In defense of Lord Acton, revisited

John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton, 13th Marquess of Groppoli, Knight Commander Victorian Order, Deputy Lieutenant, January 10, 1834 – June 19, 1902

On the birthday of the great liberal Catholic historian John Dalberg-Acton (1834-1902), I’ve decided to republish what I posted three years ago. (It will be new to some, if not most, of you.) It’s prefaced by links to Acton-related posts of mine and followed by the text of a 2006 answer to an attack on Acton—which I’d call ignorant were its author not a learned Catholic historian. Like my Christ, Capital & Liberty, whose chapters began as blog posts critical of another traditionalist Catholic, the arguments and evidence marshaled in my essay deserve more exposure than my old site can give them.—A.G.F.

- Lord Acton: ambiguous democrat, libertarian modernist (December 7, 2018)
- When Acton met Whitehead? (December 11, 2018)
- Happy Birthday, Lord Acton! (January 10, 2019)

John C. Rao, Ph. D. [Oxon.], Associate Professor of History emeritus, Saint John’s University, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences

“In Defense of Lord Acton,” reproduced below, was written in January 2006 in response to “A Message from Bethlehem: Lord Acton Tends to Corrupt,” a smear of Acton as a “Gnostic” by Professor John C. Rao of St. John’s University. The Remnant, a traditionalist Catholic periodical, published Rao’s defamation of Acton on the last day of 2005. Its original title of my response was, “Do Illiberals Tend to Smear? Or Is It Just Professor Rao When It Comes to Lord Acton?” The editor not only didn’t publish it, but even after more than one query, wouldn’t even acknowledge receiving it.

In Defense of Lord Acton

The significance of the Incarnation of the Prince of Peace for society is always a timely topic, and never a more welcome one than at Christmastime. It is the motif of Professor John C. Rao’s vast historical studies, and I expected his recent column in The Remnant¹ to add one more variation on that theme. He more than disappointed any such expectation by taking the occasion of the season to impute heresy-mongering, if not heresy itself, to Lord Acton, a man who regarded communion with the Church as dearer than life itself. That is, Professor Rao maligned a fellow member of his own profession, a towering figure in European historiography who participated in the unearthing of many official archives. And he did it not by examining any of Acton’s own words, but rather by repeatedly asserting what he “really” meant. Feeling glum² cannot excuse such a lapse from the standards of controversy. Continue reading “In defense of Lord Acton, revisited”

Newsflash: They’re godless commies!

Bingeing these days on YouTube lectures by Stalin biographer Stephen Kotkin, I had a flashback when I heard his answer to Uncommon Knowledge host, Peter Robinson:

. . . it occurred to me that you have probably spent more time reading Soviet archives than any other person. And I said to you, Stephen, what’s the one central finding? And you replied immediately, “They were communists.” The leaders of the Soviet Union really believed that stuff and they really wanted to achieve the communist goal of worldwide revolution.[1]

This reminded me not only of Kotkin’s documented evaluation of the Bolsheviks in general and Stalin in particular—they were not cynics, but convinced Marxists who expressed themselves behind closed doors as they did in their propaganda—but also of the opening paragraph of Murray Rothbard’s, “Karl Marx: Communist as Religious Eschatologist.”

The key to the intricate and massive system of thought created by Karl Marx is at bottom a simple one: Karl Marx was a communist. A seemingly trite and banal statement set alongside Marxism’s myriad of jargon-ridden concepts in philosophy, economics, and culture, yet Marx’s devotion to communism was his crucial focus, far more central than the class struggle, the dialectic, the theory of surplus value, and all the rest. Communism was the great goal, the vision, the desideratum, the ultimate end that would make the sufferings of mankind throughout history worthwhile. History is the history of suffering, of class struggle, of the exploitation of man by man. In the same way as the return of the Messiah, in Christian theology, will put an end to history and establish a new heaven and a new earth, so the establishment of communism would put an end to human history. And just as for post-millennial Christians, man, led by God’s prophets and saints, will establish a Kingdom of God on Earth (for pre-millennials, Jesus will have many human assistants in setting up such a kingdom), so, for Marx and other schools of communists, mankind, led by a vanguard of secular saints, will establish a secularized Kingdom of Heaven on earth.[2]

