Flightline Friday: The RAW deal of the Century September 19, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, awesomeness, Flightline Friday, fun, history, reading, silliness, Society.
1 comment so far
In the late 1950s, many NATO governments were looking for a supersonic fighter to replace the first generation jets then in service, like the F-86 Sabre. Because so many countries were in the market for basically the same jet, and because NATO countries took their defense obligations much more seriously back then, there was potential for a very big sale. As such, many aircraft manufacturers pushed their own types, but the competition quickly settled down on two American aircraft – the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter and the Grumman F11F-1F Super Tiger.
The Grumman aircraft started life as a carrier based day fighter/interceptor to meet USN requirements. At the time the original F11F Tiger was developed – 1953-4 – the Navy was severely embarrassed that its jet aircraft lagged severely behind their Air Force counterparts. They did so for several reasons, including Navy concern over using swept wing aircraft onboard carriers (they were afraid the swept wings would cause problems in the landing pattern, a problem obviated when the Navy switched from straight to angled decks) and the USN’s penchant for demanding its aircraft manufacturers use really, really bad engines. The Tiger was an attempt by the Navy to narrow the performance gap, but once again, the Navy made a terrible choice for the engine – the Wright J65, a license built British jet. Unfortunately, by the mid-50s, Wright was just about exhausted as a major player in aviation, and their J65 engine series never lived up to its expected potential. So, the F11F wound up underperforming expectations badly, being barely supersonic (Mach 1.1), instead of equivalent to its contemporary Air Force counterpart, the F-100 Super Sabre, which managed Mach 1.4 with its far superior J57 engine.
However, Grumman felt their design was being poorly served by the J65, and on their own cost and initiative, installed the then very new and highly advanced General Electric J79 engine in a slightly modified F11F they called the F11F-1F (a mouthful!). The J79 was very new, and not readily available, so it was mid-1956 before the installation could be completed. However, once it was, the Super Tiger achieved Mach 1.44 on one early flight, and by late 1957 had reached Mach 2.04 through various minor improvements for better high speed stability. This speed was fully equivalent to the highest performing USAF types of the day, and faster than any then-current Navy fighter. Unfortunately for Grumman, the Navy had already selected THE GREATEST MILITARY AIRCRAFT OF ALL TIME!, the Chance-Vought F8U Crusader, for its supersonic day fighter requirement, so the Navy was no longer interested (and they were so for very good reasons – the F8U was almost as fast, but had far longer range and could carry a much larger load. It was at least as maneuverable as the Super Tiger, and probably more so in most regimes).
But, Grumman was sitting on a really hot little fighter, with sparkling performance for its time, and it was sure someone would want to buy it. As already mentioned, several NATO countries were looking to make several hundred aircraft buys of supersonic fighters. The competition, as mentioned, quickly devolved in most countries down to the F-104 Starfighter, also Mach 2 capable and possessing even higher performance than the Super Tiger in a few areas of flight, and the F11F-1F.
Both aircraft were incredibly short ranged – the F-104, even with wingtip tanks, had a mission radius of less than 200 miles for most missions. The Super Tiger was somewhat better – you could say about 50% better, on average, but it was hardly long legged. Both aircraft were quite small, essentially being the smallest airframe wrapped around the biggest, most powerful engine possible. That did give them high performance and made them a delight to fly, but did cost in terms of range and payload.
The first major player in the competition for new supersonic aircraft was the German Luftwaffe, which wound up buying nearly a thousand. As in every subsequent case, the judgment of the all the test flight personnel was that the F11F-1F was a far superior aircraft overall, even if the Lockheed bird could out climb it. The problem with the Starfighter was its T-tail and its very small wing. The small wing caused the Starfighter to have absolutely ludicrous takeoff and landing speeds – the aircraft landed at about 250 mph. It also had atrocious energy management, meaning the aircraft had to be kept going very fast until the last possible moment over the runway, when the aircraft would be quickly flared and then landed. It was really, really hard to land. Given that the Luftwaffe had only been reconstituted in 1955 and had many inexperienced pilots, the combination of the Starfighter’s difficult landing characteristics, its tendency to stall when pitched up at too high an angle of attack, and all those inexperienced pilots, made the Starfighter a very dangerous choice. The Luftwaffe strongly recommended the F11F-1F, but the government overruled them and selected the F-104. Why that occurred would later become a great scandal.
After the Luftwaffer, the Japanese Air Self Defense Force and the Canadians also compared the Super Tiger and the Starfighter. Events developed much has they had before, with the services strongly recommending the Super Tiger and the government later overruling. In the case of the JASDF, this was particularly egregious, as the government had actually formally announced the Super Tiger the winner of the competition, but later renounced its own decision and went with the Lockheed bird.
In every case, the Starfighter had an absolutely atrocious safety record. In Germany, about 1/3 of the entire fleet of 700 Starfighters were lost to accidents. In Canada, almost half were lost. Even the USAF, which bought only a few Starfighters due to its short legs, and which had the best Starfighter safety record of all, twice as many Starfighters were lost to accidents as other contemporary types. It was a very problematic design.
So why did the Starfighter win all those competitions, selling over 2000 aircraft, when the Super Tiger was bought by none? When Lockheed won all those NATO contracts, they called it the “deal of the century.” But it was later discovered that the reason they had won all those competitions was because Lockheed had spent tens of millions of dollars bribing government officials in almost every single country where the Starfighter was chosen. It was called the Lockheed bribery scandal, and forced the resignation of both the CEO and Chairman of Lockheed, and almost resulted in the collapse of the company. As Corky Meyer, Grumman’s chief test pilot for the Super Tiger said: “Grumman only knew how to build aircraft, Lockheed knew how to sell them.”
Only two Super Tigers wound up being built, and the type became an aviation also-ran, which was a worst fate than it deserved. While limited in range and payload, it was relatively cheap and easy to maintain and operate, and would have served well in many smaller air forces around the world.
