Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => Topic started by: rum on December 20, 2023, 06:00:43 PM
-
I recently posted this as a reply to a thread created by Yeti (https://www.cathinfo.com/members-only/belloc-mocks-vaccination/msg918065/?topicseen#msg918065), where I downplay Hilaire Belloc as a Judaizer:
I haven't been able to find the text of The Catholic and War online. And I'm not going to pay for it. I have no reason to doubt that the synopsis I quoted is on point. Why wouldn't it be? I've long viewed Belloc as a Judaized lightweight. Chesterton, as well.
Here's a paragraph about Belloc from Joseph Pearce's The Essential Belloc:
==============================================================
What of the charge — or canard — of anti-Semitism, the last desperate act of politically correct mobs? Surely Belloc made slurs, but he emphatically was not an αnтι-ѕємιтє. He railed against those who hated Jews or thought them an appropriate scapegoat of society. He wrote an entire book called The Jews in 1922, which actually predicted the horror in the ghettos of Warsaw and the h0Ɩ0cαųst at the hands of the Third Reich. He described their plight accurately but without approval or rancor. Belloc no doubt had his prejudices, along with most of Edwardian England. But hating Jews was not one, and he defended them against cօռspιʀαcιҽs vociferously. His long-time personal secretary was a Jєωιѕн woman, and in his biography of Belloc A.N. Wilson points out that Belloc himself may have been descended of a Jєωιѕн great - grandfather, Moses Bloch.
===========================================================
A few problems here. The term "politically correct" is a jew-promoted term, most heavily promoted by the jewy Bill Maher (who is as safe as milk on every subject under the sun and claims people only think he's Jєωιѕн because of his nose).
Notice how Pearce uses a pro-тαℓмυdic definition of "anti-semitism" instead of a Catholic definition. Very common con, that I see all the time, and that flies over the heads of most "Catholics". Jesus came from a Jєωιѕн bloodline. All the apostles of the Church came from Jєωιѕн bloodlines. Anyone who hated people who sprout from a Jєωιѕн bloodline wouldn't worship a God who came from a Jєωιѕн bloodline. The Catholic Church is the New Israel. тαℓмυdic Jews should be hated. But according to Pearce Belloc was a good Catholic for not hating тαℓмυdists. No, Belloc was a bad Catholic for not hating тαℓмυdists. Pearce is accusing the Catholics who expelled Jews from Catholic states of being sinners. He's accusing Popes who made Jews wear special symbols on their clothing of being sinners.
Pearce also believes in the h0Ɩ0h0αx. What a dummy.
Belloc's "long-time personal secretary was a Jєωιѕн woman"?!?!
What kind of person has a "personal secretary" anyway? Jew-created celebrities and jew-created politicians have "personal secretaries."
Pearce and Belloc deserve each other. They are cut from the same cloth.
Interesting, if true (and I'd wager it is), if Belloc had a тαℓмυdic great-grandfather.
I'm curious what Incredulous and Mark79 think of Hilaire Belloc.
-
A lot of people twist Belloc to their own agenda. Same is true for a lot of modern-day Catholics, including Chesterton, Padre Pio, Cardinal Newman, Pope Leo XIII, and many others.
If you want to object to some of Belloc's ideas (and he certainly had ideas I strongly object to, don't get me wrong), you have to quote Belloc himself, not people commenting on his writings or ideas.
-
A lot of people twist Belloc to their own agenda. Same is true for a lot of modern-day Catholics, including Chesterton, Padre Pio, Cardinal Newman, Pope Leo XIII, and many others.
If you want to object to some of Belloc's ideas (and he certainly had ideas I strongly object to, don't get me wrong), you have to quote Belloc himself, not people commenting on his writings or ideas.
Blah, blah, blah. People should read the original thread created by Yeti.
What ideas did Belloc have to which you strongly object?
-
Blah, blah, blah. People should read the original thread created by Yeti.
.
I am happy to discuss this with you, but only if you speak in a civil and Christian manner.
What ideas did Belloc have to which you strongly object?
He was a huge fan of the French Revolution in his youth. Even when he got older, he never seems to have realized that the entire attack on Christian monarchs was an existential attack on the Catholic Faith. That's probably my biggest objection to his ideas.
-
.
I am happy to discuss this with you, but only if you speak in a civil and Christian manner.
He was a huge fan of the French Revolution in his youth. Even when he got older, he never seems to have realized that the entire attack on Christian monarchs was an existential attack on the Catholic Faith. That's probably my biggest objection to his ideas.
Go to your original thread I linked to and inspect the points I make about Belloc. Why did you reply here and not there? Because guests can see this thread and not the members only thread?
I'm familiar with Belloc's enthusiasm for the French Revolution. That's the least of his worries.
-
If you want to object to some of Belloc's ideas (and he certainly had ideas I strongly object to, don't get me wrong), you have to quote Belloc himself, not people commenting on his writings or ideas.
Agreed. One can't assume that these characterizations of Belloc are accurate.
-
And besides, Belloc wrote almost 150 books. A great number of people take one or two quotes from Belloc and turn it into a firestorm. I read his "Suppression of Free Press In England," "Economics for Helen," his four volumes on the Queen Elizabeth era, and got a lot out of the volumes. I still have some Belloc stuff on the shelf to read, but I doubt that Belloc would promote the basic principles of the French Revolution were he alive today.
-
Since this thread was reference elsewhere. Belloc did "evolve" over time, and ended up more monarchist, but I think that the radical monarchists often deride those who oppose the absolute and hereditary monarchies that fell into place.
