Note, however, the way in which Mark writes of 'white' people. At no point does Mark refer to 'white' in any way but as a pejorative term. If you took what he wrote about whites and replaced it with blacks or Jews, do you think it would seem racist? You bet it would. And you'd be correct to say so.
The genius of the modern Left - driven largely by wealthy, college educated white liberals - has been to weaponize racism against their own ethnic identity. Quite brilliant if you think on it. Because almost any challenge can be seen as denying the racism that they clearly see. After all, they see the real problem, why can't you? Doesn't that mean you're a racist? Pure genius.
What their long term goal is I don't know. What they think things will look like in another fifty years of such rhetoric is beyond me. I just recognize racism when I see it. When your attitude toward any ethnic group echoes a racist attitude against any other ethnic group, I'm calling it racist. Even if it's an attitude aimed at your own ethnic lineage.
Bonus points if you see Mark's all too common blunder of gleefully calling down woes on the rich. He forgets, apparently, that for most of human history and the majority humans in the world today, Mark is filthy rich indeed. Perhaps missing that little tidbit demonstrates how Mark could miss that the logical result of calling down endless hellfire on his own ethnic group might not exclude him or his posterity
their fantasies of fascist self-pity and “Benedict Option” revanchism is just grotesque (and blasphemous to anybody who knows the first thing about the gospel which neither knows nor cares about the ethnics distinctions so cherished by this white supremacist freak show).
Written by Mark, a man who spent the entire article making ethnic distinctions, albeit about his own ethnic group. Once more I become convinced that to align with the modern Left demands an unprecedented level of lacking self-awareness.
(Tom New Poster)
ReplyDeleteMS is obviously stone-ignorant of the number of foreign "visitors" to Hungary down through the centuries: Mongols, various sorts of Germans and of course the Muslim Turks, who killed up to half the population (and raped the other half), until their repulse from Vienna. Half the coats of arms of the Hungarian nobility have a severed Turk's head. Ever investigate why, Mr. Shea? Then in 1945 came the Russians, almost as brutal as the Turks, for almost a half-century.
Ya know, even the most kindly of hosts have a right to say when they've had enough company., especially when certain sorts (the Turks) display such bad manners.
That's an entirely different point that needs to be made. The atrocious mauling of history and historical studies that wouldn't even care about the facts you bring up. That Mark invokes the left's racism against his own ethnic group is part of the same problem, and relies heavily on learning nothing about history, either it's events or its sins.
DeleteDon't think there's a lot left of him intellectually.
ReplyDeleteI guess you have something in common!
DeleteAs I said to Blake I don't think it's cognitive as much as it's trying to square that round hole of being a Christian aligned to a movement that is its own new religious revolution.
DeleteAnon, I notice the last couple of times you've responded to Art it's been some personal dig. Assuming, with the name 'Anonymous', it's the same person. Please keep the comments in some form of discourse and away from personal jabs. You can argue Art was merely insulting Mark, and he was wrong to do so, but then make the case. Trolling is the one thing I'll stop, owing to my experiences at Patheos. I run a loose ship and if you want to roll up your sleeves and say why Art is wrong to make such a claim, even if you have to be blunt, have at it. But since this isn't the firs time I've seen such a reaction to Art from 'Anon', let this be a formal request to avoid personal insults and trolling. Thanks.
DeleteOut of respect for you, David, I'll refrain from sniping at Deco, provided he affords me the same courtesy. I'll just add that he ignited this whole controversy by smearing me as an anti-Semite.
DeleteI'll just add that he ignited this whole controversy by smearing me as an anti-Semite.
DeleteJust when and where did I do that?
Not sure which is worse: the fact that you slander people or the fact that you do it so casually that you can't even remember doing it.
DeleteJust don't respond to me.
I'll take your reply to mean (1) you cannot find the thread wherein I did that or (2) you did find a thread in which we both participated, it just did not include any slanders.
Delete3. I'm not interested in running errands for a liar who can't even remember his own smears. Now step off.
DeleteDave: Genuinely trying to not get sucked back into this. I won't respond to any more of Art Deco's comments, as per your request.
Anon, yeah, things seem to have spiraled in this particular thread. Perhaps the two of you stepping to opposite sides of the room for a time. Sometimes the internet isn't the best place to convey or receive points made, and when it gets personal that's a good time to take a break, at least with anyone that leads to quick conflict. Thanks for working things through. .
DeleteMark is a lunatic, and his attempts at playing the blasphemy game are hilarious when one considers the fact that he's a pro-abortion ghoul. But most sane people recognize that Mark is a lunatic. The worst people are his enablers, especially the ones in the Catholic clergy. If you give Mark a taste of his own medicine, expect Deacon Steven Greydanus to swoop in and defend his dear friend's honor. (Of course, his casual acceptance of Mark's lunacy never precludes Steven from being an anti-racist try-hard who's constantly lecturing others on the merits of critical race theory and the evils of white privilege.)