An interesting anecdote regarding the F-104. It was the first service aircraft to exceed Mach 2 in level flight. One of the ways that speed was achieved was by having very small, very thin wings, which reduced parasitic drag (but also lift, hence the high landing speeds). The wings are actually so thin, and the leading edge so sharp, that ground crew had to wear special gloves to keep from cutting their hands on them. I used to think that had to be an exaggeration, until I cut my hand on the wing leading edge of an F-104C at Cavanaugh Flight Museum.
The Navy did buy a couple hundred of the original F11F Tigers and they served until the early 60s in squadron service. They served much longer with the famous Blue Angels, who used the type until the late 60s due to its honest flying characteristics and good maneuverability.
The Tiger is mostly forgotten, even among many aviation enthusiasts. I guess that’s why there aren’t many videos on Youtube. I did find a few. This first one is silent and shows F11F, A4D, F3H, and helicopter operations on CVA-19 Hancock in 1955! See that huge A3D “Whale” takeoff @1:30!
Below see the Blue Angels performing in Tigers in the late 60s:
Last one, an F11F takes the barrier on CV-38 Shangri-La:
I don’t know what the last half is about, looks like someone’s home movies!
Ah, what the heck, one more – more flight deck action including F11Fs in heavy Pacific seas in the late 50s:
I am probably the only person who watched every bit of those.
Father Carota on the attraction of islam for even faithful Catholics September 18, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, Ecumenism, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Latin Mass, paganism, priests, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, true leadership.
Some good points below. When one’s Church and culture are a mess, sometimes the grass seems greener on the other side. Western nations have sunk into an historic abyss of immorality. Many people are dismayed at what they see around them. Muslim countries, for all their many problems, errors, and even evils, do seem to be able to enforce some cultural moral standards.
And they seem to have some doctrinal consistency (from the outside) and definitely the fervor of the convicted. To some people, that’s attractive, as Father notes below:
A young man came up to me Sunday after Holy Mass, very very concerned asking if he could just have a few minutes to speak with me.
He had seen on the news all the atrocities that the muslims are doing to the Catholics and christians in the Middle East. His first reaction was to enlist in the military to go to battle against them.
But he thought it would be wise to investigate about the muslim people and their religion before he did so. To his surprise he became very confused. In spite of his predisposition of anger against them, he began to admire them. He saw how they pray, how they strongly believe in Allah and have their countries living by Allah’s rules. [Islam, being a perverted form of Christianity, does contain some truth, just enough truth to be attractive to fallen man (as good Father pointed out in this sermon). And some of "allah's rules" seem to be virtuous and good. But others are absolutely terrible, like polygamy and the general treatment of women as chattel. There is also a culture of lying and thievery that is tacitly embraced within islam, at least with respect to outsiders. But if we do evil to our enemies, does that make us any better than them, Our Blessed Lord asked?]
One web site really moved him when it stated that: “if you were to see Jesus walking down the streets, he would be a muslim with robes and a beard”. [I'm not sure what a beard has to do with Jesus, and He certainly wouldn't be muslim, but he would be virtuous and calling out sin]
“If you were to run into Mary, she would be a muslim with her head covered and modest clothing”. This really made an impression on him. [THIS is a very interesting point. I think it makes a brilliant question. If Our Blessed Mother were to return to earth today, would she not be dressed rather as muslim women do? Has She not appeared so in Her many apparitions? Is that, perhaps, significant? If the Blessed Mother is the model for all women (and men, in a slightly different sense), if She is the embodiment of perfect womanhood, should Her appearance not be emulated? Discuss]
After reflection on all that he knew, he was again convinced that Catholicism is greater than Islam. But he just had to share what he had discovered and how what he had discovered had attracted him and caused him to doubt his faith. Let us never forget, our founder of the Catholic faith, Jesus Christ, never killed anyone. He was murdered on the cross.
I am sure there are many other good people, including Catholics, becoming muslims because as he stated: “We, as Catholics, have become very weak and passive”. [Thousands of post-Christian Europeans have flocked to join ISIS and other islamist groups. Many of these are descendants of muslim lineage, but some are not. While there are always a crazy few, I think there is a growing trend among people in Western culture to be profoundly alienated and disaffected from the culture around them and to seek out something that seems more real. They may write off Catholicism at present precisely because, in the vast majority of what they will find, it is very weak and passive. And they want something strong, committed, and vibrant. Dialogue, is not very attractive to all but committed leftists and academic types.]
As most of you already know and lament, the feminists (that run and have feminized the Church), and the homosexual cardinals, bishops and priests, (whom Pope Benedict called “The Homosexual Mafia”), [I'm not sure Pope Benedict used that term, but he did lament and fight the reality.] have made the Church passive to evil that is everywhere around us. And if you or I might criticize what is happening in the Church, we are silently silenced. [Or loudly silenced. Or just ignored. Or sent to Shafter. Or we have our TLMs taken away. Or......]
It is exactly like in the Old Testament, when everything in Israel was crumbling down, the False Prophets kept saying, “everything is just fine”. And when the True Prophets spoke of doom, they were shunned, beaten, exiled and killed. The pope, the cardinals, the bishops, the religious, the priests all read all about the True Prophets in their Novus Ordo Liturgy of the Hours, yet it goes in one eye and out the other. [Heh. Yes, it sure seems to.]
Do go read the rest. Especially you, DoTDO. You’ll like it.
I think the broader point is an important one to make: not many people, and very few men, are attracted to a weak kneed, lisping, emasculated, self-doubting church. People want certainty in religion, they want to know the Truth and abide by it – unless they simply use religion as a justification to continue in their sin, which certainly fits many people today. I’m talking about people who are honest with themselves, have some desire towards virtue, and are seriously looking for something to fill the void in their lives. Post-conciliar Catholicism simply does not offer that, in the vast majority of locales, which is why most of the Masses are filled with elderly women. I’m speaking broadly, of course, but in many places, that’s the exact truth. People clinging to a religion of their childhood which no longer exists in any discernible way, outside a few well hidden, broadly ignored locales.
I think that is one reason why traditional Catholicism has been growing at an impressive rate. It’s not just the smells and bells, it’s not just the Latin Mass (which is, however, the heart of it all),
traditional real Catholicism satisfies that hunger for Truth and certainty that many people are craving – but it is so little known most of those people never find it and fall into weird cults and false religions which may contain some kernel of what they are looking for. I am struck by how few people I meet even know there is a TLM available in the Dallas Diocese (if they even know what that is), even though quite possibly the largest TLM parish in the world is right here! One might find that a newsworthy item, but apparently not, from the silence that generally surrounds the place.
