'Twas ever thus. You don't root out any ideology, religious or otherwise, by main force. (Unlike the illusion behind what other conservative Catholics admire, but perhaps not Swann, the tactics of a Torquemada.) You keep your ammo dry, defend what needs to be defended, clarify the issues in any appropriate forum.
And you look to the rising generations to perceive more of the facts, and to create more of a rational take on the important matters of a civilization. Because in the final reckoning, no one really persuades people to become individualists. You nurture them that way from intellectual seedlings, or they don't become such at all.
I don't know what this latest installment of Swann's bloviating is accomplishing, but it's not, on its face, anything more than pious posturing. He apparently wants some sort of a Christian Jihad, like most of the kill-all-the-Muslim-scum types around here. Let him call clearly for it.
(Oh, by the way, Greg, fix your damn Blog link, it's been four-oh-four for weeks. And you've far overdrawn your quota for using the ellipsis as a substitute for rhetorical pauses.)
I liked Greg's essay on Condaleeza Rice but this and the other stuff of his I have read seem to fit your description. At times he seems to get tangled up in his own string.
I am a libertariam in the way the word is used here. More properly an anarcho-capitalist. Someone here called me an Objectivist, and, while that's not true, it's a much smaller error than this one.
>Catholics
I am an atheist. Have been since I was a teenager, but I think the oldest public mention of my atheism is 1988. If it's any consolation, I go to mass every week and I can hold my own in Latin.
>I don't know what this latest installment of Swann's bloviating is accomplishing
But you missed me yesterday. Readers here were deprived of the opportunity to see you misuse the colloquialism "bloviating" yet again.
>He apparently wants some sort of a Christian Jihad
To the contrary. My objective is cultural conquest.
>fix your damn Blog link
What is broken? Working for me.
>it's been four-oh-four for weeks
Brand new as of last Friday. But accuracy is not your strong suit.
>And you've far overdrawn your quota for using the ellipsis as a substitute for rhetorical pauses.
I understand the difference between oration (where bloviation is possible) and discursive prose (where it is not). But I also see discursive prose as a sort of musical notation of oration, and thus I think it is importamt to pace the reader as though he were hearing speech. Do you disagree...?
You might write to me privately. I'm interested to know who you are, but I'm only responding to you to correct misapprehensions others may get about my being Catholic or conservative.
Providing windless discursion for over 25 years,