Monday, March 18, AD 2024 11:11pm

A Comment Not Fit For Publication at Vox Nova

Apparently, when Michael Iafrate accuses this blog of promoting ‘Christo-fascism’, the following response (in its entirety) is inappropriate:

I’ll simply repeat my long-standing objection to your use of the term fascism:

https://the-american-catholic.com/2009/12/05/ole-timey-country-simple-christmas/#comment-27594

Michael is free, of course, to conduct his comment threads as he likes, but it seems self-evidently ridiculous (not to mention uncivil) to write a post calling people names, and then delete responses challenging that description.  This is a shame, as it makes it very easy to dismiss even his legitimate criticisms. In any case, here is a link to the post which originally drew Michael’s ire.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
153 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Michael J. Iafrate
Sunday, February 28, AD 2010 6:17pm

Yawn.

Donald R. McClarey
Admin
Sunday, February 28, AD 2010 7:11pm

That is my reaction to your post also Catholic Anarchist.

Zach
Sunday, February 28, AD 2010 7:48pm

It’s upsetting because it’s not possible to have a conversation with Michael, yet he seems to want to have one with us. (sorry for the third person if you’re reading this, Michael)

It’s very difficult to understand him because he has a hyper-personalized (idiosyncratic) definition of every word he uses. e.g. everything said or done in defense of America is “fascist”, where the term fascist is expanded to include any American with a shred of Patriotism. For Michael, there is only one American patriot – the dissident and revolutionary. He sees nothing salvageable in America’s political or cultural makeup. America is corrupt at its foundation, its very nature, and as such that nature must be destroyed and replaced with something. Nevermind what that something is (it’s too difficult to specify).

The worst part is that he accuses us of making all these mistakes, of nation worship, etc, and we cannot understand them. Whether its different vocabularies or whether it’s because we are part of “the system” I cannot say.

But it’s clear that he has a passionate hatred for everything American and every person who would defend what is good about America.

DarwinCatholic
Sunday, February 28, AD 2010 8:00pm

Because we all know that simply posting a piece of historical music is fascist…

Cathy
Cathy
Sunday, February 28, AD 2010 8:22pm

I agree with your last paragraph, Zach.

Paul Primavera
Sunday, February 28, AD 2010 8:24pm

Michael is liberal. And that is exactly what’s wrong with the Catholic Church in the US.

I am Catholic. And as such I believe in what the Founding Fathers of these United States tried to do: create a Christian Constitutional Republic, NOT a secular atheist humanist national democracy that the Obamination of Desolation is turning this country into with the help of faux Catholics of the liberal pursuasion: Pelosi, Biden, Kerry, Leahy, etc.

I say again: the best anti-American liberal democrat so-called Catholic is the defeated, muzzled and emasculated one.

And I truly mean that. I have no time for liberal heretics and apostates.

Paul Primavera
Sunday, February 28, AD 2010 8:27pm

BTW, please call me fascist.

Please!

Please!

Please!

😀

Blackadder
Blackadder
Sunday, February 28, AD 2010 9:00pm

I thought Michael wasn’t going to read this blog anymore.

Michael J. Iafrate
Sunday, February 28, AD 2010 11:04pm

It’s upsetting because it’s not possible to have a conversation with Michael…

Zach – What a strange comment, considering the multiple conversations we have had for some time now, some via email.

Colin Gormley
Colin Gormley
Sunday, February 28, AD 2010 11:06pm

Par for the course for MI. His anti-military bigotry is a regular staple at Vox Nova.

Michael J. Iafrate
Sunday, February 28, AD 2010 11:40pm

John Henry – I don’t see much point in rehashing our disagreements about the meaning of “fascism.”

I don’t mind name-calling so much as the refusal to make any attempt to justify the charge.

I haven’t refused anything. We’ve discussed this issue publicly before. I just don’t see much point in doing so again when the use of that term is not a central feature of the post whose comments I was moderating.

…he hasn’t provided any evidence to justify the accusation, and in the past he’s displayed a remarkable confusion about what the word even means.

You can link to my comments about fascism and call them “confused,” but it is more likely that you are the one who is confused. There is considerable debate about the use of the word fascism and folks on the right and the left use it in reference to one another. You shouldn’t be surprised at my usage, not should you find it confusing. I can send you some reading material to help you see where I cam coming from if it will make you less confused.

Let me respond to a few more inaccuracies (ed: from other commenters):

It’s very difficult to understand him because he has a hyper-personalized (idiosyncratic) definition of every word he uses. e.g. everything said or done in defense of America is “fascist”, where the term fascist is expanded to include any American with a shred of Patriotism.

This is not true on multiple counts. First, if you think my understanding of the word “fascism” is “hyper-personalized,” perhaps you need to get out more. Second, I have restricted my use of the term “fascist” to one, maybe two, individuals on this blog. I certainly do not equate patriotism with fascism. If I did I’d have to condemn about 98% of the people I know as fascists. I have in fact blogged at VN about the positive characteristics of patriotism (delinked from the nation-state, of course, but this is patriotism nonetheless).

For Michael, there is only one American patriot – the dissident and revolutionary. He sees nothing salvageable in America’s political or cultural makeup.

If I don’t see anything “salvageable,” why do you think I have an interest in radical social movements in Appalachia? In the american peace tradition? Dorothy Day? Howard Zinn? The Berrigan brothers? WHy does it surprise you that I think american radicalism is the only form of patriotism worth a damn? The status quo in america is corrupt. If the american ideals you want to uphold so badly mean anything at all to you, you would have to be a radical in some sense because those ideals are not being realized. A patriotism that simply wants to preserve the status quo or some kind of “olden days” is worthless.

The worst part is that he accuses us of making all these mistakes, of nation worship, etc, and we cannot understand them.

I don’t know who the “we”/”us” are, but you are right that many americans (yes, even Christians) simply cannot understand the idolatrous nature american civil religiosity. It’s that pernicious dualism that we always end up talking about, Zach. It allows you (plural you) to hold two sets of religious allegiances at once. But we know what Jesus said about God and mammon.

But it’s clear that he has a passionate hatred for everything American and every person who would defend what is good about America.

Again, over the top nonsense. It’s overkill to say that I have a “passionate hatred for everything American and every person who would defend what is good about America.” It’s an overreaction to say such things when I clearly express deep love and affection for various things american. But such overreaction, such defensiveness, springs from a deep attachment (perhaps a religious attachment) to the idea of “america” that you can’t seem to bear any sort of real criticism without spinning off into “HE HATES EVERYTHING ABOUT AMERICA” jibberish.

Par for the course for MI. His anti-military bigotry is a regular staple at Vox Nova.

One of the few truthful things said in this thread. Congrats, Mr. Gormley! I am anti-military and I say so with regularity on the blog.

Jonathan
Jonathan
Monday, March 1, AD 2010 8:12am

I had long had difficulty reading Vox Nova in general, and gave up entirely about a year ago. It was not so much that the posts got to me because of their generally liberal position. It was more the self-righteous tones that slowly began to accompany almost every post. I have not been back lately, but given the comments, I suspect it has not improved.

Tito Edwards
Monday, March 1, AD 2010 8:21am

Jonathan,

Nice pic for your icon!

Who is it?

Morning's Minion
Monday, March 1, AD 2010 8:38am

If you think Michael is liberal, you clearly don’t understand liberalism. Here’s a hint – the general tendency of this blog is in an ultra-liberal direction. That might not be the standard definition of the liberalism in the US, but it does represent “liberalism” as the old enemy of the Church.

Henry Karlson
Henry Karlson
Monday, March 1, AD 2010 8:43am

“t was more the self-righteous tones that slowly began to accompany almost every post. I have not been back lately, but given the comments, I suspect it has not improved.”

The irony!

Jonathan
Jonathan
Monday, March 1, AD 2010 10:50am

Tito,

George Mason – I appreciate the Federalist (then, anti-federalist) leanings of his writings. 🙂

And thank you for proving my point, Henry.