But still, souls do find their way there, almost entirely by word of mouth. As souls finding the world wanting have always found such places. The difference is that, in the past, great men like Francis Borgia would have numerous witnesses to the Faith that could make them whole, and convert under their influence. Today, such influences are very rare, and so people completely lost, with no sacred hand to guide them, drift into unspeakable evil in their starving hunger to be filled. That is the great tragedy of our times, when so many in the Church have given up on Her sacred mission because it is too hard, too unpopular, too contrary to false shibboleths they hold more dear.
Islam is a Christian heresy posing as another religion September 18, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, Christendom, Ecumenism, error, foolishness, General Catholic, history, priests, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, Society, Spiritual Warfare, true leadership.
I believe this is the same priest that I tried to post yesterday. He’s certainly hitting on all cylinders. I’m sure this one will work, since this is a Video Sancto product, and not my own fumblings.
The priest below lays out the origins of islam as I have always understood them, although I have tended to think the influence upon Mohammad was more Arian than Nestorian, but I could be wrong. I had understood, and it seems supported by many statements from that false religion, that Jesus Christ was a man and great prophet but just a man. Perhaps the greatest of men, but just a man. That is a highly Arian position. But I may have misunderstood subtleties in their position, that may make it more Nestorian.
It is important to understand the etymology of all these early Eastern heresies, still very much with us today in the Church. All of these heresies were dedicated towards stealing honor from Christ and reducing Him to something more natural, less mystical. So you had the Arians claiming Christ was just a man; that was squashed, so the Nestorians came along and said he was not one person with two natures, perfectly melded, one human, one divine, but was somehow two persons, one human and one divine, melded into one body. That was declared heretical, and so the Monophysites came along and said Christ was God, and man, but that his divine nature squashed his human nature and so Christ was not tempted, did not struggle with human desires, etc. That was also declared heretical, and the Monophysites are still around in the Coptic Church today.
I think the priest makes a brilliant point in saying that the many Eastern Church heresies so weakened the Church by the 7th century that it was ripe for the picking by islam’s terrible sword. The priest also notes that islam, unique among all major religions, makes almost all its converts by forced conversion, instead of appealing to people’s reason and the better angels of their nature. There are also very strong pagan and heretical Jewish overtones in islam, which makes sense, since even islam’s own history of Mohammad makes plain he took pieces from various religions extant along the Red Sea coast of Arabia and forged a new religion from the parts. Not only that, but he would try out various beliefs, see which ones appealed to the various tribes he was trying to win over, and then adopted those. Then there is the manifest immorality so prevalent in islam from its very inception, the lack of any miracles to attest to its veracity, and Rushdie seems even tame in the title of his book.
By the way, it pays to pause the video from time to time and read the statements from various Saints on islam. They are quite edifying.
I may have a fatwa against me tomorrow.
May God have mercy on the adherents of all false religions and sects and convert them to His Church.
What are they thinking? September 16, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, error, foolishness, non squitur, paganism, rank stupidity, secularism, sickness, silliness, Society.
This is a bit non sequitur, but what the heck are these truckers thinking? I see more and more of this lately, truckers sporting huge spikes on the lug bolts of their front tires. Do you know what that could do to some car’s tire? Or another truck? Or even the car itself?
I would say about 1 in 10 or 15 trucks these days has these things. And the number is growing rapidly – I never saw these even a year or two ago. I caught these two in a traffic jam on 635 within a minute or two of each other a few days back.
I don’t know if this is some attempt to be cute, some theft deterrent, or just being “bad,” but I’ll say this – they are dangerous, and I can’t believe they are legal. How would someone like it if I had spinning saw blades mounted on the side of my vehicle? Well……when travelling at any speeds, that’s exactly what these things are.
I suppose, being understanding and all that, they could be just for appearance and are really made out of soft plastic and designed to break away upon contact? But that would still leave a potential to hose up the finish on someone’s car pretty good. On the other hand, they could be a sign of the growing indifference many people have towards their fellow man. I could see someone’s tire getting blown out by these things and then their vehicle flipping and getting run over by the trailer. And wouldn’t that be fun?
Anyone know what’s up with these things?
Centuries of anti-Catholic propaganda have wreaked havoc on the Church September 16, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Christendom, disaster, General Catholic, history, Holy suffering, horror, martyrdom, paganism, Papa, persecution, secularism, sickness, Society, the enemy.
I found the following excerpt in the neat biography my wife gave me of Pope Leo XIII. Now, the bio was published in 1877, nearly 140 years ago, but even at that time the Church had been under direct and sustained attack from the forces of leftism for over a century. Beginning with Luther’s satanic revolt, building in the rationalism that inevitably followed, and reaching full flower in the socio-political theories of Hobbes, Locke, and others, the state we are in today is the result of 500 years of direct, hate-filled attack on the Church. And it has been hate-filled; from Luther on down, all those who have taken up pen and sword against the Church have been motivated by a perverse self-love which feeds a hatred of the Church that has the temerity to say “no.”
I thought you might find some of the below, taken from pp. 47-52 of Life of Leo XIII:
The more privileged a people is in all the rarest gifts of intellect and heart, the more lavish toward them has been the bounty of Providence in the supernatural order, the deeper will be the perversion effected by an anti-Christian propaganda. What ruin, what desolation is comparable to the sowing of the minds of an entire nation [or an entire Church] with errors, prejudices, passions, which, taking deep root, prevent the possibility of cultivating or planting therein the most necessary and salutary religious notions?
Such had been the process carried on among all classes of the Italian population ever since the days of Voltaire……As in France, so in Italy, skepticism first tainted the upper classes, and from them and by them the intellectual pestilence had been spread downwards through the ambitious middle classes, reaching at length the laboring population in city and country. And so, when the revolution of 1789 first startled Europe by its utterances and innovations, every one of its doctrines found a wide echo in Italy, and too willing apostles among the titled and the learned devoted all their energy and influence to the work of popularizing it. When Voltaire and the Lodge had become incarnate in the Revolution of 1793, and sent their armies into Italy a few years later, there were found, unhappily, but too many influential Italians to hail their advent as the hosts of the new Liberty which denied God and declared war on the existing order of things.
