Skip to main content

Posts

(Note: "Manet" in this philosophical context most likely refers to Pierre Manent, a towering French political philosopher and student of Raymond Aron who writes extensively on the nation-state and the crisis of modern liberalism. Looking at the situation through a Fortin-Manent framework yields a fascinating critique of both Carlson and his left-wing critics).Here is how a Fortin (and Manent) framework breaks down, reshapes, and ultimately critiques the assertion that "Carlson's anti-Zionism is flawed because it is rooted in isolationist nationalism rather than human rights":1. The Critique of the Left-Wing Alternative: The Myth of "Human Rights"Left-wing critics attack Carlson for failing to base his anti-Zionism on a universal "human rights" framework. A Fortin-Manent analysis would argue that the left-wing critics are operating on a flawed, uniquely modern illusion.Fortin's View on Rights: Fr. Fortin famously held the Straussian position that "natural human rights" are a modern, artificial invention distinct from classical or medieval Christian thought. In books like Human Rights, Virtue and the Common Good, Fortin argued that modern human rights language strips society of the classical pursuit of virtue and the common good, replacing them with radical, atomized individual claims.The Application: Therefore, Fortin would not blame Carlson for failing to appeal to "human rights." From a Fortin perspective, progressives who base their anti-Zionism on universal human rights are building their critique on shifting sand—an abstract, modern construct that lacks true moral and philosophical anchoring.2. The Critique of Carlson: A Degradation of True Patriotism into Pagan NationalismWhile Fortin would reject the left's "human rights" framework, he would be equally, if not more, critical of Tucker Carlson’s isolationist nationalism. Fortin’s study of St. Augustine’s City of God provides the exact weapon for this critique:The "Transpolitical" Citizen: Fortin noted that Augustine viewed Christianity as fundamentally "transpolitical." Christians must be loyal, patriotic citizens of their earthly home, but they must always identify their true homeland with the Heavenly City.Carlson’s Pagan Error: Carlson’s "America First" isolationism borders on what Fortin would consider a return to pagan civic religion, where the preservation, comfort, and material wealth of the specific political regime (the nation) become the highest moral good. By opposing alliances or interventions purely because they "don't benefit the American working class," Carlson reduces foreign policy to a transactional, materialist calculation. Fortin would argue that this completely discards the Christian duty toward a transcendent justice that looks beyond one's own borders.3. The Manent Connection: The Problem of the Nation-StateIf we introduce Pierre Manent’s philosophy into this, the critique becomes even sharper:The Necessity of the Nation: Manent argues that the nation-state is the only political form capable of sustaining actual human democracy and agency; global "human rights" bodies have no real political teeth. In this sense, Manent might sympathize with Carlson's desire to protect the American political community from over-extended globalism.The Crisis of Zionism: However, Manent also notes that Israel is the ultimate, hyper-concentrated expression of a nation-state. For Carlson to retreat into an "America First" nationalism while aggressively disparaging Israeli nationalism reveals a deep philosophical contradiction. Carlson praises the concept of borders, ethno-cultural cohesion, and sovereign survival for the West, yet attacks Israel for doing the exact same thing within its own borders.Summary: The Dual CritiqueA Fortin-Manent perspective alters the debate entirely:Against the Left: They would argue that criticizing Carlson for lacking a "human rights" focus is useless, because abstract human rights talk is a hollow modern substitute for true classical virtue.Against Carlson: They would argue that Carlson’s isolationism is not "Christian," but a form of secular, materialist tribalism. By stripping foreign policy of any transcendent moral obligation to the wider world and viewing everything through a lens of strict national self-interest, Carlson succumbs to the very modernity he claims to fight.