They weren’t cynics, but dreamers. The real-world nightmare that claimed hundred million lives and enslaved billions in the 20^th century began as a 19^th-century Christian apostate’s dream. As Gary North summarized Marx’s legacy:

Karl Heinrich Marx, the bourgeois son of a bourgeois father, was born in Trier, in what is now Rhineland Germany, on May 5, 1818. He was a Jew by birth, but in 1816 or 1817, his father joined the state’s official Christian church, and he saw to it that his children were baptized into his new faith in 1824. After a brief fling with a liberal, pietistic form of Christianity, young Karl became a dedicated humanist. He took his humanism to revolutionary conclusions. Karl Marx, the grandson of rabbis, would become the rabbi of Europe’s most important religious movement: revolutionary humanism.[3]

He inspired generations of murderous missionaries, counter-evangelists—dysangelists, if you will—proselytizers of the bad news of this world’s God (2 Corinthians 4:4; Ephesians 2:2; John 12:31). Remember that the next time of “social justice warriors” nonchalantly claim to be “trained Marxists.”[4] Their corrupt plans do not stop at exploiting “white guilt” for pecuniary gain, but extend to society’s every nook and cranny.

Notes

[1] Uncommon Knowledge, 5 Questions for Stephen Kotkin, February 5, 2022. See Robinson’s other interviews of Kotkin, “Hoover Fellow Stephen Kotkin Discusses Stalin’s Rise To And Consolidation Of Power,” October 6, 2015.

[2] Murray N. Rothbard, “Karl Marx: Communist as Religious Eschatologist,” in Rothbard and Walter Block, eds., The Review of Austrian Economics. 1990, Springer. Republished as Chapter 22 of Rothbard, The Logic of Action Two: Applications and Criticism from the Austrian School, Edward Elgar, 1997. Free pdf.

[3] Gary North, Marx’s Religion of Revolution: Regeneration through Chaos, Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989, 7-8. Free pdf. On North, however, see my “Dominion Theology: Salvation or Snare for Liberty?,” April 20, 2020.

[4] Jason Morgan, “Black Lives Matters Goes Full Marxist,” Crisis Magazine, April 19, 2021

“Rigged,” Mollie Hemingway’s patriotic service, on the anniversary of The Big Steal

In “If the problem be electoral, how can the solution be? Thoughts on our parlous state,” published January 7th of this year, the day after the political equivalent of a Democrat Party Reichstag Fire evicted The Big Steal from the headlines, I asked how we could wait patiently for another election cycle. What they did a year ago today, and during the years leading up to November 3, 2020, they could do again, effectively perverting this country into a one-party dictatorship.

In the months since, I’ve wondered whether the truth about the war against Trump’s 80 million-strong base (Trump himself is but one man), a war I had followed daily for over five years, could ever vacuum up the corrupt media’s smokescreen.

Without election integrity, which was eviscerated last year, a citizenry in a nominal republic has the potential to become either an aggregate of slaves or an army of soldiers in a kinetic civil war.

Where could people open to the truth find a patient, comprehensive rebuttal of academedia’s bodyguard of liars? How can people who wouldn’t be caught dead searching conservative websites consider what is, for them, the unthinkable?

We now have the answer: they can read Mollie Hemingway’s Rigged: How the Media, Big Tech, and the Democrats Seized Our Elections (Regnery, October 12, 2021). Her patriotic service justifies a qualified hope that, “Yes, truth can win out.” You can read Rigged, and you can put it in their hands.

Hemingway, the eloquent, soft-spoken conservative author, columnist and commentator, a senior editor at The Federalist and Fox News contributor, will not scare off your liberal relatives. In her book, she painstakingly, but never boringly, explores how Democrat operatives, led by corrupt officials and financed by the “Big Money” they excoriated not many years ago, exploited the pandemic to make mail-in ballots the rule, not the exception thereto, and to enact voting “reforms” that make a mockery of “one person, one vote.”

Then she documents the corruption that predictably followed.

Continue reading ““Rigged,” Mollie Hemingway’s patriotic service, on the anniversary of The Big Steal”

Of Monuments and Memory: The Commitment of Donald Martin Reynolds

Before Peter identified the God-fearing (but non-Israelite) household of Cornelius with Jesus (Acts 10:48), a messenger of God assured the Roman centurion that his prayers and charitable acts had gone up before God as a memorial (μνημόσυνον, mnēmosynon) (Acts 10:4).[1]

After the woman with the alabaster box poured precious ointment on His head, Jesus predicted that it will be a recounted as a memorial (μνημόσυνον) to her wherever the Gospel will be proclaimed (Matthew 26:13, Mark 14:9).

That word is also the Greek root of “monument” (monere, the Latin, meaning “to remind, advise, warn”). The artifacts we Anglophones call monuments commemorate, remind, and warn. To create, behold, and contemplate a monument is to lift up in our minds the figures they commemorate. Photos of behemoth monuments that dot the former Soviet Union’s landscape convey but an inkling of their evocative power. Successor states have removed, warehoused, or destroyed some of these reminders of a dark past, lest they occasion the veneration of evil. All things being equal, however, aides to memory are beneficial.

My friend, the art historian Dr. Donald Martin Reynolds has devoted his life to studying monuments and, at Columbia University for over three decades, imparting his profound appreciation of them to generations of students. Earlier this year Routledge reissued “Remove Not the Ancient Landmark”: Public Monuments and Moral Values, an anthology of 22 scholarly essays on the monumental form which their authors originally read at two symposia Dr. Reynolds had convened. (Besides the Introduction, he also contributed Chapter 7, “The Value of Public Monuments.”) Its topics include “Arch, Column, Equestrian Statue: Three Persistent Forms of Public Monument,” “The Psychology of Public Monuments,” “Venice: Time and Conservation,” “Statues of the Tsars and the Redefinition of Russia’s Past,” “Monument to Russian Martyrs under Stalinism,” “Monumental Revisions of History in Twentieth-Century Germany,” “Eternal Celebrations in American Memorials,” and “Cathedral.”[2]

The reissued book’s title is from Proverbs 22:28. The Hebrew word for “landmark” is גְּב֣וּל (gebuhl): monuments are not only memorials, but also historical and cultural landmarks that delineate one worldview’s “turf” from another as landmarks demarcate one territory’s boundaries from another’s. Forbidden memorials tell us as much about a society as do the ones it insists upon erecting.

Dr. Reynolds, believing that we depreciate such markers at our spiritual peril[3], compiled The Remarkable Prescience of a Biblical Imperative, which tells the story of (and documents) his passion for architecture in general and monuments in particular. When he sent it to me, he gave me permission to share it. Clicking on Remarkable Prescience will download a PDF file.

Santuário de Cristo Rei, Almada, Portugal (facing Lisbon)

This post is an inadequate token of my appreciation of Don and his wonderful wife Nancy Zlobik Reynolds for their years of friendship and fellowship at The Shrine of the Holy Innocents in Manhattan and for having invited me to many of his conferences, not all of which, I regretfully recall, I accepted. I hope it piques the interest of many others in his rich legacy.

Notes

[1] The English “to be baptized” does not translate but merely transliterates the Greek βαπτισθῆναι, baptisthēnai. The root baptizo (from bapto) conveys the idea of identification of one thing with another to the point of merger (e.g., when white linen is dipped into a bowl of dye). “To be identified with” is better than “to be baptized.” In the River Jordan, John identified Jesus with the submissive company in Israel (Matthew 3:13-17). The reality to which the ceremony refers is key, but since churches merely pour their distinctive dogmas into the symbol “baptize,” they see little need to translate.

[2] Dr. Reynolds’s other books include Hiram Powers and His Ideal Sculpture, Garland Publishers, 1977; Masters of American Sculpture: The Figurative Tradition from the American Renaissance to the Millennium, Abbeville Press, 1994; Monuments and Masterpieces: Histories and Views of Public Sculpture in New York City, Wiley, 1988, revised 1997; The Architecture of New York City, Wiley, 1984, revised, 1994; For Our Freedom and Yours: The Art and Life of Andrew Pitynski, Portrait of an American Master, 2015. His Introduction to 19th Century Art and Architecture, Cambridge University Press, 1988 and 1992, has been translated into in several languages.

