jump to navigation

What does the NRA have, that other conservative groups do not January 29, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, Basics, contraception, disconcerting, episcopate, General Catholic, scandals, Society, the struggle for the Church, true leadership.
comments closed

I say that especially with regard to socially conservative groups.  With the exception of the pro-life movement, which has some level of small success, conservatives have been singularly ineffective in defending the moral order and seeing their agenda enacted.  All, that is, except for the NRA and the gun rights groups.  I saw this article on the surrender of democrat Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe on his number one campaign promise – moves against gun rights – last night and what struck me was the fear of God the NRA can strike even in the hearts of liberal stalwarts.  We have nothing similar in the social conservative movement:

Virginia’s Governor Tery McAuliffe has retreated on his Administration’s decision to sever concealed carry reciprocity with 25 states after a firestorm of criticism…….

……It’s interesting to see the Washington Post attempt to call the permanent protective order a “major concession” in order to save face for McAuliffe. It was very much a minor concession in line with what most Republicans support. no one wants an violent abuser to have access to firearms.

You can tell just how much the reversal stung gun control supporters by the screams of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.

Outside extremely liberal enclaves like New York, Chicago, Washington DC, etc., the pro-gun agenda tends to hold sway.  Even the most anti-gun president in history has been able to do very little to limit access to firearms by law-abiding citizens in his terms of office.  Not for lack of trying.  But even many democrat congressman are terrified of crossing the NRA.

Why is that?  Why is the NRA/gun rights movement so successful, when almost every other social conservative enterprise has failed so spectacularly over the past 40 years or so?

Well, one thing…….the NRA has money, and lots of it.  They have significantly more resources than other social conservative groups.  But how do they get that money?  They get it through fundraising and constantly beating the bushes for more (they do also have some wealthy benefactors).

But it’s not just money that makes the NRA effective.  It’s also voting.  Gun “fanatics” vote.  They are often single-issue voters.  A politician who crosses the gun rights movement is, to all intents and purposes, dead to them, forever.  We are not nearly so consistent on the pro-life or pro-traditional morality side.  We do not have the strong track record of turning out of office politician after politician who votes/supports measures against our interest.  Yes, there were exceptions, particularly in 2010 after the Obamacare debacle, but, for the most part, there either aren’t enough of us, or we don’t vote consistently enough, to be a major electoral factor for a lot of socially liberal politicians.

Now, political power flows from numbers.  But a majority of Americans do not own guns.  While the number of firearms in circulation has dramatically increased in the last decade, the actual number of firearms owners has slightly decreased.  How, then, has the political power of the gun rights lobby seemingly increased?

And do gun rights advocates outnumber social conservatives, generally?  Don’t the two groups largely overlap?  Perhaps not.  I don’t have data, but I know a lot of pro-gun people who are fairly liberal on a host of social issues. They are more libertarian than conservative.

I doubt there are more strident firearms advocates than there are pro-lifers, at least, not enough to make a huge difference, politically.  So, my question remains.

I really don’t have an answer.  I talked with my wife about this last night and we didn’t really come up with any brilliant solution.  About the only thing I could conclude is that gun rights types vote more consistently and organize much, much better.  I do think that is one thing – the gun rights groups are tightly mobilized and tend to be quite disciplined.  The social conservatives are divided among themselves, and only a relative few are conservative across the whole spectrum on social issues (abortion, contraception, redefinition of marriage, sodomy, body mutilation/transgenderism, etc., etc).

I’m kind of out of time, but thought that might make an interesting topic for discussion.


Is the barbaric behavior of muslim “immigrants” a sign of ignorance, or is it a sign of domination? January 29, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Immigration, persecution, sadness, scandals, secularism, Society, suicide, the enemy.
comments closed

A little of column A, and a little of column B, perhaps?

Bookworm notes that many of Europe’s governments from the local to the national level seem to be operating on the belief that the incredibly offensive, timorous behavior of many recent immigrants  stems from the ignorance and barbarism of the immigrants themselves.  Thus, there are mass campaigns underway to try to educate these immigrants in Western-ways, to, in effect, de-islamify and de-barbarize them.