St. Thomas Aquinas even outlined the problems with a hereditary absolute monarchy, where simply inheriting a right to rule means that you often have inferior rulers, and absolute unchecked monarchy leads to tyranny and also to tragic situations such as in England where a rogue heretic / apostate monarch dragged the entire country into heresy.
I hold that there should be an autocratic rule but subject to numerous checks and balances ...
1) Constitutional Restrictions
2) Country's Catholic Bishops could Veto any decision, action, or legislation that the Autocrat attempted to impose on the grounds of their violating Catholic principles ... but the autocrat could appeal to the Pope in case he believed the bishops were wrong
3) There should be an aristocratic body, like a House of Representatives that could veto legislation, actions, decisions based on other reasons unrelated to Catholic principles, such as whether they were prudent or imprudent, would benefit the country or not, and in particular the part of the country they represented. Unlike the US system, this body would not make decisions or legislation, etc. ... but would only be in a position to veto the decisions of the autocrat, and perhaps this is where you'd need a 2/3 majority to exercise a veto. This would be to protect people from burdensome, onerous, or imprudent activity
So, the candidates for the House, the aristocrats, they would be elected by the People, but before being eligible for election, they would have to be approved by their local Bishop, and would Constitutionally have to be practicing Catholics, considered devout / devoted to the faith, and should also have to pass at least some minimum intellectual requirements (focusing on logic, philosophy, and other subjects). Once certified, the people in a region would vote for their Candidate.
No Candidate could spend any money to run for office or to buy/win influence. Each candidate would be permitted equal time to advertise his positions and platform and make a case for himself, perhaps on some website or whatnot, and the people would be required to familiarize themselves with each candidate before voting.
Voting would be limited to men, who are certified by their pastors as being practicing Catholics, but each man's vote would have weight according to the size of his household. So if a single man voted, he got one vote, but if a man with a wife and 10 children voted, his vote would count for 11. All this would have to be certified beforehand also by the priest (or a deacon). This would limit the influence of emotional voting, but nevertheless, if various questions such as whether or not to declare war came up, or various economic questions ... a bunch of single guys or DINC types would not be able to vote for economic measures that favored them over those with large families or vote to go to war when they were too old themselves and would be sending other people's children to go die.
In order to limit the pool, perhaps a committee of priests along with a bishop might pick the top 5 candidates in any given region as being allowed to run for office. Perhaps candidates would be limited to those who had been Catholic for a certain number of generations, to limit the possibility of infiltrators faking conversion just to infiltrate the political system.
Then, the aristocratic body could vote among themselves for who to elect President / Autocrat, etc. -- for a reasonable default term, perhaps something along the lines of 4 or 5 years. But in the case of lost confidence, the aristocratic body could vote him out with a 2/3 majority, and then hold a new election.
There would be no "Parties" or any crap like that which might be used to manipulate votes. There would just be one "party", a Catholic "party".
This would address nearly all the issues with hereditary absolute monarchies, where a monarch could become a tyrant, or be some moron who rules just because he's in the blood line, where there he would be checked by a Catholic (Church-approved) Constitution, as well as by aristocrats, who met certain religious and intellectual requirements, and thus are aristocrats, and not influenced by wealth where it could turn into a plutocracy, where elections could be "bought" by paying for influence. You'd have to make illegal and disqualifying any attempts to "buy" or "canvas for" votes. You would make a presentation, recorded speech, provide a written platform, be required to be certified by your pastor as a serious, credible Catholic (of several generations) as well as passing exams for intellectual capability (ability to reason). From among these would also be elected the President. Even voters would have to be practicing Catholics, would get weighted votes based-on the size of their households, women would be excluded to prevent emotionally-driven voting, and the voters would have to pass some very minimal quiz at least to indicate that they studied the choices somewhat and weren't complete morons.
No Plutocracy, no Jewocracy, a Catholic Constituionally protected form of government subject to vetos by the Church as well as by the aristicratic body, etc.
IMO ... perfect form of government.
-
Next would be a just economic system ... and Belloc's Distributism made a ton of sense. There should be some room, of course, for larger-scale operations that required significant funding to be efficient and cost-effective and to scale, but you should never have these companies owned by someone where 90% of the profits go to the owner while the workers get minimum wages to split the remaining 10%. Incomes and Profit Margins should all be regulated. There's nobody who's worth 10 million dollars per year, while those busting their butts make under a living wage. Nobody would be paid millions to play sports or be celebrities, or be paid millions just because they can product something at scale and charge pennies for each item. Nobody needs that kind of money, or deserves that kind of money. Usually it's just money that buys more opportunities to make money. Incomes should be based on the size of your family. There should be some scale there to encourage self-improvement, where if you study to become an engineer you can make more than someone who's unskilled, but it should be reasonable, and income should still be scaled to the size of your family. Some single guy shouldn't make the same as the father of a family with 10 children, and therefore have lots of extra money to spare in order to then try creating more money with it, etc. You shouldn't be rewarded for not having children in any way. If some enterprises generate profit, these can be sent to some economic council that the aristocratic body above regular, and they can then use those funds in order to invest in areas where there might be gaps, or where there could be efficiency gains, etc. There should be some think tanks where people could be rewarded for developing new ideas, for innovation, but again within reasonable limits ... so that unbridled greed is not the primary engine for and motivation behind innovation and creativity. Many details can be worked out, but the high-level outlines can be found in Catholic social teaching as well as in Sacred Scripture where the Christians pooled all their resources, and made sure no one was left in need. This is where the deacons came into being, since this took too much time for the Apostles to directly administer as their numbers grew.