[3] In July 2020, for example, when a great hue and cry arose demanding that James Earle Fraser’s equestrian statue of Theodore Roosevelt be removed from the grounds of the American Museum of Natural History, Dr. Reynolds appealed to the Executive Director of the National Sculpture Society to request that New York City “realize the integrity of John Russell Pope’s original plan for an Inter-Museum Promenade through Central Park thereby connecting those two great cultural institutions of international renown, the American Museum of Natural History, and the Metropolitan Museum of Art.” A few months later, his account of this effort was published as “The Original Plan for the Theodore Roosevelt Monument,” Sculpture Review, Vol. 69(3), September 1, 2020, 37-41, doi/10.1177/0747528420967271.

The quickest way to get up to speed on Diana West

Welcome to my shortest blog post to date.

Video interview (February 22, 2021; UK) with Diana West.* In less than an hour, she traces the genesis of her research into Communist subversion via her interest in Islam immediately post-9/11.

Diana West : The Secret Assault on our Nations Character

SPOILER ALERT: There was no “victory over Communism”!

Share the link while you can.

* American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character; The Death of the Grown-Up: How America’s Arrested Development Is Bringing Down Western Civilization; The Red Thread: A Search for Ideological Drivers Inside the Anti-Trump Conspiracy

American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation's Character: West, Diana: 9780312630782: Amazon.com: Books The Death of the Grown-Up | Diana West | Macmillan The Red Thread: A Search for Ideological Drivers Inside the Anti-Trump Conspiracy: West, Diana: 9781796761276: Amazon.com: Books

When fascists were frank: Another look at “We were the first fascists”

Talk of fascism is in the air; fascist violence, masquerading as opposition thereto, in the streets. Its appeal crosses racial lines, and it isn’t the first time. It seems opportune to republish “‘We were the first fascists’: from Garvey to Farrakhan.” — Anthony Flood

“We were the first fascists”: from Garvey to Farrakhan

First published February 21, 2019

On August 13, 1920 Marcus Garvey presided at the convention of the United Negro Improvement Association held at Madison Square Garden in New York City. There he promulgated the Declaration of Rights of the Negro Peoples of the World. Its 54 points comprise the farthest thing from a fascist manifesto.

And yet, as my friend Hugh Murray noted a quarter-century ago, Garvey “admired . . . leading anti-communists, such as Mussolini. Indeed, in 1937 Garvey proudly proclaimed of his Universal Negro Improvement Association, ‘We were the first fascists.'”[1]

Here’s the full quote:

We were the first Fascists, when we had 100,000 disciplined men, and were training children, Mussolini was still an unknown. Mussolini copied our Fascism.[2]

He said this in 1937, after Mussolini consolidated his rape of Ethiopia.

While many liberals [Murray continues] are the first to hurl the word “fascist” at those with whom they disagree, they usually ignore the fascism of blacks, even when publicly advocated.[3]

A few years after Hugh wrote those words, King’s College Professor of American and English Literature Paul Gilroy came out with “Black Fascism” (Transition, Indiana UPress, 2000, 70-91), a scholarly monograph on Garvey’s boast, the first instance of Black public advocacy of fascism. I recommend it to students of this overlooked chapter of Black American history.

On June 25, 1961 American Nazi Party Commander George Lincoln Rockwell sat in the Uline Arena, Washington, DC (where the Beatles would give their first US concert a few years later). He was there at the invitation of Nation of Islam (NOI) leader Elijah Muhammad. Thousands were in attendance. During the collection, Rockwell shouted:

George Lincoln Rockwell gives $20!

Continue reading “When fascists were frank: Another look at “We were the first fascists””

G. Edward Griffin: Prophet with Honor

I was so impressed by the video John A. Lancaster posted today that I feel compelled to join him in getting the word out. He entitled his post “Is the Current Unrest a Communist Prophecy?,” but I decided to drop the rhetorical question mark.

The presenter is G. Edward Griffin (b. 1931). When he delivered this talk, so calmly, so professionally, the Left called him a “Red baiter.” Today he’s called a “conspiracy theorist.” Both are empty tags signalling the tagger’s determination not to have a conversation.

Griffin’s topic is a conspiracy—the Communist conspiracy, its self-understanding and its exploitation of America’s racial tensions. As you watch and listen, ask yourself whether the violence, mayhem, and frank advocacy of communism you see nightly on television is not exactly what Griffin was warning Americans about.

