jump to navigation

The Future of the United States = Rhodesia? October 20, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, history, horror, persecution, rank stupidity, Revolution, sickness, Society, The End.
comments closed

There once was an African country called Rhodesia.  Today it is called Zimbabwe.  Yes, there was a long, involved history with all kinds of important factors – Rhodesia was ruled by a white minority but under circumstances far fairer and less offensive than those in, say, neighboring South Africa – but that’s not the point.  The point is, in 1980, when international pressure (and a great deal of treachery from South Africa) managed to force the capitulation of the minority government, Rhodesia was the breadbasket of Africa, the Rhodesian dollar had parity with the British pound, health care was plentiful and cheap, no one starved, many blacks were moving into the middle class, and, materially speaking, things were quite good.

Fast forward 35 years, and after decades of so-called majority rule under (practically speaking) dictator-for-life Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe is the basket case of Africa.  Millions starve. The country is run by thugs.  Mugabe has enriched himself to the tune of Billions while the living standards of ordinary Zimbabweans has imploded.  The white minority who served as the technical and professional class has more or less evaporated, and Zimbabwe has become just another failed state.

For twenty years, off and on, I’ve had a bit of a fascination with Rhodesia.  I don’t care much for the politics or the racialism, naturally, but I do find something to admire in 220,000 whites holding off massed armies of communist revolutionaries for over 15  years, more or less single-handedly.  Not only did they hold them off, they absolutely crushed them. The Rhodesian Army is widely credited with being the world’s foremost counter-insurgency force during the 1970s.  Their tactics and incredible skill and professionalism held the communist insurgents at bay, greatly limiting the damage they inflicted on the country (casualties were a tiny fraction of our own experience in Vietnam (yes, the circumstances were quite different) – the Rhodesians were smart enough not to bomb to smithereens the population they were supposed to be defending). Read a bit about the Fireforce or Selous Scouts and I doubt you will come away unimpressed.

But I hadn’t read any of that stuff in years.  Suddenly, over the past few months, it’s come back in a big way.  I’ve been reading and watching all kinds of material related to Rhodesia.  A few days ago, I began to ask myself why.  Why am I suddenly so interested in all this.  It is true I am very eclectic.  I literally used to read – maybe scan is a better word – encyclopedias when I was a kid.  I learned a little about a lot.  That has certainly carried through to this day, I’m still a mile wide and an inch deep.

But why this – almost a fixation, really – on Rhodesia? Why now?  And suddenly it hit me.  Maybe I see parallels between what happened in Rhodesia, and what I see developing in this country?  Yes the circumstances are drastically different but what I am talking about is the demolition of an advanced, prosperous society for prurient political ends.  The enslavement and impoverishment of millions for the enrichment of a narrow, politically-connected elite.

Perhaps the analogy is a bit strained, but I wonder if there might not be something to this.  Our country is already mired in cultural ruin, economic ruin seems quite advanced, and our political institutions have fallen to the level of a joke.  All that is left is for the natural effects of these disastrous turns to play out.  I don’t know if a country as rich and bountiful as the US will ever experience mass starvation, but Rhodesia was bountiful, too, and used to be Africa’s #1 exporter of grain.  Not anymore.  There is nothing self-interested, self-enriching socialist elites cannot bring to absolute penury.

The Rhodesians fought like hell to keep their country from falling to communists.  They finally gave up when virtually all their neighbors went leftist in ’75 (thanks, Portuguese socialists), the US and Britain threatened far more destructive sanctions, and, most significantly, South Africa finally and foolishly abandoned them.  Mugabe played nice for 12 or 18 months – just enough to consolidate his power – but has since ruled as an absolute tyrant.  Far, far more black Zimbabweans have died under his administration than were ever killed during the entire history of white-run Rhodesia.  As a testimony to this, when former white Prime Minister Ian Smith died in 2007, most blacks lamented that things were far, far better for them under his rule than under Mugabe’s.  Of course, that has been the case over almost all of post-colonial Africa.

Can you see something like Zimbabwe in the future for the US?  If Hillary is elected, I’d say such a future is assured.  At this point, given the media has become simply yet another propaganda arm of the demonrat party, I don’t know if another Republican conservative will ever manage to be elected president again.  All the Repubniks seem good for is serving as the agency to consolidate and normalize leftist gains.  Or perhaps my religious “extremism” causes me to see things too pessimistically, as I realize how very, very far we are from the Catholic idea, and speeding headlong in the wrong direction.

Just one little aside, I love the sing-song accent of Southern African English.  Influenced by Dutch, it’s quite unique.  I love to listen to talk from native Rhodesians like Ian Smith.  It’s kind of like South African English, but a bit different.

