Follow NewsClips channel at Brighteon.com for more updatesSubscribe to Brighteon newsletter to get the latest news and more featured videos: https://support.brighteon.com/Subscribe.html

Follow NewsClips channel at Brighteon.com for more updatesSubscribe to Brighteon newsletter to get the latest news and more featured videos: https://support.brighteon.com/Subscribe.html

A grisly line. The post The best lyric by The Fall, according to James Murphy first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

A thoughtful reader wrote of last week’s article, “I am looking to learn from his practical solution to the conflict between the competing virtues he contemplates.” Another expressed a similar desire for some application to here-and-now questions. Application is indeed the nub. In the end, we want to apply our principles and bring good into this world, rather than abandoning to the heavenly realm or the cold comforts of unapplied abstractions. One who governs his character is able to see the stability of principle and to bravely act upon it. All that does require that we speak first about the principles and clarify them. Without that clarity, we don’t know in the end what it is we are applying. So, study and contemplate one must, but always with the sure knowledge that that is only the beginning of the work. The Talmud transmits the record of a debate that took place in the early part of the second century. Rabbi Tarfon and the Elders were reclining in the loft of the house of Nit’za in Lod, when this question was asked of them: Is study greater or is action greater? Rabbi Tarfon answered and said: Action is greater. Rabbi Akiva answered and said: Study is greater. In the end, the entire group accepted that study is greater, but only because it leads to action. Study on its own is not the ideal. Implementation is the goal. But what is the problem for which we seek a practical solution? This is the third article in a series that began exploring the principle of balance. The problem that it addresses is imbalance, the tendency to be unaware of the point at which any particular trait ceases to be a virtue because of either a deficit or an excess. Specifics help. Look to our constitution’s federalism. It is a brilliant balance that avoids both the deficiency of centralized power that led to the Confederation’s inability to govern and the excess of centralized power in Britain, which led to the tyranny that moved us to declare our independence. This is just one example of a balance in which several virtues are in play. Preserving individual freedom and having enough concentrated government power to defend ourselves against threats to our existence are both political virtues. Is our goal to set these two virtues at odds with each other, a fight to the death in which one always wins, and the other always loses? That is self-evidently silly. Virtues are meant to be integrated within our character, all being needed to express the fullest good. Patience is a virtue, as is courage. Do we aim in our lives to say that one is always privileged over the other? Without the patience to determine where courage is truly called upon, we could easily reduce our courage to a display of egotistic belligerence, losing the far greater good that patience could have yielded us of goodwill and trust. Without the courage to take a necessary stand, patience will stay our hand from an action that could have saved blood and treasure. Churchill called World War II the unnecessary war, because with a little courage, the dictators could have been stopped with very little difficulty. Instead, the patient policy of appeasement made war necessary on terms so advantageous to the dictators that only with the greatest difficulty did the world avoid a new dark age. Three weeks ago, Thomas Paine’s thought was quoted in this space: “Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice.” Paine is on the same page as Maimonides, who codifies the rule of moderation and balance as a law of character — a concern of God’s law, which addresses the privacy of our soul as well as the public sphere. One who governs his character is able to see the stability of principle and to bravely act upon it, even in the face of intemperate opposition. To know that our extremism is truly in defense of principle and is not just a rationalization for our own imbalanced behavior, we must be aware of our own inner workings and of the need for continual self-government. This is the realm of first principles, of philosophy at its best, integrated with religion. Our constitution, as John Adams reminded us, depends on a moral and religious people and can work for no other. Biblical religion directs us to the model of our humanity, the image of God, from whom all virtues spring and in whose providence each finds its place. Think of the musings in that scroll ascribed to King Solomon, Ecclesiastes: To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: A time to be born, and a time to die; A time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted; A time to kill, and a time to heal; A time to break down, and a time to build up; A time to weep, and a time to laugh; A time to mourn, and a time to dance… A time to love, and a time to hate; A time for war, and a time for