–Jonathan

jonathanjones02
jonathanjones02
Monday, March 1, AD 2010 11:23am

Here is the irony, as indicated by that thread as elsewhere on this topic:

michael not only doesn’t make an effort to understand the term “fascism,” but persists in applying it to his enemies. This is rather curious, especially when coming from one claiming the positions of the Left, broadly defined…..because fascism was, and is, a movement of the Left, broadly defined!

The early theorists and political practitioners of fascism understood themselves to be of the Left, and several were socialist newspaper editors. So let’s leave behind the modern epithet, which has come to have no meaning whatsoever, and come to understand the many points of history one could highlight here, and which were highlighted in John Henry’s link.

The two chief currents of modern, Western “conservative” thought are throne/altar/traditionalism and economic liberalism. Both of these strands would be toxic to the fascist operating at times when it was a serious, coherent system of thought and action. The fascist was nationalist (which can certainly be a part of “rightist” political thought, broadly defined), statist, and against traditionalism. (As we see in the split with the communists – socialism in one country v. socialism international).

So if michael wishes to call someone a fascist today, he should look to the Left. And if he were in Britain, he could (properly) criticize the BNP, which draws quite a lot of their support from Labour voters and Labour areas.

Michael J. Iafrate
Monday, March 1, AD 2010 11:42am

…because fascism was, and is, a movement of the Left, broadly defined!

Hilarious!

jonathanjones02
jonathanjones02
Monday, March 1, AD 2010 12:36pm

Hilarious!

Historically accurate. Are you either capable or willing to discuss it like adults?

I’ll start.

Mussolini was the first political leader to implement the theories of fasces. The theories began with socialist newspaper editors about three decades before.

These were its characteristics: corportism/statism, hyper-nationalism, hatred of democracy, egalitarianism, the values of enlightenment and modernism, collective organization, cult of the leader, love of symbols, and the engagement of violence.

These were its chief inspirations: popular science, Marx, Sorel, and Nietzsche.

I repeat: fascism was, and is, a movement of the Left, broadly defined. This was also how its early writers, and political leaders, understood themselves.

Now: are you either capable or willing of not having a tantrum in your e-engagement? Are you either capable or willing of setting aside the name-calling, hatreds, and hostility, and actually engaging in definition, historical example, and socio-political context? If so, let’s do it.

Jenny
Jenny
Monday, March 1, AD 2010 3:26pm

I admire yall for continuing to attempt to debate and comment at Vox Nova. I have almost completely moved it out of my blog rotation. I don’t mind reading opinions and perspectives different from mine, but condescension drips from many of the posts. I enjoy Kyle’s posts and RCM’s posts back when she contributed, but wading through the rest of it got to be too much of a chore. I’m sure there are other decent posters that I am leaving out. What cemented my decision to stop visiting regularly is the massive censorship of comments. It is their blog so they can do what they want, but the deletion of every third comment to preserve the “proper” dialog makes them look small and the threads unreadable.

Colin Gormley
Colin Gormley
Monday, March 1, AD 2010 4:02pm

Sam Rocha is the only Vox Nova author I read with any interest. The rest are basically leftist shills.

Colin Gormley
Colin Gormley
Monday, March 1, AD 2010 4:04pm

“One of the few truthful things said in this thread. Congrats, Mr. Gormley! I am anti-military and I say so with regularity on the blog.”

Bigotry being a sin one would figure that this isn’t something to be boastful of…

Henry Karlson
Henry Karlson
Monday, March 1, AD 2010 4:26pm

Jenny

Here is a clue; in most blogs, such moderation happens. The irony is that so many of my comments have been deleted on TAC and then lies said as to why. But hey, let’s not let the reality of the net get in the way of your false representation of facts.

Donald R. McClarey
Admin
Monday, March 1, AD 2010 4:35pm

Karlson, no lies have been ever told about any of your comments that have been deleted.

Jenny
Jenny
Monday, March 1, AD 2010 4:54pm

I don’t know how other blogs are run. Comments may be deleted daily, randomly, or accidentally. My concern as a reader and very occasional commenter is that the threads are readable and the flow of ideas is followable.

I do know that on Vox Nova there is a cascade of deleted comments with annotations explaining why the comments were unworthy and deleted followed by other comments responding to the now deleted post. In my opinion, it makes the threads unreadable and, thus, not worth my time. And, after all, mine is the only opinion that matters when I decide which blogs to spend my time reading.

You also nicely demonstrate my dislike of the overall tone at Vox Nova. I state my opinion about the choppy threads and you promptly call me a liar. I’m not sure what I falsely represented. Are comments not regularly deleted at Vox Nova in a very noticeable way?

Henry Karlson
Henry Karlson
Monday, March 1, AD 2010 5:07pm

Donald

That is not true. Many have been, and people have seen it.

Jenny

As for comments being deleted, since it happens everywhere, I guess you can’t read the internet? Seriously, many places don’t even allow comments. The fact that some are deleted should be neither here nor there, but it is interesting that those who complain about it only do so for some examples of it, not the whole. Which goes to show it is not the deletion of the comment which is the issue.

Joe Hargrave
Monday, March 1, AD 2010 5:08pm

Jenny,

Don’t waste your time arguing with these frustrated tin-pot commissars. They’re all bark and no bite, which is why they will never having anything more than comment boxes to dominate.

Donald R. McClarey
Admin
Monday, March 1, AD 2010 5:18pm

Karlson, as far as I can tell three of your comments have been deleted. Here is what was said on those three instances:

Tito Edwards
the-american-catholic.com/
2009/02/07 at 1:21pm
Henry K.,

You need to grow up. I deleted another uncharitable comment of yours.

30 #
Tito Edwards
the-american-catholic.com/
2009/02/06 at 4:16pm
I’ve deleted two uncharitable comments.

To be fair to Henry K. & MM, I was poking fun at MM’s SUV posting over at VN. If Henry K. would have taken the time to be prudent and read the entire sentence instead of stopping at “dissident”, he would have understood that I was joking about the SUV posting of MM. I wasn’t trying to be vicious as Henry K (& MM) were insinuating.

Their perception of intended malice would have been justified if the intent was there. It wasn’t.

Enough said.

Donald R. McClarey
2009/04/03 at 3:42pm
I deleted your last comment Mr. Karlson. Your mischaracterization of what Mr. Petrik was saying crossed a line. I am also placing you in moderation for the time being.

Joe Hargrave
Monday, March 1, AD 2010 5:23pm

I’ve deleted one or two of his comments before as well – when they violate our rules of conduct, which to me aren’t for show.

Why do they even bother coming here? Whatever truth may be present in their arguments is completely obscured beneath the mounds of hatred and contempt they hold for anyone who doesn’t already agree with them.

Henry Karlson
Henry Karlson
Monday, March 1, AD 2010 5:38pm

Donald

There have been many instances, and Tito would write something, and it would be up before he deleted it. It has happened to many of us too. I would get emails from some people when he did it to them. It is quite common in here. But that is the last I will mention it. But I do find it interesting people wonder why there is a discussion of this when the whole post here is about VN and comments.

Tito Edwards
Monday, March 1, AD 2010 5:41pm

Regardless of what Henry says, I will choose not to get involved in mud-slinging.

Unlike the other blog, we here allow all comments to be posted, as long as they follow the comments policy.

Zach
Monday, March 1, AD 2010 6:49pm

Michael, what I meant about the conversation bit was this: we talk back and forth, but we never really understand each other. And as far as me needing to get out more, I think it’s more likely that we just disagree about what fascist means. I’d follow jonathanjones on this issue.

On equating patriotism with fascism: I see this as the only possible explanation for your reading of Don’s comments, and your insistence on calling him a fascist. That post had nothing to do with fascism or anything religious but you insist on seeing something that is not there. Hence I think you have expanded the term to be essentially meaningless.

I still think what I said about your understanding of American patriotism holds true, although I cede the point you make about theoretical patriotism de-coupled from the nation state. Again this is theoretically possible but not possible in practice (i.e. in reality), because America and the rest of the world is organized into nation-states.

And concerning your putative love for things America: Dorothy Day, Howard Zinn, and The Berrigan brothers love nothing distinctively American. It’s not possible to say you love something but that your love is dependent upon your hope for it’s total transformation into something else. In this case, you no longer love the original thing but something else entirely.

And you’re right: the American ideals that I love are not being put into practice. But the ideas I love are American. They are not Western European or Latin American.

Finally, the us/we refers to the contributors on this blog, as opposed to you. I do not hold two religious allegiances. I do not worship mammon. Jesus Christ is my only King.

Michael J. Iafrate
Monday, March 1, AD 2010 9:00pm

Henry certainly abuses comment moderation imo on occasion, although Michael is by far the most committed to ensuring no unapproved message disturbs his name-calling.

How would you have any idea what comments I moderate? I in fact let most comments through. Perhaps you’re simply irritated that some of your comments get deleted. Note that the only comments of yours that I deleted in that thread were comments in which you intentionally tried to continue a conversation that I said we weren’t going to have. You had fair warning and posted 2, maybe 3 more times comments that were virtually identical. You’re welcome to do that, but don’t call me unreasonable for not putting up with it.

Michael J. Iafrate
Monday, March 1, AD 2010 9:11pm

Zach –

And as far as me needing to get out more, I think it’s more likely that we just disagree about what fascist means.

Well then say that. Don’t say that my view of fascism is “hyper-personalized” or “idiosyncratic.” You know well where I am coming from.

…I cede the point you make about theoretical patriotism de-coupled from the nation state. Again this is theoretically possible but not possible in practice (i.e. in reality), because America and the rest of the world is organized into nation-states.

This comment simply ignores reality. The world is not organized only by nation-states. Are native North Americans not able to be patriotic? They have no nation-state. Neither do Palestinians. I’ve blogged before about my love for the region that I come from. Has little to do with it being located within the boundaries of something called “america.” The nation-state system is an imposition.

And concerning your putative love for things America: Dorothy Day, Howard Zinn, and The Berrigan brothers love nothing distinctively American.

What?

It’s not possible to say you love something but that your love is dependent upon your hope for it’s total transformation into something else. In this case, you no longer love the original thing but something else entirely.

And what is the “original thing” called “america” that I am supposed to love? Where is it? What is it? How do I locate it? What you say in this comment is true with regard to persons, not with abstractions like nation-states.

And you’re right: the American ideals that I love are not being put into practice. But the ideas I love are American. They are not Western European or Latin American.

Can you list for me these ideals that are “american-only”? Why are you opposing “american” and “Latin American”?

I do not hold two religious allegiances. I do not worship mammon. Jesus Christ is my only King.

We can say these sorts of things all we like. But the fact is, you and most of the writers on this blog casually approve of american soldiers killing in the name of the nation-state. You celebrate it. I do not see any of you blogging about the glories of killing for the church or for Jesus Christ. The things you are willing to kill and die for are the things you worship. We can see what Donald worships. What do you worship?

Tito Edwards
Monday, March 1, AD 2010 9:49pm

Michael is patriotic he consistently spells America will a small “a”, ie, america.

DarwinCatholic
Reply to  Michael J. Iafrate
Monday, March 1, AD 2010 9:56pm

But the fact is, you and most of the writers on this blog casually approve of american soldiers killing in the name of the nation-state. You celebrate it. I do not see any of you blogging about the glories of killing for the church or for Jesus Christ. The things you are willing to kill and die for are the things you worship. We can see what Donald worships. What do you worship?

This strikes me as a remarkably poorly thought out set of statements.

First off “celebrating” something and “casually approving” of it would seem to be mutually exclusive. Second, while you might, given your proclivities, assume from silence that “most writers on this blog” casually approve of “american soldiers killing in the name of the nation-state” since we don’t run around denouncing it all the time, it seems hard to claim that we “celebrate” such a thing when killing is a topic very little discussed and never to my knowledge praised on the blog. Perhaps in your own mind any post which mentions soldiers or the military in anything other than a negative fashion is “celebrating killing in the name of the nation-state”, but others can’t really be resonsible for what goes on in your own mind, only for what they actually write.

More fascinating by far is your assertion: The things you are willing to kill and die for are the things you worship.

Why are we to believe this to be true?

I would hope that you, at least, would agree with all of us here that it is the duty of Christians, if necessary, to die the death of a martyr rather than to deny our faith in Jesus Christ. So certainly, in some cases, people die for Him whom they worship. But it is also reasonable to expect a parent to be willing to die to save his or her children. Does that mean that parents worship children? Christ tells us that there is no greater love than to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. Does that mean we worship our friends? Police, firemen and other rescue workers must risk, at times, losing their lives in defense of residents in their communities they don’t even know. Does that mean that they worship all residents in their communities?

And do you really want, as a pacifist, to hold up “the glories of killing for the church or for Jesus Christ” as a positive good? To the extent that killing sometimes necessary to preserve that which is worth preserving, perhaps there are some situations where this might be necessary. And it is true that most of us here would probably defend the justice of the Crusades, which as I recall you consider to be “Christo-fascist”. But why even bring this up as a criteria for belief? One assumes that as a good pacifist you would explicitly not be willing to kill for the Church (whatever that may be taken to mean), so why suggest that being willing to kill in defense of something is proof of what one worships, since by that criteria you worship nothing?

jonathanjones02
jonathanjones02
Monday, March 1, AD 2010 10:19pm

So……no dispute about the meaning and history of fascism, a movement of the Left that Stalin successfully rebranded as “right wing” (which to him, as with Trotsky, it was) ? If there is no dispute, then perhaps those bloggers on the Left that wish to use the term for their name calling will correct their error.

Michael J. Iafrate
Monday, March 1, AD 2010 10:36pm

First off “celebrating” something and “casually approving” of it would seem to be mutually exclusive.

Not at all. americans mindlessly celebrate all sorts of things.

Second, while you might, given your proclivities, assume from silence that “most writers on this blog” casually approve of “american soldiers killing in the name of the nation-state” since we don’t run around denouncing it all the time, it seems hard to claim that we “celebrate” such a thing when killing is a topic very little discussed and never to my knowledge praised on the blog.

You do know about a guy named Donald who blogs for you, right? Ever read his posts?

As for the killing and dying for what you worship, you don’t seem to be thinking too clearly… you’re twisting, turning, avoiding the obvious.

Not that anyone cares at this point, but this is a lie, and it’s a ridiculous anyway. My comments were deleted prior to any notice from Michael that he considered responding in the comments to accusations he made in his post, was somehow an inappropriate topic of conversation.

It’s not a “lie.” I deleted your comment due to its content and immediately told you why it was deleted and that it was not going to be a topic of conversation. You posted at least two more comments, identical to that one, and I deleted them.

DarwinCatholic
Reply to  Michael J. Iafrate
Monday, March 1, AD 2010 10:52pm

You do know about a guy named Donald who blogs for you, right? Ever read his posts?

He blogs with me, not for me. And yes, I read Donald’s posts with interest — and apparently with much better reading comprehension than you do. I am unaware of any of Donald’s posts in which he celebrated killing in the name of the nation state.

As for the killing and dying for what you worship, you don’t seem to be thinking too clearly… you’re twisting, turning, avoiding the obvious.

No, I’m pointing out that your statement was totally incoherant. If you think that it holds any meaning which is reasonable, you are certainly welcome to explicate it. However, responding simply by saying that others are “twisting, turning, avoiding the obvious” conveys nothing other than “I still think I’m right, but I’m unable to explain why, so I think I’ll try to issue some self-satisfied taunts.”

Michael J. Iafrate
Monday, March 1, AD 2010 11:00pm

You call it “reading comprehension.” I call it rationalization.

Michael J. Iafrate
Monday, March 1, AD 2010 11:09pm

I’m unclear about what you think I’m “lying” about.

Donna V.
Donna V.
Monday, March 1, AD 2010 11:44pm

It’s very difficult to understand him because he has a hyper-personalized (idiosyncratic) definition of every word he uses. e.g. everything said or done in defense of America is “fascist”, where the term fascist is expanded to include any American with a shred of Patriotism. For Michael, there is only one American patriot – the dissident and revolutionary. He sees nothing salvageable in America’s political or cultural makeup. America is corrupt at its foundation, its very nature, and as such that nature must be destroyed and replaced with something. Nevermind what that something is (it’s too difficult to specify).

