Update II: Pope's Noble-Savage Catechism

Africa, Christianity, Religion

Before I get to why Pope Benedict XVI is a disappointment, a note about standards of reporting nowadays.

The scribe reporting the story about Pope Benedict’s latest contribution to Rousseauist rubbish claims to be excerpting from the Pontiff’s “first book.” Knowing that Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger is the prolific author of many books, I was hopeful. My thinking being that the Pontiff must have been younger and less thoughtful when he indicted the West for Africa’s woes.

From this report, it appears that Philip Pullella thinks a new book the Pope has written is his first. Pullella writes:

“Rich countries bent on power and profit have mercilessly ‘plundered and sacked’ Africa and other poor regions and exported to them the ‘cynicism of a world without God,’ Pope Benedict writes in his first book.”

How likley is this, given the Pope is almost 80, exceptionally learned, and has lived an incredibly full life given over to contemplation and intellectual pursuits. A quick Google traces the origin of the error. Catholic News Agency’s headline goes so: “Pope Benedict XVI completes first book of Pontificate, ‘Jesus of Nazareth.'” In his cut and paste effort, Pullella must have caught only the first part of that sentence. Or, conversely, misunderstood the modifier.

“The Pope also condemns drug trafficking and sexual tourism,” pules Pullella. As a former AIDS counselor in South Africa, I suggest the Pope apply his brilliant mind to the problem of infection rates in Africa. In Africa AIDS is heterosexual. Rates of infection in Southern Africa would not have reached 20 to 33.7 percent of the adult population if not, very plainly, for unfathomable sexual promiscuity and brutality.

As to the Pope’s other indictment against the West, here’s what I wrote in “The Clinton and Bono Collective Unconscience:”

“The late Sir P. T. Bauer, the foremost authority on foreign aid, pointed out that a responsible demand for aid mustn’t avoid examining those ‘popular attitudes and behaviours in the poor societies’ which cause and perpetuate the misery. … rich nations were streaks ahead of sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia well before colonization. Countries like Australia and Switzerland were rich absent any meaningful ties to the undeveloped world. As Bauer proves, this was the result of the West’s human resources, not its exploitation of the backward world.”

Update: Some Catholic bashing is going on in the Comments Section. I disagree with —and dissociate from —it. Moreover, the idea that the West plundered Africa is nonsensical and is rooted in Leninist-Marxist theory. I suggest commentators on the blog acquaint themselves with capitalism, the impetus for this blog. A capitalist invests his capital in digging up useless good-for-nothing substances from the ground. He gives jobs digging up the useless stuff to locals who had no jobs before, and didn’t have the smarts and capital to do what he is doing. Then another capitalist creates goods from the previously inert stuff the first capitalist dug up. The goods are sold all over. Entire industries have arisen around useless stuff capitalists turned into useful goods. The wealth redounds to all involved, including the person being paid 50 cents an hour, for before the capitalist came along to “plunder,” he was paid NOTHING an hour. If not for this process–and Anglo American–a diamond would never have become a girl’s best friend. If you think this is exploitation, then you do pround to Leninism-Marxism.

From “Mutant Marxists in the Heart of Darkness“:

“[M]ost ‘resources’ in nature are useless lumps of nothing. If not for man, iron, aluminum, coal and oil would lie purposeless and pristine in the wildernesses. Man discovered that these elements could be used to assuage human needs. Once he identified and ingeniously matched the human need with the material thing, he devised ways to establish mastery over the resource, and came up with means to harness it. Most ‘resources’ provided by nature become goods of value only when man connects the dots. If not for man, the matter and energy abundant on earth would come to naught. The ability to discover and transform natural resources into usable goods, as well as to develop ‘resource-enhancing and sustaining technologies’ are the unique provenance of man.”
Our friend Robert Murphy has written the Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism. I suggest you purchase it, and while you’re at it, get a copy of Peter Bauer’s brilliant Dissent on Development.

Other articles about the Pope:

Benedict the Brave

Unlearned Rabbi Rages at Ratzinger

Update II: Pope’s Noble-Savage Catechism

Africa, Christianity, Religion

Before I get to why Pope Benedict XVI is a disappointment, a note about standards of reporting nowadays.

The scribe reporting the story about Pope Benedict’s latest contribution to Rousseauist rubbish claims to be excerpting from the Pontiff’s “first book.” Knowing that Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger is the prolific author of many books, I was hopeful. My thinking being that the Pontiff must have been younger and less thoughtful when he indicted the West for Africa’s woes.

From this report, it appears that Philip Pullella thinks a new book the Pope has written is his first. Pullella writes:

“Rich countries bent on power and profit have mercilessly ‘plundered and sacked’ Africa and other poor regions and exported to them the ‘cynicism of a world without God,’ Pope Benedict writes in his first book.”

How likley is this, given the Pope is almost 80, exceptionally learned, and has lived an incredibly full life given over to contemplation and intellectual pursuits. A quick Google traces the origin of the error. Catholic News Agency’s headline goes so: “Pope Benedict XVI completes first book of Pontificate, ‘Jesus of Nazareth.'” In his cut and paste effort, Pullella must have caught only the first part of that sentence. Or, conversely, misunderstood the modifier.

“The Pope also condemns drug trafficking and sexual tourism,” pules Pullella. As a former AIDS counselor in South Africa, I suggest the Pope apply his brilliant mind to the problem of infection rates in Africa. In Africa AIDS is heterosexual. Rates of infection in Southern Africa would not have reached 20 to 33.7 percent of the adult population if not, very plainly, for unfathomable sexual promiscuity and brutality.

As to the Pope’s other indictment against the West, here’s what I wrote in “The Clinton and Bono Collective Unconscience:”

“The late Sir P. T. Bauer, the foremost authority on foreign aid, pointed out that a responsible demand for aid mustn’t avoid examining those ‘popular attitudes and behaviours in the poor societies’ which cause and perpetuate the misery. … rich nations were streaks ahead of sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia well before colonization. Countries like Australia and Switzerland were rich absent any meaningful ties to the undeveloped world. As Bauer proves, this was the result of the West’s human resources, not its exploitation of the backward world.”

Update: Some Catholic bashing is going on in the Comments Section. I disagree with —and dissociate from —it. Moreover, the idea that the West plundered Africa is nonsensical and is rooted in Leninist-Marxist theory. I suggest commentators on the blog acquaint themselves with capitalism, the impetus for this blog. A capitalist invests his capital in digging up useless good-for-nothing substances from the ground. He gives jobs digging up the useless stuff to locals who had no jobs before, and didn’t have the smarts and capital to do what he is doing. Then another capitalist creates goods from the previously inert stuff the first capitalist dug up. The goods are sold all over. Entire industries have arisen around useless stuff capitalists turned into useful goods. The wealth redounds to all involved, including the person being paid 50 cents an hour, for before the capitalist came along to “plunder,” he was paid NOTHING an hour. If not for this process–and Anglo American–a diamond would never have become a girl’s best friend. If you think this is exploitation, then you do pround to Leninism-Marxism.

From “Mutant Marxists in the Heart of Darkness“:

“[M]ost ‘resources’ in nature are useless lumps of nothing. If not for man, iron, aluminum, coal and oil would lie purposeless and pristine in the wildernesses. Man discovered that these elements could be used to assuage human needs. Once he identified and ingeniously matched the human need with the material thing, he devised ways to establish mastery over the resource, and came up with means to harness it. Most ‘resources’ provided by nature become goods of value only when man connects the dots. If not for man, the matter and energy abundant on earth would come to naught. The ability to discover and transform natural resources into usable goods, as well as to develop ‘resource-enhancing and sustaining technologies’ are the unique provenance of man.”
Our friend Robert Murphy has written the Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism. I suggest you purchase it, and while you’re at it, get a copy of Peter Bauer’s brilliant Dissent on Development.

Other articles about the Pope:

Benedict the Brave

Unlearned Rabbi Rages at Ratzinger

Updated: Getting to the Young'uns

Classical Liberalism, Ilana Mercer, IlanaMercer.com, libertarianism

I’m not tooting my own horn, I promise. That would be bad form. What’s satisfying about the following post (other than who it afflicts), however, is that it’s by a young reader on “The Hip Forums” (not yet “done with school”), whose interest in libertarianism was stirred by my writing. About one thing he is unfortunately mistaken: my general knowledge is not very good:

“Ilana Mercer is the best damn essayist I have encountered, right up there with Justin Raimondo (another libertarian), although she arguably surpasses him. Her analytical rigor and verbal fluency astound me (it’s not uncommon for me to have to check the dictionary one or two times when reading her essays), and she is just so reasonable and yet iconoclastic. She also has an amazing store of general knowledge.

