'Trump the Nominalist'

 

In Dixieland, ‘nominalism’ is a dirty word.  This is because, as Richard Weaver noticed, it is an act of aggression against creatures and things of all kinds in the world, removing any notion of a fixed meaning and nature from them and imposing new ones on a whim.  Nominalism is ‘the notion that nature has no essential independence or meaning.’  It is a ‘method of imposing the pattern of one’s mind . . . of striving for mastery over the environment’ (‘Two Diarists,’ In Defense of Tradition, ed. Ted J. Smith III, Liberty Fund, Indianapolis, 2000, pgs. 731, 727).

This is the principle that is at work in President Trump’s renaming of several United States Army bases that were once named for Confederate officers.  He has made a great fuss over the fact that he is restoring the original names of these bases that the woke Biden regime changed.  But that is a half-truth at best, as we have seen already with Ft Benning and Ft Bragg.  He and his own regime have since completed the act of deception.  Via CBS News: 

  

• Fort Gordon, in Georgia: originally named after Confederate John Brown Gordon, renamed in 2023 to Fort Eisenhower after President Dwight Eisenhower — will now honor Master Sgt. Gary I. Gordon, a Medal of Honor recipient who fought in Somalia.
• Fort A.P. Hill, in Virginia: originally named after Ambrose Powell Hill, renamed in 2023 to Fort Walker after Dr. Mary Walker — will now honor three Civil War Medal of Honor recipients, Lt. Col. Edward Hill, 1st Sgt. Robert A. Pinn and Pvt. Bruce Anderson.
• Fort Hood, in Texas: originally named after John Bell Hood, renamed in 2023 to Fort Cavazos after Gen. Richard Cavazos — will now honor a World War I hero, Col. Robert B. Hood.
• Fort Lee, in Virginia: originally named after Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee, renamed in 2023 to Fort Gregg-Adams after Lt. Gen. Arthur Gregg and Lt. Col. Charity Adams — will now honor Pvt. Fitz Lee, commended for heroism in the Spanish-American War.
• Fort Pickett, in Virginia: originally named after George Edward Pickett, renamed in 2023 to Fort Barfoot after Tech. Sgt. Van T. Barfoot — will now honor 1st. Lt. Vernon W. Pickett, decorated for extraordinary heroism in World War II.
• Fort Polk, in Louisiana: originally named after Leonidas Polk, renamed in 2023 to Fort Johnson after Sgt. William Henry Johnson — will now honor Gen. James H. Polk, a WWII officer who later commanded U.S. Army Europe.
• Fort Rucker, in Alabama: originally named after Edmund Winchester Rucker, renamed in 2023 to Fort Novosel after Chief Warrant Officer 4 Michael J. Novosel, Sr. — will now honor WWI aviator Capt. Edward W. Rucker.

Now, the act of naming is not a haphazard, trivial action as Team Trump seems to think it is.  There is a deep ontological dimension to it.  Turning to Professor Weaver once again: 

‘The naming of the beasts and the fowls was one of the most important steps in creation.  Adam helped to order the universe when he dealt out these names, and let us not overlook what is implied in the assertion that the names stuck.  There is the intimation of divine approval, which would frown upon capricious change.  A name is not just an accident; neither is it a convention which can be repealed by majority vote at the next meeting; once a thing has been given a name, it appears to have a certain autonomous right to that name, so that it could not be changed without imperiling the foundations of the world’ (‘To Write the Truth,’ Language Is Sermonic, eds. Eubanks, Johannesen, Strickland, LSU Press, Baton Rouge, 1970, pgs. 192-3).

The Holy Fathers of the Church add their own particular weight to the significance of naming –

St Ephraim the Syrian (4^th century):  ‘It is not impossible for a man to discover a few names and keep them in his memory.  But it surpasses the power of human nature, and is difficult for him, to discover in a single hour thousands of names and not to give the last of those named the names of the first. . . .  This is the work of God, and if it was done by man, it was given him by God’ (Father Seraphim Rose, Genesis, Creation, and Early Man:  The Orthodox Christian Vision, 2^nd edition, ed. Hieromonk Damascene, St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, Platina, Cal., 2011, p. 235).

St John Chrysostom (4^th-5^th centuries):  ‘The names which Adam gave them remain until now; God confirmed them so that we might constantly remember the honor which man received from the Lord of all when he received the animals under his authority, and might ascribe the reason for the removal (of this honor) to man himself, who lost his authority through sin’ (Ibid., p. 238).