Color, Communism, and /Common Sense is an eight-minute YouTube video, excerpted from Griffin’s full presentation, also on YouTube, More Deadly Than War The Communist Revolution in America.

The film has the “look-and-feel” of the early ’60s. At the 2.47 mark, Griffin holds up and quotes from The Nature of Revolution, a 1959 pamphlet by Communist Party theoretician Herbert Aptheker (for whom I worked as a research assistant in the early ’70s). That made me think the film is earlier than 1969, the date given for Griffin’s pamphlet on Amazon. (In 1969, would he cite something from 1959?) I’d appreciate hearing from anyone who can settle the date of the original filmed presentation.

The Problem OF Philosophy

Obligations are currently limiting my free writing time to the books I’m working on; lately, and unfortunately, that has meant republishing older posts. Today’s falls into that category. At the end of it, I’ve appended a list of links to posts germane to the problem OF philosophy. I hope to generate fresher material soon.—Anthony Flood

Aristotle’s School

There are problems of philosophy, which philosophers have perennially asked and attempted to answer. What really exists? What can (and do) I know? What is the nature of the good, the true, and the beautiful?

But there’s also the problem of philosophy, one that philosophy raises implicitly but cannot answer directly. That’s the problem of worldview. Do my answers to those philosophical questions comport or clash with one another? How much about the world must I “take for granted” when I ask my first question? Can I query those takings?

When one is adverting to the problem of “background” worldview one is not trying to solve problems that arise on its terms. And one’s worldview must be able to acknowledge worldview-diversity. But where is one standing when one entertains that problem?

As my interest in the worldview problem has increased, that in philosophical problems has decreased. That’s because philosophical problems now seem to me a function of one’s basic, non-negotiable stance toward the world. When philosophers pay attention to it, they’re not “doing” philosophy. When they don’t, their philosophical work is exposed to worldview-level criticism.

It’s not that philosophical questions are unimportant. The almost fifty years I spent studying them were not wasted time. Philosophical questions are endlessly interesting culturally and historically. But worldview questions have supplanted philosophical ones in my mind, perhaps because my worldview is of paramount importance to me and, going forward, I wish to advert to it explicitly. Worldviews assign various values to cultural and historical importance and hence to philosophy.

Philosophers who profess the same worldview can agree or disagree fruitfully about, for example, the veridicality of sense perception. Those who do not profess the same worldview, but are not conscious of that disparity, may misunderstand both their agreements and disagreements, even if when they use the same natural language correctly. If they are conscious of that disparity, then it is not clear what their apparent agreements or disagreements could mean. “God exists,” affirms the Christian, who thinks the idea of God important. “Yes, God exists!,” answers the Buddhist, who deems it a distraction from the main issue of living.

If philosophical problems are embedded in a worldview, then worldview conflict-adjudication is not a philosophical problem. The attempt to resolve the conflict also operates at the level of worldview. There is no worldview-neutral stance from which to make that attempt.

That one’s philosophical system is one’s final court of appeal for all questions was my assumption. Glancing at my life’s clock and calendar, however, I no longer care to do that. I’ve achieved enough clarity about my position to give myself permission not to.

The implications of the Christian worldview, the one that permeates the pages of the Bible, exhausts my philosophical interests. I’ve come to the conclusion that it is the only worldview that makes possible what philosophers do. (Indeed, what we all do at the inception of our every predication, even our silent ones.)

I further claim (as an implication of my worldview) that everyone, even those who claim to be anti-Christian, operate implicitly in terms of the Christian worldview. It’s the birthright of all those created in the image of God.

I prefer exploring the Christian worldview, as Biblical exegesis reveals it, to burrowing down the tunnel of worldview-justification. For life is short, and justification tends to be a long-winded if not also interminable affair. Still, as my position is in need of clarification, I will try to clarify it in future posts.

Postscript, July 21, 2020: Here are those “future” posts, i.e., subsequent to November 26, 2018, when the essay above was first published:

The Apostle Paul preaching to the philosophers. Acts 17:16-34

The spiritual preconditions of rational debate: Eric Voegelin’s diagnosis revisited

The “national conversation” Leftists urge us to have about social order is about as genuine as Mao Zedong’s Hundred Flowers Campaign and, for patriots tempted to participate, about as safe. Debate has spiritual conditions, and the Left-dominated academedia complex guarantees that they’re rarely, if ever, met (except perhaps among family, friends, and trusted associates, at least for now).