ReplyDeleteRegardless, I'm not a Catholic, so I'll let you people deal with the crazies in your own ranks. But I can't see the Church moving in a less liberal direction until Pope Francis vacates the papacy. Remember: Argentina legalized abortion during his papacy. Did he ever say anything about that? No.
The problem with Mark, as with many Christians who align with the Left, is that - unlike those who aligned with conservatism - they are dealing with a movement diametrically opposed to the Gospel that openly rejects it and the existence of God, at least biblically understood. Not that conservatism was the same as the gospel; it didn't really care insofar as Christianity didn't get in the way. But it saw the historical Christian tradition as at least a net positive for the things most conservatives did cherish. The modern Left openly rejects the Christian faith as the main cause of the world's problems, and pushes to reject almost anything associated with Christianity or the Christian West. It sees the Christian West and its set of values and beliefs as a net negative that needs eliminated. Those believers who align with such a movement are going to have some problems squaring that round hole. If it was just Mark we could make such a claim about his 'lunacy.' But as we watch traditionally respectable people like Deacon Greydanus and Dawn Eden begin using the little rhetorical sleights of hand and questionable arguments that Mark was using twelve years ago, it's hard not to see the trend.
Delete(Tom New Poster)
DeleteDave: What unites Christians and conservatives is philosophical realism. Both accept a world they did not create, do not completely control, and to the rules of which they need to submit for survival/salvation. Obviously disagreement arises about the nature of those rules, but both agree THEY ARE. Liberals can "imagine" with John Lennon all they want, but Lincoln's dog still has four legs and not five.
That's an accurate take I'd say. Though if conservatives can be rigid about the ancient truths they defend, liberals can be just as rigid about whatever their latest truth happens to be.
DeleteHis latest just doubles down on it:
ReplyDeletehttps://markpshea.com/2022/08/17/when-you-make-a-movie-just-as-the-culture-evolves-and-you-still-have-to-try-and-market-it/
Basically he just uses the opportunity to further run down the reputation of Thomas Jefferson, no matter how questionable it is that there was any relationship with a slave. It seems that if you're white, that's all he needs to know that you are guilty.
Makes one wonder what Shea may be guilty of then...
That's not surprising. Mark is full blown leftist at this point, and the left's goal is the destruction of the West and America. This is done by Mark's embrace of post-forgiveness condemnation of old, dead sinners who built the nation the left wants to burn. Again, Mark is an excellent case study for those who look at history and wonder how people could do the things people in history did.
DeleteAh here we go. Found the resource finally I had looked at before which debunked the Jefferson slander.
Deletehttps://jeffersondnastudy.com/background-dna-study/
It's interesting how Shea never holds abortion supporters, let alone abortionists, to the same standards. But don't worry. Once abortion's been outlawed for 150 years and it's no longer risky to voice one's opposition to the "procedure," his descendants will be sure to come out of the woodwork and loudly proclaim how much they hate abortion. That's the approach Mark and Steve take when it comes to slavery.
DeleteI've said our only hope in history is that future generations will be far less judgmental than we are against those who came before. With Mark, however, hypocrisy is practically his prime tactic. Early on that was a warning sign, given the ease and frequency that he nakedly does what he condemns others for doing.
Delete(Tom New Poster)
DeleteWe can have some hope in the views of medieval Christians on the ancient world. Dante can look at (say) the Emperor Trajan and see a decent man, whom circumstances tragically made a persecutor of the Faith. One can't imagine Tertullian (sort of a 3d century Mark plus genuine intellectual gifts) being so charitable.
Time can do that. We glorify the Vikings, yet to their victims they were as cuddly as ISIS. I think it's easier to be charitable to those who never impacted me. After 9/11, I was still a protestant pastor. I told my congregation that everyone is rushing out to say we must forgive the terrorists. I said I'll leave that to the victims. It would be easy for me to forgive them. They didn't directly do anything to me. But forgive the coworker who shafted me or the driver who just cut me off on the freeway? That's the tricky part.
DeleteI once sent to Shea a photo of myself surrounded by the family of my in-laws in Bolivia. All a lovely shade of brown. People whom I love dearly. Yet he would insist that my ‘Trumpism’ makes me a racist who hates Latinos.
DeleteEl es un pendejo odioso.
One of the pillars of the modern Left is that it doesn't matter what you do, it's that you speak the words. More than once, liberals make it clear a person who marries an ethnic minority, who works to help ethnic minority, whose best friends are ethnic minorities - doesn't matter. If you oppose leftwing narratives and policies, a racist. While a white liberal who has barely been in the same room with ethnic minorities but supports leftwing narratives is obviously not a racist. I can see Mark finding this an easy standard to adopt.
Delete