But Bookworm posits another theory.  These muslims are not so backwards that they do not know that doing despicable things – like defecating in public swimming pools and gang raping women – is not acceptable behavior.  They are doing these things deliberately, and to a specific end:

Open any website dealing with the Muslim refugees in Europe, and you’re sure to find two different kinds of stories.  The first kind of story tells about Muslims engaged in all sorts of inappropriate behavior, such as assaulting women,urinating or defecating in swimming pools, raping little boys, or just plain old killing people. The second kind of story tells aboutthe ways in which Europe intends to address these decidedly anti-social behaviors:  They’re educating the refugees.  The sophisticated Europeans have concluded that the refugees are so stupid and simplistic that they need to be taught good manners.  Otherwise, how will they know not to rape, poop, or kill?

It strikes me that the really stupid, naive, unsophisticated people here are the Europeans who actually believe that this anti-social Muslim behavior comes about because Muslims are primitive people who are, for the first time, confronting an advanced society. To hold this position, Europeans must be willfully blind. Didn’t any of them notice the number of migrants who showed up with smart phones intact?…….

……….Here’s what I think is going on: The refugees are acting as they are, not because they see themselves as charity cases, but because they see themselves as conquerors. They know perfectly well that one doesn’t defecate in a pool in which people (especially children) are swimming. They’re doing it because they are performing the literal equivalent of the expression “I don’t give a —- about you.” They know you’re not supposed to rape women . . . that is, unless those women are the products of conquest, in which case raping them is one of Mohamed’s commandments.

I think Bookworm is onto something here.  These millions of migrants see themselves changing Europe forever.  I’m certain more than a few – probably those who engage in such disgusting behavior – see themselves as conquerors.  That doesn’t mean they are, yet, anyway.  But they could become so if policies are not reversed or if there is not some kind of reaction, much more than government signs and pamphlets begging immigrants not to behave in atrocious ways.

Is it too much to see in this developing crisis similarities to the fall of Rome?  Note that the barbarian invaders did not have to outnumber the native, Romanized population when they started pouring through the no longer defended frontier in the 5th century.  There had been barbarians in the Empire for years, for a number of reasons, but that rapidly accelerated in the 400s and led, within a lifetime, to the total collapse of the Western Empire.  By the time they reached 10% of the population, the Western Empire was finished.

There have been barbarians/immigrants in Europe for years in this modern context, but now, suddenly, something has happened and the floodgates have opened.  I don’t mean to say that Europe is finished at this point, but I am saying that each day this invasion in permitted to continue increases the likelihood of at least a nightmare internecine conflict as incompatible peoples sort themselves out, if not the actual implosion of Europe as bastion of Western civilization (such as remains, anyway).

At this point, I’m really not certain which is more likely to play out – a nativist awakening and struggle to eject (or at least contain) the invaders, or the gradual slipping away of all that has made Europe, Europe.  It’s really up to the Europeans.  Not that we are in substantially better shape.  Our country, too, has been largely remade through immigration over the past 50 years, but it has been immigration of a much different, and less problematic, type.  Having said that, there is no way Ronald Reagan could be elected governor of California today.   That California is gone.

Migrant harassment of women as sign of Western emasculation January 29, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, disaster, Ecumenism, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, Immigration, paganism, rank stupidity, secularism, self-serving, Society, suicide.
comments closed

A couple of interesting tidbits from Mark Steyn. The Anglican (ahem) Bishop of London has recommended his ministers grow muslim beards and wear muslim garb, the better to conduct “outreach” and fruitful “dialogue.”  Another way of looking at this is the islamification of the Church of England:

One of the priests praised by the Bishop of London, the Rev. Atkinson told The Telegraph he found having a beard had helped provide a connection with many people in his parish, around 85 per cent of whom are Muslim…

He said he had forged new links with people after growing his facial hair.