For those ignorant of the Rhodesian Bush War, the following videos – admittedly, a bit on the propagandizing side for the then-government – are pretty good backgrounders.  Sorry about the quality, it is what it is:

Interestingly, scores, possibly hundreds, of American men volunteered to fight for the Rhodesians in the Bush War.  Most all were Vietnam vets. Some were out and out mercs, but most were not.  They really loved the country and a few stayed on for quite a while after the war ended. Rhodesia even acquired some Hueys, probably from Iran or Israel, towards the end of the war.  So it was kind of like Vietnam redux for those volunteers.

Mass media coverage.  Notice the bias inherent in THIS kind of presentation.  Communists become “nationalists.”  Atrocities committed largely against other blacks become “raids.”  Nevertheless, a good overview of the Bush War in the mid-70s:

This is actually a very balanced report by Morley Safer of 60 Minutes – again, showing how much our media has degraded in the past 40 years.  Safer was absolutely not a conservative, but he wasn’t so blinded by leftist ideology as to be nothing but a democrat propagandist. There used to be quite a few reporters like this – liberal, but mostly fair, and able to comprehend the other side – but not anymore.  In fact, it’s more than balanced, it almost seems to take the side of the Rhodesian government, which by the mid-70s didn’t oppose black majority rule in principle (in spite of one unfortunate statement by Prime Minister Ian Smith to the contrary), but also didn’t want it either instantly – which had led to chaos and societal near-collapse in so many neighboring countries – or under the point of a communist gun.  Not unreasonable demands, one might hope, but not good enough for the liberal elite who helped dismantle this once advanced and prosperous nation:

Will there be hand-wringing reports like this over the fate of the depressed, downtrodden, chaotic, dissolute United States at some point in the not too distant future?  It seems impossible, but I wouldn’t rule it out.

 

Advertisements

Leftism is Evil, Vol 1,987,530,233,877,202 October 20, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, rank stupidity, Revolution, scandals, secularism, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, unadulterated evil.
comments closed

Yes, the cases really into the quadrillions.

Two episodes reveal the insane hatred being directed at young men on today’s college campuses.  One is so filthy I can scarcely mention it.  The first is really the more terrifying, however, because it is so insidious – young men must now, on many college campuses, and as the first order of business, be indoctrinated in an ideology that teaches them to loath themselves for nothing more than an accident of birth, the kind of thing the evil left once lectured us was possibly the worst thing in the universe to do to someone.  Now colleges are literally returning to segregated facilities on campus – can you guess who will get the separate but unequal facilities in this new regime?

But regarding males, the overwhelming message received is – better be trans, queer, or femboi, because we have no room for masculinity on campus:

Gettysburg College freshman James Goodman began his first moments of higher education by being lectured by campus leaders about “toxic masculinity,” he tells The College Fix in an interview.

Students who “identify as male” were shown a docudrama film about masculinity. The film, titled “The Mask You Live In,” was part of the lessons warning students that the notion of masculinity comes with harmful side effects, he said.

According to the trailer of the film, it teaches that the “three most destructive words” a boy can hear growing up is “be a man.” Experts quoted therein also suggest that violent outbursts are prompted by masculinity pressures because “respect is linked to violence.”……

…….Psychiatrist Dr. James Gilligan added “whether it’s homicidal violence or suicidal violence, people resort to such desperate behavior only when they are feeling shame or humiliated, or feel they would be if they didn’t prove that they were real men.” [Yeah, that woman who shot the man trying to bust into her house was just feeling so much shame and humiliation, that’s the reason she resorted to “homicidal violence.”  Only an academic could be this stupid]

Next followed humiliating, childish exercises dedicated to reinforcing the message of inequality received:

……..The next activity asked the male students to put green, yellow or red dot stickers on pictures of various popular culture images. The green dot was intended to symbolize something good and acceptable, yellow was more moderate, and red as completely inappropriate and unacceptable behavior………

………“The entire movie and lesson made it seem like masculinity was an unacceptable human trait. That it’s something males should avoid. It was completely pointless. It did nothing to help anyone. I got absolutely nothing out of the experience, other than a headache,” Goodman said to The College Fix. [Perhaps you were lucky.  But in this age where so few kids have a strong enough upbringing and the self-confidence that goes with it, how many will be led into self-hatred by this kind of brainwashing?]

The second example is as stultifying as it is prurient.  Stupid campus feminists at stupid Northwestern University created a stupid, 20 ft tall likeness of the female sexual organ and held some demonstration.  I edit a lot of the below for content, I include no link because it would be irresponsible to do so:

Hundreds of students marched through a 20-foot-tall inflatable [simulacrum of the female organ] at The Arch on Friday afternoon following the unveiling of [redacted]. [It was a really bad simulacrum.  Most had no idea what it was]

Student organizers hung the purple [simulacrum of the female organ] from The Arch for students and community members to interact with. Spectators watched, took photos with and walked through the open [simulacrum of the female organ], which hung on display for more than two hours.

Organizers said they wanted students to form their own interpretations of the piece and declined further comment on [this demonstration of a toddler’s fascination with its body parts].

For many students, [this demonstration of a toddler’s fascination with its body parts] served as a statement about the perception of [simulacrum of the female organ] in society.

