital necessity. Therefore the demand will differ from time to time. Unlike things like food, clothing, fuel and housing which really are important to everybody. And which are produced by few people who are getting fewer, the rest of us getting more and more dependent on them and the state collecting taxes from them and ... so on.
Whether the world will or will not return to sanity, I do not know and I do not pretend to know.
I do know one thing: depletion of some fuels, notably petrol and uranium, will be a sober up, unless countered by a desperation to keep up modern technology for all - and such a desperation would possibly get really genocidal.
There is one voluntary decentralisation (if it gets done) which I am proposing by the very terms of use I put on my texts.
RépondreSupprimerSince modern edition means usually things getting printed in one corner of the world and transported from there to everywhere, the terms on http://o-x.fr/4mwb (click down to Note on further use conditions) are a real decentralisation of production without depriving me of writing to the free world.
I am not counting on any prefect or president to order it printed, just hoping individuals interested in my ideas will finally do so.
See also a note on whether Locke or St Thomas Aquinas are closer to Pope Leo, and another about nature of Mediæval Kingship
RépondreSupprimer