He explained: ‘It is an icebreaker – St Paul said “I become all things to all men that by all possible means I might save some”…[Well St. Paul did not partake in pagan orgies in order to build bridges and maybe one day, 80 years hence, win a single convert]

So Western men now feel they need to ape muslim behaviors in order to demonstrate leadership and masculinity.  Gotcha.

Not unrelated, a German woman has taken to Youtube imploring the men of her country to stand up for libertine ideals and protect their women.  The men yawned, turned up the TV, and took another chug of beer:

One time in summer, the Muslims said we were sluts for walking outside in a t-shirt. Yes, we were wearing t-shirts. It’s summer!

Another day, I was wearing this. My friend and I purchased it while shopping hehe. If we feel like wearing it, we will wear it! And you Muslims have no right to physically assault or rape us for it! God willing, never in my life. You have no right to attack us because we are wearing t-shirts. You also have no right to rape.

The life of Germany has changed because these people cannot integrate. We give them so much help. We support them financially and they do not have to work. But they only want more babies and more welfare and more money. Men of Germany, please, patrol the streets and protect us. Do this for your women and your children.

This begging of men to defend native women from muslim rapine does raise an interesting question: why haven’t many, or any, done so?  There actually was a protest against the islamification of Europe a few weeks ago, one that featured 3000 marchers and 1500 police and which descended into violence under what some participants believed was the influence of agents provacatuer planted by the police, who seem far more concerned about protecting the left-wing political “consensus” than protecting women from being raped and harassed.

But a protest is different from taking to the streets to prevent attacks on women, and it is not the same thing as responding to muslim depredations when they are seen occurring.  Now it’s possible such responses have been buried by the media – though I have no idea why, they would love to trumpet some ugly “reactionary,” “anti-muslim” behavior – but I tend to imagine it’s more because they simply are not happening.  Why?  Do many Western men secretly long to see women subjugated, islam-style?  I doubt it.  Is it because they simply weren’t present?  Perhaps, but that raises another question……why are women going out in areas with few native but bunches of muslim men?

I imagine the real answer, however, has something to do with the decades long feminist-leftist campaign to emasculate men and render them essentially neuter.  Feminism has degenerated from a campaign to ostensibly elevate women into one that now nakedly seeks to lower men, especially outwardly masculine men.  That campaign has taken a huge toll.  Not that many men have fought it.  Far too many have simply rolled over and submitted.

That’s not to say there is no positive defense being mounted by European men.  See the rallies in Poland.  It’s just that there hasn’t been nearly enough of this (we must keep in mind, however, that immigrants are protected by numerous laws, and can even deliberately provoke police and expect almost no reaction, so many “rights” have been accorded them by the governing elites who seem hell bent on destroying the nations they govern).

Ultimately, that’s what islam demands of all…..submission.  Indeed, that is what the term “islam” means – submission.  It seems the immigrants flooding Europe are making quite a bit of headway getting Europe to submit.  Church of England ministers are visibly submitting to islamic dictates (and if they make even a single convert, I will be totally shocked).  While left-liberalism is a pseudo-religion, when confronted with a very strong true religion, it will always fold. The reaction of European liberals to the ongoing muslim invasion have only confirmed my belief that there will be no great “war” between the libertine left and the muslim invaders……..the left will happily submit (it will take some time, but it’s already happening).

That’s because leftism is a specifically anti-Christian religion/ethos.  So long as the “strong horse” religion they submit to, or even convert to, is not Christianity, the vast majority will be content to do so.  Thus the diabolical origin of leftism is confirmed. Certainly, there are other factors at play and other explanations can be offered, but man is inseparable from the religious nature God gave him, and religious behavior – even when such is specifically denied – tends to predominate in the lives of many.  Europe lost its soul when it rejected Christianity, en masse, and opened itself up to a diabolical replacement.

God allows our sins to be our undoing.  Europe’s rejection of Christianity is proving the maxim.