Zach nails it. For me, the greatest evidence of Western decadence is its absolute self-hatred, which is not found in other cultures, no matter how imperialist or gory their pasts (ie. Japan). The self-loathing leftist can see no good in American civilization. An extremely secular leftist (ie. Dawkins) can see no good in Western civilization and its traditional Christian faith at all – Christianity is nothing but sickness, oppression, sexism, etc. Michael I. is a Catholic (and I certainly do not doubt his belief in God), so he can not condemn Western Civilization as a whole. Instead, he directs his self-loathing at American Christianity, American culture, “imperialism” and so on. Those of us on the right honor our heritage while recognizing America has certainly fallen short many times of the ideals Americans profess to hold dear; it does not mean those ideals are ignorable any more than the ideals of Christianity are ignorable because Christians frequently fail to live up to them.

Michael I. is to be pitied and prayed for: a man who hates his own country and his own heritage and finds the majority of his countrymen and women contemptible instead of basically decent human beings who err is not a man I envy. He, like other leftists, mistakes his self-righteous, sick self-loathing for virtue. It is not.

Joe Hargrave, in contrast, is a man I have frequently disagreed with (except on abortion issues), but Joe, you make me think and reassess my own positions. I am probably a bit less economically libertarian than I used to be because of Joe’s cogent arguments. But then I have never doubted Joe’s love of country. He doesn’t come across as a man who despises his fellow Americans. I remember a 60’s leftist who said later that his fellow leftists had never learned “it’s impossible to change a country if you hate it.” Michael I. has never learned that lesson.

DarwinCatholic
Reply to  Michael J. Iafrate
Monday, March 1, AD 2010 11:56pm

So “rationalization” is understanding what people actually write, rather than imputing to them all sorts of things they don’t actually write because you despise them. Got it…

I must say, Michael, that I’m really glad that I already knew several pacifists — in person and online — before I ran across you. While I do not agree with pacifism, when it is held sincerely it is an idealistic and noble view. I never would have imagined, prior to running into your corner of the blogsphere, that it could we warped into a ideology entirely characterized by hate.

Donna V.
Donna V.
Tuesday, March 2, AD 2010 12:08am

Donald: BTW, here’s an example of the small-minded, “killer” Americans we are apparently supposed to loathe.

I moved this weekend into my first home; a condo I absolutely love. The cable guy came today. I had never set up cable before and was warned that if the cable man said he’d be here at 9:30 a.m. it would probably be 9:30 p.m. when he’d show up. The cable man called at 9 a.m., said he’d be here at 9:30 and – was here at exactly 9:30. I chatted with him and found he was an Army vet, a sergeant and Iraq War vet who had to leave the service because of hearing loss. He is now an independent contractor who is going to school part-time. He shrugged when I complimented him on his promptness; “You have to be on time in the Army,” he said. “I’m still finding civilian life to be – sorry – sort of undisciplined and lax.” He told me his MOS and said during most of his time in Iraq, he had helped build schools. I gave the gentleman a decent tip and thanked him for his service.

That’s the sort of bloodthirsty jingoistic redneck the whole world is afraid of? My latest brief encounter with one of our vets confirmed my opinion that they are the salt of the earth and the most decent of men.

Michael J. Iafrate
Tuesday, March 2, AD 2010 12:25am

Donna – Parroting the “he hates everything about america” nonsense. I addressed this above. Being critical — being ultra-critical — does not equal “hating” america. Please, for your own sake, think a little bit.

Darwin – You, too, parroting the “hate” stuff. Where I am being “hateful” exactly?

Michael J. Iafrate
Tuesday, March 2, AD 2010 12:45am

To clarify, for perhaps the 100th time, my “hatred” of the u.s. military is precisely because of what it does to persons — both the persons who enlist and the persons the soldiers end up massacring.

Discover more from The American Catholic

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Scroll to Top