Martyr-Priest Fr Daniel Sysoev (20^th-21^st centuries):  ‘Thus, through naming the animals Adam acquired power over them, and for the animals themselves was revealed the design and purpose toward which Adam was to lead each of them.  . . .  These names were not given by chance.  But Adam, being permeated by the power of the Spirit, delved into God’s very design for each creature and expressed it by the medium of sound’ (A Chronicle of the Beginning, trans. Priest Nathan Williams, Daniel Sysoev Inc, New Jersey, 2023, p. 123).

The way Pres Trump has proceeded with the base renaming violates the norms spelled out by Prof Weaver and reinforced by the teachers of the Church.  . . .

The rest is at https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/trump-the-nominalist/.

--

Holy Ælfred the Great, King of England, South Patron, pray for us sinners at the Souð, unworthy though we are!

Anathema to the Union!

‘I Am an American’

 

Piles of bloody, dying bodies –

Women, men, little babies –

Pierced by bullets,

Ripped apart by exploding bombs.

Such an exquisite sight;

Such delicate beauty.

To touch that warm blood,

To feel it between my fingers,

To taste it on my tongue –

The delight is . . .

Inexpressible:

I am in ecstasy!

Gliding through the astral plane

With the beings of light

That have visited me and taught me

While in my vile, disgusting flesh.

I am special, they tell me,

I am chosen.

I will recreate the world

In my own image,

 . . .

The rest is at https://www.reckonin.com/walt-garlington/i-am-an-american.

--

Holy Ælfred the Great, King of England, South Patron, pray for us sinners at the Souð, unworthy though we are!

Anathema to the Union!

‘States Should Force FedGov’s Hand on Spending with Escrow Accounts’

 

Only the most deluded amongst us would deny that federal deficit spending is not a major problem.  As the federal deficit approaches an astronomical $40 trillion, one would be justified in labeling it an existential threat to the States.  Lowering the federal debt is one of the reasons Elon Musk got himself tangled up in DC politics, and yet even his efforts are being negated by the federal Congress’s old spending habits, as illustrated by the Big Beautiful Bill.

In light of FedGov’s inability to cut spending and reduce the debt in any meaningful way, the States themselves, as the creators of the federal government, must now act to limit the destructive behavior of the bureaucratic behemoth that they brought into existence in Philadelphia in 1787.

The necessary plan of action was drawn up years ago.  During Obama’s first term, the Red States were balking at his regime’s much-increased federal spending and proposed federal tax escrow accounts as a way to make sure only constitutional actions were funded.  From 2010:

‘One idea, which will take a great deal of courage on the part of the People and their state governments, is to establish what’s being called a “Federal Tax Escrow Account” or a “State Authority and Federal Tax Funds Act.”

‘Already introduced in Georgia (HB877), Oklahoma (HB2810), and Washington (HB2712), such laws would require that all federal taxes come first to the state’s Department of Revenue. A panel of legislators would assay the Constitutional appropriateness of the Federal Budget, and then forward to the federal government a percentage of the federal tax dollars that are delineated as legal and Constitutionally justified. The remainder of those dollars would be assigned to budgetary items that are currently funded through federal allocations and grants or returned to the people’ (Michael Boldin, ‘ResistDC: The Federal Tax Funds Act,’ tenthamendmentcenter.com).

Now that a Republican is back in the White House, Blue States like California are proposing the same method to restrict the flow of tax revenue to the federal government.

Former HUD secretary Catherine Austin Fitts adds this in her tremendously detailed and helpful report, ‘What the States Can Do:  Building the Legal and Financial Infrastructure for Financial Freedom:’

‘Common Law Right of Offset

‘As a means of effecting change at the federal level, activist state AGs can create escrows into which state residents may opt to deposit their federal taxes so that the state attorney general can assert common law right of offset on behalf of the opting residents for U.S. depository bank or federal government debts’ (solari.com).

Lew Rockwell also joined this discussion in recent days:

 . . .

The rest is at https://thehayride.com/2025/06/garlington-states-should-force-fedgovs-hand-on-spending-with-escrow-accounts/.

--

Holy Ælfred the Great, King of England, South Patron, pray for us sinners at the Souð, unworthy though we are!

Anathema to the Union!

‘Catholic Charities v Wisconsin Creates a Dangerous Precedent’

 

Many conservatives are elated over the 9-0 decision of the federal Supreme Court that overturned a Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling.  The State Court had denied an exemption to the Catholic Charities Bureau from a tax to support the unemployment compensation system, reasoning that the latter was not a religious organization.

Justice Thomas thoroughly demolished the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s argument, showing that the Catholic Charities Bureau is in truth a religious organization, and, therefore, is likely eligible for the exemption (though Justice Jackson’s concurrence muddies the water on that somewhat).  But having made that determination, we must ask an essential question, ‘Do the federal courts have jurisdiction in this matter?’

The answer is a resounding No.

The federal justices base their ruling on the First Amendment of the United States constitution, that the Wisconsin Supreme Court violated its Establishment clause.  However, as we have pointed out before, the First Amendment’s religion clauses are directed at Congress:  ‘Congress shall make no law . . . .’  The States are free to make religious arrangements per their own laws, traditions, constitutions, etc.  It is striking that Wisconsin’s own constitutional provisions regulating the relationship between Church and government (Article I, Section 18) are not mentioned at all in the federal Supreme Court’s ruling.  And the erroneous incorporation doctrine related to the US constitution’s problematic 14^th Amendment doesn’t help the federal justices’ case one bit.  So don’t bring that stinking fish carcass up in here; throw it back into the pond of unconstitutional theories out of which you dredged it.

This case should have ended with Wisconsin’s Supreme Court, with that Court’s decision being grounded in Wisconsin’s own constitutional text.  If the decision was found to be unjust, the voters of Wisconsin could have remedied that by replacing the justices who were in the wrong via elections.

What we have gotten instead is far worse than a controversy that would have affected only one religious organization in a single State:  We now have another federal Supreme Court precedent that could invalidate all State efforts to reinvigorate Christianity in public life.  Here are the key paragraphs from the unanimous opinion, authored by Justice Sotomayor:

‘“The clearest command of the Establishment Clause” is that the government may not “officially prefe[r]” one religious denomination over another. Larson v. Valente, 456 U. S. 228, 244 (1982). This principle of denominational neutrality bars States from passing laws that “‘aid or oppose’” particular religions, Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U. S. 97, 106 (1968), or interfere in the “competition between sects,” Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U. S. 306, 314 (1952). The Establishment Clause’s “prohibition of denominational preferences is inextricably connected with the continuing vitality of the Free Exercise Clause,” too. Larson, 456 U. S., at 245. That is because the “‘fullest realization of true religious liberty requires that government’” refrain from “‘favoritism among sects.’” Id., at 246 (quoting School Dist. of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U. S. 203, 305 (1963) (Goldberg, J., concurring)). Government actions that favor certain religions, the Court has warned, convey to members of other faiths that “‘they are outsiders, not full members of the political community.’” Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U. S. 290, 309 (2000).

‘To guard against that serious harm, this Court in Larson v. Valente, 456 U. S. 228, set a demanding standard for the government to justify differential treatment across religions on denominational lines. See id., at 244–246. When a state law establishes a denominational preference, courts must “treat the law as suspect” and apply “strict scrutiny in adjudging its constitutionality.” Id., at 246. The government bears the burden to show that the relevant law, or application thereof, is “closely fitted to further a compelling governmental interest.” Id., at 251 (internal quotation marks omitted).

‘A law that differentiates between religions along theological lines is textbook denominational discrimination. Take, for instance, a law that treats “a religious service of Jehovah’s Witnesses . . . differently than a religious service of other sects” because the former is “less ritualistic, more unorthodox, [and] less formal.” Fowler v. Rhode Island, 345 U. S. 67, 69 (1953). Or consider an exemption that applies only to religious organizations that perform baptisms, engage in monotheistic worship, or hold services on Sunday. Such laws establish a preference for certain religions based on the content of their religious doctrine, namely, how they worship, hold services, or initiate members and whether they engage in those practices at all. Such official differentiation on theological lines is fundamentally foreign to our constitutional order, for “[t]he law knows no heresy, and is committed to the support of no dogma.” Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679, 728 (1872).’

Whether ‘a state law establishes a denominational preference’ is frankly none of the federal judiciary’s business.  This is a task they have unlawfully appropriated for themselves, and it once again brings to mind the many warnings of Anti-Federalists and of old republicans of the Virginia/Jeffersonian kind about the tendency of the US constitution’s judicial branch to silently arrogate more and more power unto itself until it becomes an all-powerful body.  From Thomas Jefferson himself:

‘The Judiciary of the US. is the subtle corps of sappers & miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric.  . . .  There is no danger I apprehend so much as the consolidation of our government by the noiseless, and therefore unalarming instrumentality of the Supreme court’ (Michael Boldin, ‘Thomas Jefferson’s Greatest Fear: The Federal Judiciary and the Death of Liberty,’ tenthamendmentcenter.com).

But even more concerning than this is what those paragraphs from the Catholic Charities ruling mean for State efforts to uphold and strengthen their various Christian cultures.  . . .

The rest is at https://thehayride.com/2025/06/garlington-catholic-charities-v-wisconsin-creates-a-dangerous-precedent/.

--

Holy Ælfred the Great, King of England, South Patron, pray for us sinners at the Souð, unworthy though we are!

Anathema to the Union!