I cannot say I am a libertarian, because only recently have I started reading her essays, but I plan on learning more about the ideology once I am done with school and have more free time.”

Update: I am posting here a comment and my reply. The comment was originally appended to the wrong post:

Ilana,

While you may reject my recommendations for documentary movies i.e. “must-see” titles, I most certainly respect your global political acumen. [I don’t recall rejecting anything…]

Could you please describe the genesis of the “classical” part of your liberal persona, so that I might offer some sage advice to my daughters, who apparently adore you?

A list of essential readings would be appreciated, as they are both in university, and still impressionable.

Autographed photos might suffice, for now….

Mercer Reply:

Your dear daughters are clearly gems who have an instinct for the philosophy of freedom, upon which this great country was founded, and which it has since abandoned. Rejoice that they have come to this philosophy while in the academy; it usually inculcates in the young everything but Jeffersonian ideas.

If by quizzing me you imply that they may need to be steered away from the American ideas of individualism and self-government —then it is you who may need their counsel more than they yours.

I wish I had time to correspond at length, but I don’t. (Please tell your girls how buoyed I am that there are youngsters in the left-liberal academy who think independently as they do. I’d love them to partake on my blog. I extend an invitation.)

My columns/essays almost always include references. It’s about taking the time to work through the columns and extract the references. I have links on my Links Page to great classical liberal sites. My website is easy to navigate. Begin with Ludwig von Mises, Ayn Rand, Henry Hazlitt, Murray Rothbard, Frederic Bastiat, F. A. Hayek, and the great heroes of the Old Right, such as Felix Morley, Frank Chodorov, Garet Garrett, and John T. Flynn.

Thank you for telling me about your lovely girls.

—ILANA

By Michael on 04.07.07 3:58 pm

Updated: Getting to the Young’uns

Classical Liberalism, Ilana Mercer, IlanaMercer.com, libertarianism

I’m not tooting my own horn, I promise. That would be bad form. What’s satisfying about the following post (other than who it afflicts), however, is that it’s by a young reader on “The Hip Forums” (not yet “done with school”), whose interest in libertarianism was stirred by my writing. About one thing he is unfortunately mistaken: my general knowledge is not very good:

“Ilana Mercer is the best damn essayist I have encountered, right up there with Justin Raimondo (another libertarian), although she arguably surpasses him. Her analytical rigor and verbal fluency astound me (it’s not uncommon for me to have to check the dictionary one or two times when reading her essays), and she is just so reasonable and yet iconoclastic. She also has an amazing store of general knowledge.

I cannot say I am a libertarian, because only recently have I started reading her essays, but I plan on learning more about the ideology once I am done with school and have more free time.”

Update: I am posting here a comment and my reply. The comment was originally appended to the wrong post:

Ilana,

While you may reject my recommendations for documentary movies i.e. “must-see” titles, I most certainly respect your global political acumen. [I don’t recall rejecting anything…]

Could you please describe the genesis of the “classical” part of your liberal persona, so that I might offer some sage advice to my daughters, who apparently adore you?

A list of essential readings would be appreciated, as they are both in university, and still impressionable.

Autographed photos might suffice, for now….

Mercer Reply:

Your dear daughters are clearly gems who have an instinct for the philosophy of freedom, upon which this great country was founded, and which it has since abandoned. Rejoice that they have come to this philosophy while in the academy; it usually inculcates in the young everything but Jeffersonian ideas.

If by quizzing me you imply that they may need to be steered away from the American ideas of individualism and self-government —then it is you who may need their counsel more than they yours.

I wish I had time to correspond at length, but I don’t. (Please tell your girls how buoyed I am that there are youngsters in the left-liberal academy who think independently as they do. I’d love them to partake on my blog. I extend an invitation.)

My columns/essays almost always include references. It’s about taking the time to work through the columns and extract the references. I have links on my Links Page to great classical liberal sites. My website is easy to navigate. Begin with Ludwig von Mises, Ayn Rand, Henry Hazlitt, Murray Rothbard, Frederic Bastiat, F. A. Hayek, and the great heroes of the Old Right, such as Felix Morley, Frank Chodorov, Garet Garrett, and John T. Flynn.

Thank you for telling me about your lovely girls.

—ILANA

By Michael on 04.07.07 3:58 pm