peace. This in no way contradicts the conclusion of that scroll, where he says that the whole of man is to fear God and keep His commands. Laws are not relative if they are to serve as laws, any more than principles are capable of compromise if they are to remain principles. Rather, the two factors of moderation and steadfastness show us the whole, united truth, as it proceeds from the One in heaven on its way to be applied here on earth as we govern our lives and our polities. As Paine seemed to grasp, our task is of the “both/and” type:  both total dedication to uncompromised, unmoderated principles worthy of that dedication — “Our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor;” and simultaneously, moderation of temper, for in this world which God charge us to carry out His mission, we need continuous discernment and adjustment of our own focus to see which of all the principles most urgently apply in the here and now. Fighting Nazism and Communism, Americans felt the call of a united effort, knowing anything else would fall short. There was solid bipartisan agreement to put up the fight, to accept the regimentation of wartime, what Churchill called War Socialism. Other times require internal rebalancing. Victor Davis Hanson calls what Trump has led a true counter-revolution: Having seen America jettison meritocracy in pursuit of racial pandering masquerading as equity, MAGA and its allies take up the principle of color-blindness without compromise. We actively oppose any scheme of legal or cultural discrimination based on immutable factors such as race or sex. But, as Hanson points out, even here we need moderation. There is a significant movement of mostly younger white men, those who have been most disadvantaged by the DEI program of racial and sexual discrimination. Oppressed and justly angry, they have let that anger master them and infect their character, reconstructing a white male identitarianism no different from DEI. Both of those extremes are deviations from Martin Luther King’s robustly worthy ideal of judging all people by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. The role of these articles is to cultivate the kind of character we need to transcend such reactionary regression. Our goal is rather to implement competently the great ideals, flowing from Jerusalem and Athens, that inspire the American experiment. We accept all virtues, seeking only the discernment to know which most needs application in each moment and the virtue to apply ourselves courageously to that task. This is the unique strength of the republican character. It sees a greater wholeness than any one person alone can grasp. Because we can talk out our differences, the others in our nation need not be enemies. We fight the good fight to establish our fellow citizens as those who complement us and make us whole so that we can truly see e pluribus unum. The true American character transcends faction and temperament. It welcomes the debates which make us stronger and enable us to pass through every dark valley secure in our purpose and whole in our faith. READ MORE from Shmuel Klatzkin: The Measure of a Free People Socrates, Maimonides, Lincoln, Churchill — and Us Extremism and Its Virtue

For nearly two decades, spanning three different papacies, Cardinal Timothy Dolan has served as the Archbishop of New York. Now, at the age of 75, he is stepping down, and Pope Leo XIV has named Bishop Ronald Hicks of the Diocese of Joliet in Illinois as his successor. Hicks will now lead one of the most important and influential dioceses in the history of American Catholicism, a history that the departing Dolan not only studied but had a hand in shaping. Over the course of his tenure as Archbishop of New York, Dolan has also been a vocal supporter of politically conservative measures. Cecil Calvert, the Second Baron Baltimore, established the Catholic-friendly colony of Maryland in 1634, with the intention of offering a new home to persecuted English Catholics. It would, however, be nearly 150 years before the first Catholic church was dedicated in Baltimore, in 1770. Following the American Revolutionary War, Pope Pius VI created the Apostolic Prefecture of the United States, which became the Diocese of Baltimore in 1789, led by Bishop John Carroll. (Carroll’s brother, Daniel, was one of only five men to sign both the Articles of Confederation and the U.S. Constitution, and his cousin Charles was the only Catholic to sign the Declaration of Independence.) The Diocese of Baltimore encompassed the whole of the U.S. until 1808, when Pope Pius VII elevated Baltimore to an archdiocese and created four new suffragan dioceses, including the Diocese of New York. Richard Luke Concanen, an Irish-born Dominican, was named the first Bishop of New York, but he was prevented from leaving Rome by a French blockade and died two years later, never having set foot in his diocese. Another Irish-born Dominican, John Connolly, succeeded Concanen and became the second Bishop of New York. Connolly rode over 1,000 miles on horseback throughout the state of New York, visiting and ministering to Catholics under his care, mostly Irish, but also some English, French, and Germans. In 1817, he invited St. Elizabeth Ann Seton, the first American-born