[The people were taught by the revolutionaries......] to despise, to hate, to ridicule, to outrage religion and its ministers; taught Catholics to look upon the august Head of the Church as a usurper in temporal affairs……
The confiscations, the plunder, the destruction, the violation of the most sacred rights, and the disorder thereby caused in the popular mind and heart, in the most deep-seated notions, beliefs, and customs, constituted a condition of things so chaotic that no length of time, no labor of restoration, no efforts of the “discredited” ministers of religion to build up anew the material temple or to win back the confidence of the alienated populations, have achieved anything like a real success, even down to our very day. [Yes, down to our very day. The world never recovered from 1789, or 1776, it's "conservative" progenitor. It is really impossible for us to even know how much our thinking has been altered - compared to Catholics of 300 years ago - by the intervening intellectual "progress." And now the sickness is well-ensconced in the Church. What now?]
How were they to preserve [their children] from the irreligious indifference, the contempt, the hatred of all things holy, the habit of deriding the past, the false notions about liberty, the seductive theories about equality, which were floating forever in the atmosphere, and carried on the wings of the wind like germs of intellectual and moral distempers more fatal than the cholera……
…..The first great triumph of irreligion, in the last half of the 18th century, was to obtain, through the tyranny of the demonic influence of the united Bourbon sovereigns, the suppression of the Jesuits – and to substitute for their numerous colleges in all Latin countries a thoroughly organized system of national non-religious education, as in Spain and Portugal, where the anti-Christian philosophers had it all their own way, on the Voltairean methods which prevaled in France till Napoleon created his National University – the most potent engine, next to the masonic secret societies, ever devised by Caserism to take the youth of a nation out of the hands of Christian parents and the influence of the Church.
That last bit is interesting, because it is my contention the Jesuits never recovered from the 1773 disbanding of the order and even when reconstituted absorbed some of the choleric atmosphere mentioned above, which laid the seeds for the Jesuit’s future and ongoing destruction. It is amazing how influential the Jesuits have been in spreading many of the most egregious and damaging leftist/modernist beliefs in the Church over the past 150 years or so – it’s almost as if, chastened by their earlier (and unjustified) disbandment, they resolved to learn some of the new order so as to be more acceptable, insuring they never met the same fate twice. But they learned the lesson too well, and became what they had always, always fought against.
For the past 100 years, Jesuits have done more damage to the Church than any other group, perhaps leaving aside the Germanic episcopate. Maybe they should never have been reestablished?
Our radical feminist betters call for killing of 3 billion men September 15, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, manhood, paganism, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, unadulterated evil.
Like it or not, radical feminists make up a highly influential part of that nebulous coalition of self-anointed elitists (incl: academics, media, politicians, leading businessmen, left wing advocacy groups, etc) who have arrogated to themselves the right to determine what the rest of us should think, say, and do. Feminism, the perverse marriage of lesbianism and marxism, is a hugely influential force in Western “culture.” I have personally seen how even many individuals striving to be faithful Catholics have, through absorption of the dominant cultural mores, adopted many quite radical beliefs derived from feminism (radical in the historical or traditional sense. They may be quite “conservative” views today, but they would have been radical 50 or 100 years ago. A few of these are innocuous. Most are not, and have helped spread a great deal of misery and resulted in more than a few broken marriages. Both men and women can fall victim to this type of thinking). Feminism – marxist lesbianism – is part of the wicked broth in which we stew in this decadent and fallen culture.
How sick are radical feminists? Robert Stacy McCain has essentially written a book in the past 6-8 months documenting the near total insanity – and hatred of any traditional moral order – espoused by virtually every marxist lesbian/feminist. There are too many examples to list, and I don’t recommend McCain’s site overall due to immoral material he posts with some regularity, but perhaps one example may serve as an indicator of all the rest. In this particular example, an elderly marxist lesbian who lives alone with her cats*has been a long time advocate of the systematic murder of 90% of the world’s male population, the better to demonstrate her
careful reasoning and general charity towards souls unhinged hatred towards everything male (I add emphasis and comments)
At least three further requirements supplement the strategies of environmentalists if we are to create and preserve a less violent world. I) Every culture must begin to affirm a female future. II)Species responsibility must be returned to women in every culture. III) The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race. . . . [First of all, the idea that a female dominated world would be one of enlightened virtue and peace is utterly unsubstantiated. There isn't much historical precedent for such, but the underlying assumption of these man-hating lesbians is that woman = good, man = utterly evil. Therefore, anything can be justified in the pursuit of the destruction of the male half of the species]
To return species responsibility to women means in very practical terms that erotic and reproductive initiative must be restored to women all over the globe. . . . Make the decision entirely that of the woman as to how she will be impregnated and how often, if indeed she chooses to be so at all, and whether by heterosexual intercourse, artificial insemination or a form of ovular merging. Restore to each woman the inalienable right to say what shall become of any fertilized egg and to control absolutely the number of children she wishes to emerge from her body. . . . Make nonexistent any male’s say-so in the process of reproduction. [Because, according to this creature of pure hate, men have absolutely no rights and exist only at her pleasure. This is the ranting of someone who is clinically insane, and yet this individual, Sally Miller Gearhart, has been a highly influential professor and created one of the first "women's studies" programs in the nation. Her work is highly influential in marxist lesbian circles] Create and protect alternative structures of economic and psychological support for independent women — women not attached to men — who are child-bearers and child-raisers. . . . [She means state funding of women because they are women. But when women make up 90% of the population, will some women want to be taxed to pay for the lifestyles of others?]
Women will bear the number of children they know can be sustained not just by their own social group but by the wide ecological system. [Is this because women are so intuitively brilliant they simply know how many people the planet will bear, or will their marxist lesbian overseers dictate to them what is acceptable? Who has money on the latter?] They will not bear the children that some man wants only to perpetuate his name or the family possession of his property; they will not bear the children they presently convince themselves they must have because their only role is obedient wife and mother; [For how many women does this kind of thinking even remotely apply at this point?] women will not have the children men think are necessary to perpetuate the tribe or the religion or the specific culture. Instead they will bear the children that they want, that they can care for, and that they assess are needed by the specific group and the entire species. . . . [This means central planning and regulation of procreation. Brave New World, the marxist dystopia, yet again]
In every culture it must be women in charge of the changes: [Because she says so! No authoritarianism, no will to power here!] women-identified women, no women who are pawns of men, no women who out of their fear of losing their lives or those of their children, still hold to the securities of that dangerous patriarchal culture, [It doesn't seem so dangerous compared to your unhinged self-pleasuring fantasy. I don't know many men calling for the murder of 3 billion people] but women utterly free of coercion, free of male influence and committed to the principle that the right of species regulation is their own, and not the prerogative of any man. I suggest that lesbians and other independent women are already moving in this direction. . . . [Pity them. If we needed an example of how truly sick perverse sexual desires and acts can make someone, I think we've just gotten an object lesson]
To secure a world of female values and female freedom we must, I believe, add one more element to the structure of the future: the ratio of men to women must be radically reduced so that men approximate only ten percent of the total population. . . . [Of course! What marxist program would be complete without the wholesale slaughter of billions! That's how all marxist stories end!]
We now come to a critical point: how is such a reduction in the male population to take place? One option is of course male infanticide. It differs very little from the female infanticide that has apparently been carried out even into the twentieth century by some cultures. Such an alternative is clearly distasteful and would not constitute creative social change. . . . [But I doubt she'd be very much opposed if push came to shove. I would ask this poor sick soul, who is fighting the most against female infanticide? It is surely not the marxist feminists, who cannot criticize the practice, because to do so might weaken support for their most sacred shibboleth, abortion on demand and without apology. No, it is the hated, patriarchal pro-life movement! But irony is utterly lost on leftist ideologues]
[I]f women are given the freedom of their bodies then they may well choose [experimental "ovular merging" technology that produces only female embryos] in great enough numbers to make a significant difference in the sex ratio of women to men. A 75% female to 25% male ratio could be achieved in one generation if one-half of a population reproduced heterosexually and one-half by ovular merging. [And here the fantasy truly reaches insane dimensions, dreaming about a world where females can reproduce absent the contribution of men. There is absolutely no evidence to substantiate this concept of rubbing two eggs together to create a new person. Even the thought is offensive to reason and just. plain. nuts.]
Such a prospect is attractive to women who feel that if they bear sons no amount of love and care and nonsexist training will save those sons from a culture where male violence is institutionalized and revered. These are women saying, “No more sons. We will not spend twenty years of our lives raising a potential rapist, a potential batterer, a potential Big Man. [So, according to marxist lesbian Gearhart (boy, is that name apropos), ANYONE who has the potential to grow up to be ANYTHING evil should be wiped out before they are born. Why doesn't this woman address the skeleton's in her own movement's closet, like the extremely high rates of violence in lesbian relationships? Oh, yes, I forget...facts are inconvenient.]
This post is a bit off topic, perhaps, but it’s important to know just what “feminism” is. McCain has proven quite conclusively to this blogger that feminism is the product of marxist man-hating lesbians, whose “utopia” is a world of savage cruelty and complete disregard for one half of all humanity – and their total authoritarian control over the remaining half. It is also another manifestation of leftist God-hatred, as this woman’s resentment towards God’s creating us male and female is palpable in every word. Thus her wild eyed rantings about asexual reproduction and magical self-reproducing eggs. This excerpt may seem extreme, even ludicrous, but such writings are taken very seriously within the “feminist” movement. Unhinged diatribes like this are not at all uncommon, and writings from women like this feature prominently in women’s studies programs at colleges across the country, programs that are oriented towards only one thing: generating more man-hating marxist lesbians.
“Feminism” is one of the most noxious and destructive of the leftist errors that have afflicted Western (ahem) civilization in the past 100 years. Distilled to its essence, it provides a cover and refuge for the hateful fantasies (which would be acted out if they ever got the chance) of very lost and disturbed sexual deviants. Do not let your daughters (or sons) fall prey to its seductive claims of victimhood and its pretensions toward power! Feminism is already directly responsible for the deaths of at least 1 billion children through direct abortion, and who knows how many billions prevented from seeing life through contraception. It is a philosophy, like all leftism, straight out of hell and something to be opposed at all turns.
There is a bit of humor in all this. I can’t quite escape the notion that what really drives women like this nuts is precisely the fact that they are not a man. And they are so very, very angry with God over that fact. Perhaps I’m off, but it seems very likely to me………
The Saints against islam and Cardinal McCarrick’s egregious errors September 15, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, asshatery, Basics, catachesis, Christendom, disaster, Ecumenism, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, pr stunts, rank stupidity, Saints, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, Tradition.
There is so much confusion in the Church today regarding islam. Many – heck, almost all – leaders in the Church seem to be almost eagerly dhimmi in their attitudes towards religion. Atrocities committed by mohammadans are routinely explained away as aberrations, while the mythical “moderate islam” is praised to the skies. We had a particularly disgusting instance of that recently, when retired Cardinal McCarrick, whose predatory behavior towards young males is well substantiated, gave this sad example at an interreligious confab with some muslims in DC:
Catholic Cardinal Theodore McCarrick offered Islamic religious phrases and insisted that Islam shares foundational rules with Christianity, during a Sept. 10 press conference in D.C.
“In the name of God, the Merciful and Compassionate,” McCarrick said as he introduced himself to the audience at a meeting arranged by the Muslim Public Affairs Council. [Which routinely apologizes for islamic violence] That praise of the Islamic deity is an important phrase in Islam, is found more than 100 times in the Koran, and is akin to the Catholic prayer, ”In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” [Which a muslim would never, ever allow to pass his lips. But they have faith, even if it is blasphemous and false]
McCarrick next claimed that “Catholic social teaching is based on the dignity of the human person… [and] as you study the holy Koran, as you study Islam, basically, this is what Muhammad the prophet, peace be upon him, has been teaching.” [Especially the part about putting infidels to the sword. What the Koran actually preaches is that muslim men have dignity, everyone else, including muslim women, not so much. But none is so blind as a fervent adherent to the religion of sexular paganism]
McCarrick was 71 when 19 Muslims brought Islam to the public eye by murdering 3,000 Americans on 9/11. He is one of the 213 Cardinals of the Catholic church, but is too old to vote in church debates. [Good grief. Move on]
“Either the cardinal has studied the whole thing and does not know what he’s talking about, or he is making a somewhat misleading statement,” said Michael Meunier, head of the U.S. Copts Association. “The practice of the Muslim majority people that adhere to the Koran… have proven that [claim of equivalence] is not correct,” he told The Daily Caller during a Sept. 11 trip to Jordan. [To draw even a remote equivalence is offensive not just to the virtue of faith but also to plain reason. Even Church-hating atheists note this.]
“Has Cardinal McCarrick converted to Islam?” asked a scornful critic, Robert Spencer, the best-selling author of many books on Islam.
“‘Peace be upon him’ is a phrase Muslims utter after they say the name of [their reputed] prophet… [so] probably he is unaware of the unintended Islamic confession of faith he has just made,”said Spencer……[I would not make that assumption. He may be quite aware. The point is, he doesn't care, the false idol of "dialogue" trumps all]
Now, what have some great Saints said, as a form of rebuttal to the above, regarding islam?
“Whoever does not embrace the Catholic Christian faith is lost, like your false prophet Muhammad.”
-St. Peter Mavimenus (d. 8th century), martyr from Gaza. Response reported in the Martyriologum Romanum when he was asked to convert to Islam by a group of Muslims.
“There is also the superstition of the Ishmaelites which to this day prevails and keeps people in error, being a forerunner of the Antichrist…. From that time to the present a false prophet named Mohammed has appeared in their midst. This man, after having chanced upon the Old and New Testaments and likewise, it seems, having conversed with an Arian monk, devised his own heresy. Then, having insinuated himself into the good graces of the people by a show of seeming piety, he gave out that a certain book had been sent down to him from heaven. He had set down some ridiculous compositions in this book of his and he gave it to them as an object of veneration.” [Saint John Damascene, who fought against the islamic-inspired iconoclast heresy, understands the etymology of islamic belief well. Islam is a completely man-made religion founded by a man lost to lust and incorporating perverse beliefs from apostate (Arian) Christian and Jewish sects, prevalent in Arabia in the 7th century]
-St. John Damascene (d. 749), Syrian Arab Catholic monk and scholar. Quoted from his book On Heresies under the section On the Heresy of the Ishmaelites (in The Fathers of the Church. Vol. 37. Translated by the Catholic University of America. CUA Press. 1958. Pages 153-160.)
“We profess Christ to be truly God and your prophet to be a precursor of the Antichrist and other profane doctrine.”
-Sts. Habenitus, Jeremiah, Peter, Sabinian, Walabonsus, and Wistremundus (d. 851), martyrs of Cordoba, Spain. Reported in the Memoriale Sanctorum in response to Spanish Umayyad Caliph ‘Abd Ar-Rahman II’s ministers that they convert to Islam on pain of death.
“On the other hand, those who founded sects committed to erroneous doctrines proceeded in a way that is opposite to this, the point is clear in the case of Muhammad. He seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence of the flesh goads us. His teaching also contained precepts that were in conformity with his promises, and he gave free rein to carnal pleasure. In all this, as is not unexpected, he was obeyed by carnal men. As for proofs of the truth of his doctrine, he brought forward only such as could be grasped by the natural ability of anyone with a very modest wisdom. Indeed, the truths that he taught he mingled with many fables and with doctrines of the greatest falsity. He did not bring forth any signs produced in a supernatural way, which alone fittingly gives witness to divine inspiration; for a visible action that can be only divine reveals an invisibly inspired teacher of truth. On the contrary, Muhammad said that he was sent in the power of his arms—which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants.”
-St. Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274), Theologian and Doctor of the Church. Quoted from his De Rationibus Fidei Contra Saracenos, Graecos, et Armenos and translated from Fr. Damian Fehlner’s Aquinas on Reasons for the Faith: Against the Muslims, Greeks, and Armenians (Franciscans of the Immaculate. 2002.)”
As we have seen, Muhammed had neither supernatural miracles nor natural motives of reason to persuade those of his sect. As he lacked in everything, he took to bestial and barbaric means, which is the force of arms. Thus he introduced and promulgated his message with robberies, murders, and bloodshedding, destroying those who did not want to receive it, and with the same means his ministers conserve this today, until God placates his anger and destroys this pestilence from the earth.[…]
(Muhammad) can also be figured for the dragon in the same Apocalypse which says that the dragon swept up a third of the stars and hurled down a third to earth. Although this line is more appropriately understood concerning the Antichrist, Mohammed was his precursor – the prophet of Satan, father of the sons of haughtiness.[…]
Even if all the things contained in his law were fables in philosophy and errors in theology, even for those who do not possess the light of reason, the very manners (Islam) teaches are from a school of vicious bestialities. (Muhammad) did not prove his new sect with any motive, having neither supernatural miracles nor natural reasons, but solely the force of arms, violence, fictions, lies, and carnal license. It remains an impious, blasphemous, vicious cult, an innvention of the devil, and the direct way into the fires of hell. It does not even merit the name of being called a religion.” [Saint Juan de Ribera would not be popular in today's Church! But, while his language may be harsh, there is none of it that is false. Islam alone among major religions has been spread almost totally by the sword.]
-St. Juan de Ribera (d.1611), Archbishop of Valencia, missionary to Spanish Muslims, and organizer of the Muslim expulsions of 1609 from Spain. Quoted in several locations from his 1599 Catechismo para la Instruccion de los Nuevos Convertidos de los Moros (my translation).
“The Mahometan paradise, however, is only fit for beasts; for filthy sensual pleasure is all the believer has to expect there.”
St. Alphonsus Liguori (d. 1787). Quoted from his book, The History of Heresies and their Refutation.
Virginia delegate slams Dolan in letter to Apostolic Nuncio September 12, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, persecution, sadness, scandals, self-serving, sexual depravity, shocking, Society, the return.
Reader TM sent me a link to the following letter sent by Virginia House of Delegates member Bob Marshall to Archbishop Carlo Vignano, Apostolic Nuncio of the United States. Who knows how that letter will be received, what with the new focus on “mercy” cum indifference, but the author has requested that this letter be shared as widely as possible, and I agree with the concerns expressed therein. Some excerpts:
New York’s Cardinal Dolan, appointed as Grand Marshal of the 2015 St. Patrick’s Day Parade, praised the decision to allow an openly gay group to march in the St. Patrick’s Day Parade. “I have no trouble with the decision at all … I think the decision is a wise one,” he said.
His action has left many Catholics, including elected officials like myself, puzzled and disheartened especially when we measure Cardinal Dolan’s new policy with that of his predecessor, John Cardinal O’Connor. [I understand there is a massive new excavation on Manhattan Island. It developed only recently, but has already achieved prodigious proportions. It is caused by Cardinal O'Connor spinning in his grave at hypersonic speeds.]
In 1993, when LGBT groups and government officials demanded that openly homosexual groups be included in the Parade, Cardinal O’Connor vowed in a St. Patrick’s Day sermon that he “could never even be perceived as compromising Catholic teaching. Neither respectability nor political correctness is worth one comma in the Apostles Creed.” (New York Times, 1/20/93) [We certainly do not have the same caliber of man as Cardinal Archbishop of New York today. What a buffoon this Dolan is.]
At that time, the New York Times also noted that, “The Hibernians and Cardinal O’Connor have said there is no place for a gay contingent in the parade because it is a Catholic Event and the Church teaches that homosexual acts are sinful.”
Yet, Cardinal Dolan claimed, “Neither my predecessors as archbishops of New York nor I have ever determined who would or would not march in this parade,” adding that “the parade would be a source of unity for all of us.” (New York Times, 9/3/14) [Which shows that Cardinal Dolan was either ignorant of the very public stand of his predecessor, or is quite willing to prevaricate. The repeated statements by Dolan in defense of this indefensible act are increasingly troubling and reveal a man detached from the Catholic sensus fidei.]
Would Cardinal Dolan, as Parade Marshal, applaud the inclusion of Irish abortion clinic owners or Planned Parenthood employees in a Parade honoring Saint Patrick? On what logical grounds does he applaud openly LGBT marchers and reject openly pro-abortion Catholics, including some “Catholic” nuns? [Give him time. He well might.]
……..This situation is not about judging individual souls. God loves all his children, and fortunately He is the only one who judges men’s hearts, but we live in a world of actions that have individual, social and legal consequences. [But there is such a thing as objectively sinful acts. And we have to judge those acts and the people who commit them - not their eternal destiny or the state of their soul, but whether such acts conform to Truth and goodness, or falsehood and evil. And we cannot give support to those who manifestly and unrepentantly promote their evil.]
Equality of persons is not the same as equality of behavior. What message does Cardinal Dolan’s decision give? The US Supreme Court is considering whether to hear challenges to state laws allowing only one-man, one-woman marriage. Cardinal Dolan’s statement and actions are most untimely……… [More than untimely, almost diabolical in their likely effect]
……I know from a lifetime in and around politics that federal judges and Members of Congress read newspapers. They are influenced by the actions of moral leaders. They gauge what they can “get away with” by what Catholic prelates “tolerate.”
We do our brothers and sisters no service by pretending that God’s teaching or the “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” are not important today. No one can change Natural Law or the Word of God, written in the blood of Our Savior for our wellbeing and redemption/
I haven’t talked to one Catholic who thinks that what Cardinal Dolan did was prudent or helpful in defending the Faith, marriage or morals. Converts, especially, are distressed. [Yes, I am distressed. But there are millions of katholycs out there who think what he's done is just grand. But I agree, I don't think a single Catholic could support Dolan's actions - including Bill Donahue. Perhaps he should change his group's name to the Katholyc League.]
Some contemporary American Catholics falsely think that “tolerance” is exercised by maintaining indifference towards ideas, opinion or even error, or holding that all points of view are equal. For a Church authority to embrace political correctness at such a time will have consequences which extend far beyond the parade route. [False tolerance, meaning indifference and the pretension that this life is the only one to be concerned with, is the driving heresy of the sexular pagan religion]
Cardinal Dolan’s actions will make enacting legislation in conformity with the Natural Law immeasurably harder to defend especially for lay Catholics or Catholic legislators……..[Dang straight. Already, one or two tragic, flippant comments are constantly thrown in faithful Catholic faces regarding all manner of moral issues, from abortion to sodomy to fornication to whatever! "Who am I to judge?" goes right along with "I think the decision a wise one." The position of faithful Catholics has been horribly undermined.]
Cardinal Dolan is rapidly becoming the American poster boy – at least for the present day, there have been many others – for the new state religion of sexular paganism. From all appearances, it seems Dolan seeks to change the Church to suit the ways of this fallen and evil world, rather than the other way around. Or, if not change the Church, at least change the appearance of the Church so that She never appears to stand in contradiction to the oppressive desires of the power elite. It’s so much easier that way! And Governor Cuomo will answer your calls, and let you feel important for a few minutes! And you’ll get more interviews on 60 Minutes!
See! It’s win-win!
Flightline Friday – A direct link from WWII to today in a single picture September 12, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, Flightline Friday, foolishness, history, sadness, secularism, silliness, Society, technology.
How old are American military aircraft? World War II ended almost 70 years ago. On November 12, 1944, with the war at the peak of its intensity, the Boeing C-97 Stratofreighter took to the air for the first time. Derived from the B-29 Superfortress, not many cargo versions of the aircraft were built, but over 800 tanker versions – the KC-97 – were built, starting in 1948.
The Northrop P-530/YF-17 Cobra has already been covered on this blog. First conceived in 1969, the YF-17 engaged in a flyoff competition with the YF-16 in 1974. The photo below is from that competition. At the time, highly obsolescent KC-97 tankers were rapidly passing from service. They were all gone by 1978, for a service period of 30 years. The YF-17 was developed into the F-18 Hornet, which entered service in 1980. It has been in service, then, 34 years, and is at present the Navy’s most modern fighter in squadron service (the F-35 still hasn’t achieved that).
So in a single photo, you can see a direct line of constantly operational US military aircraft from 1944 to 2014 – 70 years. In fact, since the Super Hornet will be in service for at least another 20 years, that almost 100 years of aviation in one photo. 70 years ago, it would have been unthinkable that an aircraft could remain in service for so long, but it is common in the military today. The USAF used to have a policy of painting an “O,” for obsolete, in front of the tail numbers of all of its aircraft more than 10 years old (in fact, you can see that on the tail of the KC-97L above). From the inception of flight until the 1970s, that was a pretty fair policy, since most aircraft served less than 10 years and were replaced. In the go-go 50s and 60s, when American aviation was at its peak, new types were introduced almost every year, and “old” types retired. Now, we’re so broke, there is barely a new fighter for each decade, and a new bomber or cargo aircraft once each generation. This trend is the inevitable result of the advanced state of socialism in our political-economic system. In fact, the average age of the USAF fleet is over 30 years. Many types, like the B-52 and KC-135, are over 50 years old.
Britain once ruled the waves. Until at least the 1930s, Britain was as powerful a nation as any in the world. Fighting WWII alone for a year did terrific damage to the British economy, but that’s not why Britain is in the pathetic state, militarily, that it is today. In all honesty, I do not think Britain even retains the ability to defend their nation from external attack, let alone project any power. At present, the Royal Navy is 2/3 the size of the United States Coast Guard – and about as combat effective. The British Army only has 36 operational tanks. The Royal Air Force consists of about 100 combat capable tactical aircraft (and most of those, the Typhoons, are still very limited).
Britain, in terms of socialism, has been, consistently since WWII, about 20-30 years ahead of the United States. The same budget pressures, caused by massive transfers of wealth from productive to unproductive sectors of the economy, and ham-handed centralized economic planning, that have left Britain almost defenseless, are at work in the United States. The US military is in the process of being gutted, once again. I won’t go into the details, but in 5-10 years the US military will be a shadow of its former self. Perhaps that is as it should be, given what an immoral instrument the armed services have become under the past two demonrat administrations.
This post is a bit of a lament. I loved the US military of the 80s, strong, well-armed, well-funded, with tons of great kit being produced, and most of all – not used. At least not much. There were no endless, draining wars back then. There didn’t have to be, the world knew the US military circa 1987 was large, capable, and not to be messed with. Even the massive Soviet military machine respected and, to a degree, feared our military capabilities. As that military weakens, and our political leadership becomes increasingly feckless and beholden to domestic political interests, more and more adversaries will be tempted to take a shot.
The world is going to become a much bloodier, messier, less happy place. I am not recommending a massive increase in defense spending, or more wars, especially not with the current clown college running things in this country, but I am maybe sounding a bit of a note of caution. It’s easy to bash military intervention and pine for isolationism, but all that will have a cost. Human nature being what it is, when the alpha male weakens and resigns the field, others will take their chance. We’re seeing that in abundance already. And I fear it will only get worse.
The Hellenic Air Force still uses A-7H’s. Hopefully next week I’ll have time to do a post on the A-7, a very underrated and under-appreciated bird.
SpaceX chooses South Texas launch site September 11, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, awesomeness, Basics, fun, Society, technology.
Space Exploration Technologies Corporation of Hawthorne, CA, better known as SpaceX, has chosen a site in rural Cameron County, Texas, along Boca Chica beach south of the mouth of the Rio Grande River for its first fully private, commercial launch site. The site was long favored by SpaceX, which may also develop other launch sites at other locations in the future. The Texas site is expected to see around 12 launches a year beginning late this decade:
Elon Musk’s commercial space-transport firm, SpaceX, is building a commercial launchpad in South Texas along the Gulf of Mexico with help from more than $20 million in state and local incentives.
Local officials believe the launch site, east of Brownsville near Boca Chica Beach, will create 500 jobs over a decade and require as much as $100 million in capital investment. Beyond the $15.3 million Texas is giving the project, SpaceX will collect another $5 million from the Greater Brownsville Incentives Corp.
The SpaceX facility will cover about 50 acres along the coast, a few miles from South Padre Island, and involve a launchpad, control center, and ground-tracking station. The facility is designed to launch about a dozen commercial satellites each year, a lucrative business that SpaceX maintains it can perform more cost-efficiently than rivals can.
“In addition to creating hundreds of high tech jobs for the Texas workforce, this site will inspire students, expand the supplier base and attract tourists to the south Texas area,” Musk said in a press release on Monday from Texas Governor Rick Perry’s office. SpaceX also has a rocket development facility in central Texas, near Waco. The company also considered sites in Alaska, California, Florida, Georgia, Puerto Rico, and Alaska.
It will be pretty neat to be able to drive down to south Texas and see space launches. I’ve never seen one, personally, though I saw the contrail left by a Titan IV launched from Vandenberg when in LA, once. That was pretty cool.
Maybe they’ll even launch the Falcon Heavy from there. 4 million lbs of thrust in that one:
More frequent will be the Falcon 9:
There have been reports, and continue to be, that SpaceX also wants to use this new spaceport as a production site for a new line of rockets with far larger core diameters. The current Falcon 9 family has a 12 foot core, but SpaceX has proposed versions with cores on the order of 24 to 33 feet – the same as the first stage of a Saturn V. One proposed version, called Falcon XX, would be capable of lifting over 240 tons per launch. It is difficult to conceive whether there would be much demand for shooting 5oo,000 lb at a shot into orbit, or 200,000 lbs to the moon or Mars. But SpaceX did produce a paper outlining such a few years ago, and this image has appeared on the web:
The one on the right is far larger than a Saturn V. The point being, this launch site could develop into something much more than that, a very large production complex with ease of access, via the Intracoastal Waterway, to Cape Canaveral. And that would be a great aid to the economy of South Texas. This $20 million public investment, hardly an egregious amount, could turn into billions of dollars of infrastructure in one of the least developed parts of the state.