(Note: "Manet" in this philosophical context most likely refers to Pierre Manent , a towering French political philosopher and student of Raymond Aron who writes extensively on the nation-state and the crisis of modern liberalism. Looking at the situation through a Fortin-Manent framework yields a fascinating critique of both Carlson and his left-wing critics). Here is how a Fortin (and Manent) framework breaks down, reshapes, and ultimately critiques the assertion that "Carlson's anti-Zionism is flawed because it is rooted in isolationist nationalism rather than human rights" : 1. The Critique of the Left-Wing Alternative: The Myth of "Human Rights" Left-wing critics attack Carlson for failing to base his anti-Zionism on a universal "human rights" framework. A Fortin-Manent analysis would argue that the left-wing critics are operating on a flawed, uniquely modern illusion. Fortin's View on Rights: Fr. Fortin famously held the Straussi...
Post a Comment
Read more
Recent posts

"Overcome the Fear" on YouTube [My take Ignatian Spirituality: Fear voice is whispers of the enemy vs. Voice of Jesus is truth voice]..."Truth voice is quiet and calm. It feels like a subtle knowing, not a panicked screaming...If something bad actually was going to happen, it wouldn't scare you. If it was coming from your intuition, it would feel much more neutral...without any stress or anxiety...It's not actually true. If you're going to predict the future, you might as well predict one that you actually want to experience [& pray]"

Watch "Sleep Anxiety RELIEF: Overcome the Fear of Not Sleeping" on YouTube  https://youtu.be/g-NFDRRfLOI?is=PfC3utiXaulb_HeZ   Truth three is that the fear voice is not accurate. There are two voices inside your head, and learning the difference between them is everything. The first is the fear voice. The fear voice comes from your survival brain. It is loud. It is frantic, and it catastrophizes. It says things like, You're never going to get better. Tomorrow is going to be a disaster. Something is seriously wrong with you. It speaks in worst case scenarios. The second is the truth voice. This comes from your intuition. The truth voice is quiet and calm. It feels like a subtle knowing, not a panicked screaming. And here's how you can tell the difference in the moment. If something bad actually was going to happen, it wouldn't scare you. If it was coming from your intuition, it would feel much more neutral, with less emotion tied to it. It would feel more like a fa...
Post a Comment
Read more

Yoram Hazony @yhazony Locke never had children. Neither did Descartes, Hobbes, Spinoza, or Kant. Rousseau had children but gave them all up for adoption. In other words, Enlightenment rationalism was the construction of men who had no real experience of family life or what it takes to make it work.

Yoram Hazony @yhazony Locke never had children. Neither did Descartes, Hobbes, Spinoza, or Kant. Rousseau had children but gave them all up for adoption. In other words, Enlightenment rationalism was the construction of men who had no real experience of family life or what it takes to make it work.
Post a Comment
Read more

Johannes Althusius and Jean-Jacques Rousseau both advanced social contract and popular sovereignty theories, but Althusius championed a bottom-up, federalist mosaic of semi-autonomous social groups, whereas Rousseau argued for a centralized, indivisible collective guided by a unified general will.Core Views on SocietyAlthusius: Society is built from nested, natural lower associations like families, guilds, towns, and provinces. Sovereignty resides collectively in these groups and cannot be alienated away from them.Rousseau: Society transitions from an unorganized state of nature via a single social contract. Individuals surrender all particular partial group attachments to merge into one uniform body politic.Structure of Power and SovereigntyAlthusius: Favors a pluralist federalism. Power flows upward from communities through interlocking pacts, and higher authorities possess limited, delegated power.Rousseau: Favors a monolithic popular sovereignty. Sovereignty is absolute, sacred, indivisible, and resides directly in the collective citizenry without intermediate corporate bodies.View of Rights and GovernanceAlthusius: Rulers are contractual administrators bound by fundamental laws, with lower corporate bodies retaining explicit rights of resistance.Rousseau: Obedience to the general will is supreme; dissenters are forced to be free by the collective community.If you'd like, I can:

Johannes Althusius and Jean-Jacques Rousseau both advanced social contract and popular sovereignty theories, but Althusius championed a bottom-up, federalist mosaic of semi-autonomous social groups, whereas Rousseau argued for a centralized, indivisible collective guided by a unified general will . [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ] Core Views on Society Althusius: Society is built from nested, natural lower associations like families, guilds, towns, and provinces. Sovereignty resides collectively in these groups and cannot be alienated away from them. [ 1 , 2 ] Rousseau: Society transitions from an unorganized state of nature via a single social contract. Individuals surrender all particular partial group attachments to merge into one uniform body politic. [ 1 , 2 ] Structure of Power and Sovereignty Althusius: Favors a pluralist federalism. Power flows upward from communities through interlocking pacts, and higher authorities possess limited, delegated power. [ 1 , 2 ] Rousseau: Favors a...
Post a Comment
Read more