THE PALEOCRAT TRIBUNE

Little more than a gaggle of hacks and geeks.

5 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Well, first off, “Free Trade” is Marxist. Free trade is the tool to finish off nation-states. There are ulterior motives to Free Trade. Free Trade is not advocated solely on its essence of Free Trade but is advocated because it affects and causes certain things to happen.

    So there are two points that immediately condemn Free Trade as Christian–(1) It is formulated by Marxists (its origins are evil; (2) It has ulterior motives that connect to an evil design, (i.e. the destruction of the Old Order). Free Trade is not Christian.

    WLindsayWheeler

    August 12, 2008 at 11:58 am

  2. Marx argued, in his SPEECH ON THE QUESTION OF FREE TRADE of JANUARY 9, 1848:

    “Gentlemen, – The Repeal of the Corn Laws in England is the greatest triumph of Free Trade in the nineteenth century. … Everyone knows that in England the struggle between Liberals and Democrats takes the name of the struggle between Free Traders and Chartists. … To sum up, what is Free Trade under the present conditions of society? Feeedom of Capital.
    … there will always be a class which exploits and a class which is exploited. … The only result will be that the antagonism of these two classes will stand out more clearly. … Moreover, the Protective system is nothing but a means of establishing manufacture upon a large scale in any given country … But, generally speaking, the Protective system in these days is conservative, while the Free Trade system works destructively. It breaks up old nationalities and carries antagonism of proletariat and bourgeoisie to the uttermost point. In a word, the Free Trade system hastens the Social Revolution. In this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, I am in favor of Free Trade.”

    By way of Peter Meyers http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/classwar.html

    WLindsayWheeler

    August 17, 2008 at 11:09 am

  3. […] was only a matter of weeks ago that I first posted a critique of Dr. Thomas Woods, Jr. My contention was, and continues to be, that the distinguished scholar has placed himself in a […]

  4. First off, Paleocrat, I have to commend you on your blog. I have only just stumbled upon it but from what I have seen, I will be returning frequently.

    As to the discussion at hand, I would turn to the writings of Michael Novak, Avery Cardinal Dulles, Father Richard Neuhaus and Rev. Robert Sirico. They are much better in their handling of economics and Catholic social teaching than is Thomas Woods.

    DeMaistre

    September 15, 2008 at 11:05 pm

  5. Fr. Robert Sirico is my priest. I attend St. Mary’s in Kalamazoo. Suffice it to say that we have interesting (and vibrant) discussions.

    On a personal note, I would have to admit my preference for the works of men such as Heinrich Pesch, Hilaire Belloc, C.K. Chesterton, Arthur Penty, G.R.S. Taylor, Fr. Vincent McNabb, John Medaille and others who would (with the exception of Pesch) generally fall under the banner of what is referred to as Distributism or even Corporatist. I am by no means a fusionist, much less a classical liberal.

    At any rate, I am always glad to hear someone admit to enjoying my site. Thank you for the remarks.

    fideidefensor

    September 16, 2008 at 8:01 am


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: