[sedetrad]

him.

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=30047

[Elizabeth]

He did a GRAND purge of those who disagreed with him about Malachi Martin some years ago.  It was bizarre, IMO.

[Caraffa]

He did a GRAND purge of those who disagreed with him about Malachi Martin some years ago.  It was bizarre, IMO.

I don't quite understand the owners dislike for Fr. Martin. I have not seen anything conclusive that suggests that he was a wolf in sheep's clothing.  

[Caraffa]

I'm not a full-blown distributist, but this piece from Durendal makes good points none-the-less.

A Short Answer to John Grasmeier Austrian School Advocate

By N.D.C. Wansbutter, Esq.

I don't often write on economics on this blog because, frankly, I'm somewhat out of my element in that regard having never formally studied economics. Anything I'd post would therefore be little more than restating what wiser and more learned men have written on the topic. Unfortunately, among traditionalist Catholics, there are many who hold views starkly at odds with the teachings of the popes and the learned men (both lay and clerical) who I would quote from were I to do a post restating what others have written. And so it is that I feel the need to foray into this field according to my means.

I've been publicly on record saying that I lost a lot of respect for Christopher Ferrara, Esq. when he called the Pope's capitulation to the Jєωs on the Good Friday prayer a "master stroke", but this recent article brought him back up a few notches in my estimation of him: http://remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2010-0215-ferrara-ludwig_von_mises_versus_christ.htm

Of course, the usual suspects rallied angrily to Dr. Woods and the Austrian School's defence. Chief among them being John Grasmeier, owner of the largest English-speaking traditionalist Catholic message board on the internet. Now, certainly he is well within his rights to express an opinion and exert his authority over the group he owns (which is why I am not posting this there -- my economic views being seen as a sort of dangerous heresy). Yet his strongly laissez-faire capitalist views will influence many, so I would answer some of his charges in this post.

Now firstly, generally whenever Mr. Grasmeier engages in a discussion of economics, he accuses the detractors of Austrian School economics with something to the tune of "let me guess: You're an Obama staffer or a distributist." Let me say at the outset that, while I do not think that one must be a member of one of these two groups to have difficulties with Austrian School economics, I am a Distributist (or at least attempt to be). Having dealt with that, I'll move on. In taking Chris Ferrara, Esq. to task, Mr. Grasmeier stated:

What I notice about those who argue against free-markets and property rights is that they never bother to let on what exactly it is that they would replace such a system (a system rooted in CATHOLIC MONARCHIES) with or how it would work. (cf. http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=30054


I have no formal schooling in economics. I do, however, have a Bachelor of Arts in History (with a focus on mediæval history) and have continued to update my knowledge in that field as a hobby ever since. Mr. Grasmeier is not the first to make the claim that the modern laissez-fair free market economy is mediæval and "rooted in the Catholic Monarchies". Dr. Woods makes the same claim in his book How the Catholic Church Built Civilization (which is a good book when he's not twisting the facts to conform with his un-Catholic economic beliefs).

Laissez-faire capitalism (as promoted by the Austrian School) simply did not exist in the Middle Ages. Time and space are short so I'll offer but a few arguments. My fellow editor, Mr. Amesse, gave an standard example in his post "King Edward's Economics". Another consideration would be that of the guilds (which depended on grants of letters patent from the Catholic monarchs to exist), inwhich we find, if I may say, the antithesis of Austrian school economics: price fixing, monopolies, strict quality control, and trade restrictions to name just a few examples. A final consideration would be the fact that usury was illegal.

As to the second point, the charge that we Distributists (for that is generally who I believe he is directing his comments towards) do not suggest a concrete alternative. Mr. Grasmeier takes this up a few times in his post:

... how do you plan on disassembling the secular/statist/socialist monster if not by defunding it and the international bankster cartel that enables it? FYI, the Austrians - and men like Tom Woods - are the only ones who espouse viable, real-world, here-and-now means of doing so.


I think all Distributists must concede that in the current milieu, there is no "quick fix" that we can offer. Like monarchists, we recognize that our theories are not suited to be applied immediately (for a King Obama would be only mildly less dangerous than President Obama) -- this, however, does not render the theory useless. A long term, slow process of change is necessary. I think that a reintroduction of guilds (something along the lines of the Corporations instituted by Chancellor Dollfuß in Austria would be a first step.

Of course, I have no delusions about Distributist economic policy ever gaining traction in the modern democratic process which I believe I have accurately called "Lucifer's Lottery". The media would never allow it. They might allow laissez-faire economics because these economics are not really a threat. A distributist economy will emerge, rather, organically, as it did the first time in the early Middle Ages. Likely in the wake of a cataclysmic economic chastisement. Or perhaps through a more modest, and drawn out battle fought one family at a time weaning itself off the mega corporations, producing for themselves, trading with other like-minded individuals, &c. This latter may not be totally far-fetched as there seems to be growing support for such idea. Alas, often among leftist and hippie-types, but Mr. Grasmeier took Chris Ferrara, Esq. sharply to task for ad hominem attacks so I trust that the liberal inclinations of some others inclined towards Distributism will not be held against us.

Posted on the Feast of St. John of Matha, Confessor, a.D. MMX

http://rencesvals.blogspot.com/2010/02/short-answer-to-john-grasmeier-austrian.html

[Matthew]

He, too, is afraid to mention CathInfo by name. I think he'd lose his last handful of members if they knew about a forum as free as this one. Not that he'd care -- he's said countless times he doesn't have time for it, etc.