Saint, and the Sisters of Charity to establish a Catholic orphanage in New York City. When the much-loved Connolly died in 1825, Pope Leo XIII named John DuBois the next bishop of New York. The French DuBois was not initially popular among the predominantly-Irish population of Catholics, but nevertheless set to work and began establishing seminaries. At the time, the diocese had only 18 priests ministering to over 150,000 Catholics. The first seminary DuBois built, in Nyack, burned down, but he built a second in Lafargeville. DuBois was succeeded by one of the most influential figures in the history of American Catholicism: Bishop John “Dagger” Hughes. Born in Ireland, Hughes became a Catholic priest in the U.S. in 1826. He became active advocating for American Catholics, then a marginalized group, and was able to secure support from both the Tammany Hall Democrats and the dominant Whig Party for funding for Catholic schools. However, the newly-established New York City Board of Education (NYCBOE) subsequently barred taxpayer funds from going to religious schools. Disappointed, Hughes founded a private Catholic school system, including establishing St. John’s College (now Fordham University). By 1870, less than 30 years after Hughes lost his battle with the NYCBOE, nearly one in five children in New York City were educated in Catholic schools. Hughes became Bishop of New York in 1842 and immediately set about confronting what he considered anti-Catholic bigotry. Hughes was beloved by New York’s burgeoning Catholic population. When anti-Catholic riots in Philadelphia, inspired by Nativist agitators opposed to the influx of Irish immigrants, began spreading to New York, Hughes drafted men from his parishes to stand as armed guards outside Catholic churches. After hearing that an anti-Catholic rally was scheduled to take place in the city, Hughes warned rally organizers and city officials that if a single Catholic church were damaged, he would mobilize New York’s Catholics to burn the city to the ground. Officials of all political stripes knew the influence that Hughes wielded and took him at his word. The rally was canceled. Notably, while Hughes often advocated for better treatment of Irish Catholic immigrants, he also demanded that newcomers to the U.S. show gratitude to their new homeland and assimilate to American law and culture. During the Draft Riots of July 1863, Hughes successfully called upon the Irish Catholics involved to cease and desist, to show respect for their new homeland, and to serve willingly in America’s armed forces. He became the first Archbishop of New York in 1850, when Pope Pius IX elevated the diocese to an archdiocese. Archbishop John McCloskey oversaw a rapid expansion of Catholic parishes in the latter third of the 19th century, establishing nearly 100 new parishes and ministering to the incoming Catholic immigrants from Italy and Poland. McCloskey was succeeded by his assistant, Michael Corrigan, who caused concern in the Vatican for his preference of Irish Catholics over Italian Catholics. When Italian-born St. Francis Xavier Cabrini arrived in New York with instructions to establish an orphanage in Manhattan, Corrigan rejected her efforts, telling her instead to return to Italy. Cabrini replied, “I am here by order of the Holy See, and here I must stay,” earning Corrigan’s begrudging respect. The 20th century saw a continued expansion of parishes and Catholic schools, as well as the implementation of the mandates of the Second Vatican Council. The latter half of the century also saw the Archdiocese of New York take a leading role in pro-life initiatives, defending the unborn and supporting pregnant mothers. The archdiocese’s reputation was crippled by the revelation of clerical sexual abuse, which Dolan worked hard to recover from and prevent from ever happening again. Dolan hired former judge and prosecutor Barbara Jones to manage an investigation removing all priests credibly accused of abuse from ministry and implementing safeguards to prevent future instances of abuse. Of note, Dolan took on the role of kingmaker in the papal conclave earlier this year, according to multiple Italian news outlets. The New York Archbishop worked as a consensus-builder among American and Latin American cardinals and managed to secure the support of conservative and traditional prelates as well as moderates. Throwing his support behind Robert Francis Prevost (now Pope Leo XIV, the first American pope), Dolan managed to steer votes away from Vatican Secretariat of State Pietro Parolin, considered a progressive by many. Over the course of his tenure as Archbishop of New York, Dolan has also been a vocal supporter of politically conservative measures, befriending President Donald Trump, speaking at the Republican National Convention, and opposing abortion, climate change hysteria, the LGBT agenda, and other left-wing issues. It will now fall to soon-to-be-Archbishop Hicks to continue defending and advocating for the Catholic Church and the United States of America from one of the most influential sees in the nation, in an era fraught with political tension and ever-increasing discord. American Catholics would do well to pray that the new archbishop will exercise his authority for the good of his flock and the good of the nation. READ MORE from S.A. McCarthy: Devout Catholics Support Mass Deportations A Turning of the Tide for the Latin Mass The Anglican-to-Catholic Pipeline

In a series of interviews on Steve Bannon’s War Room, liberal New York Times Book Review editor Sam Tanenhaus has discussed his new biography of conservative icon William F. Buckley, Jr. and the key events and personalities of the era when Buckley shaped the modern American conservative movement. The Bannon-Tanenhaus dialogue demonstrates how ideological differences can be overcome when philosophical partisans focus on facts and pay homage to the truth. Bannon and Tanenhaus are philosophical opposites but honest scholars and interpreters of historical events. In this respect, Tanenhaus puts most liberals to shame. Buckley also had a populist streak that in some ways foreshadowed the political rise of Trump. Tanenhaus established his reputation for good writing and fair treatment of conservatives with his magnificent biography of Whittaker Chambers, which appeared in 1997 to widespread acclaim. He has cemented that reputation with his recent biography of Buckley and his ongoing dialogue about the book and the era with Bannon on War Room. Tanenhaus not only shows admiration for Chambers, Buckley, and other conservative thinkers like James Burnham and Russell Kirk — all of whom were part of the National Review circle that Buckley recruited to combat the narrative promulgated by the dominant liberal media — but he also has some favorable things to say about Sen. Joe McCarthy and Richard Nixon, who were the liberal bogeymen of the conservative movement. Tanenhaus, for example, praises Buckley for his defense of McCarthy in a book Buckley wrote with Brent Bozell titled McCarthy and His Enemies. Tanenhaus understands that McCarthy and Nixon were on to something very important when they warned about communist infiltration of our government. Liberals invented “McCarthyism” to discredit McCarthy’s efforts to reveal the enemy within, and they largely succeeded. When the once-classified Venona papers were released in 1995 and 1996, McCarthy, Nixon, and other anti-communists were to some extent vindicated, causing the liberal commentator Nicholas von Hoffman to write that McCarthy was closer to the truth than the legions of his critics. That is a big thing for liberals to admit because it confirms what critics of Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman said at the time, namely that communists effectively infiltrated our government — including at the highest levels — on FDR’s and Truman’s watch. During the Roosevelt administration, the number two man at Treasury (Harry Dexter White), a high-ranking State Department official (Alger Hiss), a White House staffer (Lauchlin Currie), and some participants in the Manhattan Project, among others, acted as agents of influence and/or spies for the communists. There is some evidence, though it remains the subject of debate among experts, that Harry Hopkins, FDR’s closest adviser, was a Soviet agent. And when Truman became president, he called the Hiss spy case a “red herring,” and his secretary of state said he wouldn’t turn his back on Hiss, while Democratic fixer Tommy Corcoran saw to it that the administration officials caught up in the notorious Amerasia spy case went unpunished. And it wasn’t just Buckley and the National Review crowd that defended McCarthy. Tanenhaus notes that the entire Kennedy family was close to McCarthy. John F. Kennedy, Tanenhaus said, would leave the room when his Democratic allies and others criticized McCarthy, who was godfather to one of Bobby Kennedy’s children. When McCarthy died, Bobby quietly attended the funeral. The Kennedys, like Buckley, considered McCarthy a great patriot. McCarthy, like John Kennedy and like Nixon, served in the Pacific theater in World War II. Tanenhaus, to his credit, doesn’t demonize McCarthy or his defenders. And that may be enough to excommunicate Tanenhaus from polite liberal society. One gets the sense listening to the Bannon-Tanenhaus dialogue that Tanenhaus doesn’t care because he values the truth instead of the conventional liberal narrative. Indeed, simply by appearing on Bannon’s War Room show, Tanenhaus risks ostracism by some of his fellow liberals for whom Bannon is the demonic Svengali behind Donald Trump. Buckley also had a populist streak that in some ways foreshadowed the political rise of Trump. Buckley famously said that he would rather be governed by the first 2,000 names in the Boston phone book than by the combined faculties of Harvard University and M.I.T. And Buckley before many others on the Right turned against George W. Bush’s “endless wars” after the invasion of Iraq. Tanenhaus notes that a young William F. Buckley, Jr., at his father’s urging, joined the America First Committee in the lead-up to World War II. The Bannon-Tanenhaus dialogue about Buckley and his era will continue. Do yourself a favor — watch/listen to the earlier interviews and tune in to the next one. It is a learning experience. READ MORE from Francis P. Sempa: Please Don’t Bring Back the Neocons Finland’s Globalist President Lectures the United States About a New World Order Hugh Sidey: The Last Honest Chronicler of the White House