No one made that point with greater profundity and learning than Eric Voegelin. On November 2, 2018 I posted a vignette of my interaction with the great philosopher of consciousness, enriched by extensive quotes from his classic essay, “On Debate and Existence.” Our perilous times call for reposting it. Those who vaguely remember it should take another look; it’ll be new for those who don’t.—Anthony Flood

Eric Voegelin: no debate without accord on existential order

(First published November 2, 2018)

“What ‘banged’?”

That was the derisive reaction of Eric Voegelin (1901-1985) to someone’s mentioning the prevailing cosmology, the Big Bang theory (not to be confused with the television comedy whose theme song’s lyrics encapsulate the disordered cosmology Voegelin analyzed*).

He asked that rhetorical question on March 26, 1983 in Newton, Massachusetts during a Friday night-Saturday afternoon conference arranged by organizers of the annual Lonergan Workshops. (During that year’s meeting in June I’d meet Bernard J. F. Lonergan, SJ, whose mind I revered as much as Voegelin’s.)

Being a Rothbardian libertarian, I could hardly resist asking Voegelin about the seminars that Ludwig von Mises led in Vienna in the twenties. Smiling, Voegelin said he appreciated learning from Mises that inflation is not an increase in prices but rather the central bank’s increase in the money supply not commensurate with an increase in production of commodities. (A government may politically “freeze” prices, but then the economic effect of the inflation, that is, of the physical increase, is a shortage of the goods whose prices were frozen.)

At the cocktail hour I asked Voegelin (I paraphrase from memory) how he could communicate with scholars whose grasp of the historical material was far below his (among whom he did not number Father Lonergan, but I certainly include myself). “With a kind of controlled irony,” he deadpanned.

Continue reading “The spiritual preconditions of rational debate: Eric Voegelin’s diagnosis revisited”

Brand Blanshard on wisdom

Brand Blanshard. Photo by Richard P. Lewis, published in “Man of Reason: In Memoriam Brand Blanshard.” “A memorial service in honor of Brand Blanshard was held December 16, 1987, in Dwight Memorial Chapel of Yale University. The memories and appreciations spoken that day and some from letters are printed in this booklet,” which Roberta Yerkes Blanshard, his widow, mailed me on May 5, 1992.—Anthony Flood

The wisdom that American philosopher Brand Blanshard (August 27, 1892-November 18, 1987) sought was not intelligible in terms of his rationalism and determinism. (Of course, wisdom is no more intelligible in terms of the empiricism and indeterminism Blanshard opposed.) In the perennial pendulum swing between the static block universe of Parmenides and the endless flux of Heraclitus, Blanshard unambiguously favored the Eleatic thinker over the Ephesian. As Van Til memorably put it, however, one chooses between these anti-theistic options as one chooses hats.[1]

His doctrines could not help him account for the epistemological (or metaphysical or ethical) “hat” he chose. He gave reasons for his choosing, but the deterministic worldview to which he was committed could not ground an account for reason-giving itself.

Nevertheless, it is ironic, pleasantly so, to note that Blanshard articulated precisely and elegantly almost everything one might want to say about wisdom. Today I want you to know, in his own words, what I think he got right.

In my opinion, what he got wrong (and in this he was not alone) was his presupposing, as all non-Christians do, that pursuing wisdom occurs in an impersonal context (rather than in a divinely personal creation). For Blanshard (again, not just for him) wisdom is a possible achievement of the human being. The human being, in turn, is regarded as the ultimate point of reference (or background or “atmosphere”) of that pursuit (or, indeed, of any predication whatsoever). This presupposition of autonomy leads only to one or another species of foolishness.[2]

As followers of this blog know, my work-in-progress is entitled “Philosophy after Christ”—after not only in the sense of temporally subsequent to Christ’s earthly ministry, but also in the sense of “according to” the Wisdom and Truth that Christ is. This post may be taken as another occasional progress report. Continue reading “Brand Blanshard on wisdom”