My advice to him: QUIT already. You know you want to.
I honestly don't know why he even bothers.

His board always looks like this:

32 users online :: 4 Registered, 2 Hidden and 26 Guests

A bunch of people there for the news stories, but they're all banned or ex-members.

Did you see the posts that followed his angry warning? A bunch of timid attempts at humor to appease the wrath of the great wrathful moderator, less they be "next". Pathetic.

My advice to them: QUIT. You know you want to. Come on over to CathInfo, it's much more fun over here. You can disagree and even *gasp* argue with the moderator, and not get banned! We even have an anti-pope or two!

Matthew

[Elizabeth]

Neither have I, Caraffa.  The "proof" that Servi provided was not convincing of much, and he banned everyone who had "Martinite" tendencies, many of them wonderful posters.

I never figured out the motivation for that episode of forum history, and ironically it made me wonder if the big guy was himself a double agent!  LOL!

[Raoul76]

I don't quite understand the owners dislike for Fr. Martin. I have not seen anything conclusive that suggests that he was a wolf in sheep's clothing.

http://angelqueen.org/articles/07_06_martin_ajc_connection.shtml

[Raoul76]

ChantCD said:

Did you see the posts that followed his angry warning? A bunch of timid attempts at humor to appease the wrath of the great wrathful moderator, less they be "next". Pathetic.

The site has become like a bunch of frustrated comedy writers.  Are you referring to the Hans Kung thread?

[Matthew]

Sez John Grasmeier, who is against the Fatima apparitions!

You'll excuse me for being wary when I'm around self-appointed zealots against Our Lady. It's not Catholic to err on the side of "limiting devotion to her" -- quite the contrary. Devotion to Our lady is how you tell a Catholic from a Protestant.

I would take anything he says with a huge grain of salt.

[Matthew]

[Caraffa]

I don't quite understand the owners dislike for Fr. Martin. I have not seen anything conclusive that suggests that he was a wolf in sheep's clothing.

http://angelqueen.org/articles/07_06_martin_ajc_connection.shtml

All of these items are from the 1960's. Everyone knows that Fr. Martin was a liberal then, but changed or underwent a "Tradversion" in the 1980's.

[Matthew]

Question: Is Grasmeier against Malachi Martin because the latter was very pro-Fatima?

[Raoul76]

Sez John Grasmeier, who doesn't even support Fatima!

 :furtive:

I think the problem people have with Malachi, including myself, is they sense he did not repent enough for his past.  He continued to be "the International Man of Mystery."  

I can't tell if it was known during his lifetime that he was Michael Serafian, but he never repented for writing The Pilgrim, described in the Wikipedia entry on Martin as "an apologia for the Jєωs."  He claimed VII went too far for him on exactly that point -- that is a lie.  He supported VII on that point and the novel proves it.  So here we KNOW he was lying and trying to cover up his past, and this is after his supposed turn from VII.

Is this repentance, Caraffa?  Is this his turn to tradition?  

He's sort of like an adulterous wife who gets caught cheating.  She never gets caught again, per se, but she still wears flimsy clothing, hot-red lipstick, and flirts with other men.  She never really performs the necessary work of penance.  Plus, she may actually be sleeping around -- you just can't catch her because she's so slick.  

Malachi should have admitted his past, wept over it, and bitterly repented for it to be welcomed back into the fold.  Instead he wore various masks and disguises, some of them only tenuously orthodox, others serving as a big distraction.  Windswept House posits a "Slavic Pope," obviously John-Paul II, who is portrayed as an anti-communist, anti-NWO fighter and prisoner in the Vatican, a ridiculous depiction playing on the lowest common denominator of deceived Time-Magazine-reading Catholics -- and it was no less ridiculous when the book was published.

Some say that this book and others by Martin first alerted them that something was wrong in Rome.  Fine, but isn't that an accidental effect?  Why would this book do it, rather than the Novus Ordo Mass, or the open apostasy of the "Pope"?  If you thought Assisi was A-OK and it took Malachi Martin's cheesy potboiler to wake you up, you've got a problem.  Windswept House has nothing specific to say about what's going on in Rome, and what it does say leads to further errors, so it's one step forward, and two steps back, for anyone who becomes a traditionalist based on that book.

[Raoul76]

Here's another reason people like me have a big problem with Malachi Martin.  The defenders of Malachi, to absolve him, paradoxically claim he was both an insider and yet naive.  Do you see how absurd this is?  Either he was one, or the other.  He MADE himself a public figure who claimed to have the answers about what was happening in the Vatican, which of course, he couldn't share because it was too top-secret, oooh, how cloak and dagger ( as if the "Pope" being a public heretic was something only he was in on )...

Yet then at the end of his life, when JPII "broke his heart," and he "realized" they didn't share the same religion, suddenly the sentimentality kicks in.  Now it is forgotten that he was an "insider," because an insider would have known JPII was a fraud long before the late 90's.  Who could be less "inside" than someone who is shocked by JPII's unorthodoxy AFTER Assisi?  But oh, forget about that insider business for a moment.  Let us concentrate on the tears streaming down Malachi Martin's face as he realizes the Pope is a liberal.  Get out the violins, and Matthew's Irish Harp of Ossian!  

Is this why you defend him, Matthew, that he's Irish?  He was most likely a Jєω, look it up.

[Matthew]

You're a confused man, Raoul.

Please quote where I was defending Malachi Martin. If anything, I was defending Fatima/Our Lady.

Matthew