“[Female organs] carry a lot of shame in our society,” Weinberg senior Ary Hansen said. “It’s a statement about equality and about [female organ] pride.”

I literally can’t quote anymore.  This is bad enough.

I’m so glad that people are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to have their 18 year old children turned into potty mouthed pre-schoolers.  When will this, the major vehicle for the advance of the sexular pagan epidemic in our culture, be destroyed and re-founded along classical lines.

I shan’t hold my breath.

Franciscan Vatican Developing an Enemies List? October 20, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, asshatery, disaster, error, Francis, General Catholic, horror, persecution, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

I don’t read Catholic Culture much anymore, but I always felt, after the departure of Diogenes, that Phil Lawler was their best writer.  I never had much cotton for Jeff Mirus, he who would spin doctrine into incomprehensible meaninglessness in order to maintain the fantasy that Vatican II introduced absolutely no novelties into the Faith.  I did eventually stop reading the site entirely when I tired of their constant and (I don’t think it unfair to say) outrageous fundraising, but a link from Rorate brought me to this article by Lawler, wherein he wonders just what is going on at a Vatican that appears to be compiling a very detailed enemies list, the better to serve the most merciful of pontificates (my emphasis and comments):

Last week the Vatican Insider—ordinarily a solid source of news and reasonable analysis from Rome [If more than slightly biased towards the happy-clappy, we’re all doing great! variety]—published a remarkable piece with an inflammatory headline, “Catholics who are anti-Francis but love Putin.” The article is troubling, for several reasons:

  • The article seeks to convey the impression that there is a conspiracy against Pope Francis. “The attack against Francis is global,” the authors write, a bit breathlessly.
  • The authors lump together disparate groups and individuals, with very different ideas and priorities, as if they formed a united front of opposition to the papacy. All those who have questioned public statements by Pope Francis are seen as “enemies,” not as loyal critics. [This is a vastly important point, because it points to motivations.  Those engaged in a conspiracy towards revolution invariably view their opponents not  as loyal critics or even misguided but well meaning individuals, but as enemies to the revolutionary spirit.  This is practically a cliche of the Left both historically and as it operates today]
  • As its title suggests, the article smears the Pope’s critics with the claim that they are more enthusiastic about a Russian strongman than about the Vicar of Christ. [I’m pretty cold to both, actually]
  • The authors, Giacomo Galeazzi and Andrea Tornielli are not ordinarily prone to sensationalism. They are respected reporters for La Stampa, with solid Vatican sources. Tornielli in particular has frequently broken important news stories, demonstrating that he has access to ranking insiders. Therefore….
  • Most disquieting of all, it seems likely that what Galeazzi and Tornielli wrote reflects what they have heard from their contacts in the Roman Curia. If that is the case, then some of the people surrounding Pope Francis believe that the Pontiff is the victim of a budding conspiracy. Having adopted the paranoid style, they see enemies wherever there is resistance to their agenda. [As revolutionaries are wont to do.  Personnel is policy. People tend to hire or appoint like-minded individuals.  Look at Farrell.  I have no doubt if there is a growing sense of a papacy surrounded by “enemies,” this notion starts at the top.  There have been many anecdotal stories to this effect, from the chair-throwing tantrums to the exceedingly vindictive treatment of priests, religious, and prelates who have been judged hostile to this pontificate]

[This is really important, and correlates precisely with what the Cardinal Kung Foundation has been reporting]……...On the list of papal “enemies” identified by Vatican Insider, possibly the most curious entry involves Chinese Catholics who are worried about the state of current negotiations between the Vatican and Beijing. Here it is very difficult to see how someone could be registered as an “enemy” of the Holy Father, since Pope Francis has made only a few circumspect comments about those negotiations. Nevertheless it seems clear that someone(s) inside the Vatican are unhappy with those who publicize the worries of the ‘underground’ Church in China, and remind us of the dangers of yielding to a regime that is determined to control the Church.

Think about that. The Vatican is negotiating with China. The talks are secret; no official stands have been taken, except in the most general terms. Friends of the Church in China are urging the negotiators to be mindful of the concerns of Chinese Catholics who have already suffered so much for their faith. Why would that sort of urging be seen as a sign of opposition—unless the negotiators are, indeed, prepared to sell out the interests of the ‘underground’ Church? [Ding Ding!] And why would it be seen as opposition to the Pope, who has not spoken on the issue and has presumably not been presented with an agreement to approve or reject, unless the negotiators are wrapping themselves in the mantle of papal authority? [Why indeed.  Cardinal Zen of Hong Kong has many times reported that the “negotiations” are a farce, that surrender or sacrifice, of the orthodox Church in China that has suffered unbelievably for its loyalty to Rome, is just around the corner]

……..“You can also betray a person with too much applause.”

Exactly.  And this really touches on a subject much broader than simply one really bad pontiff.  It has to do with the dangers inherent in the cult of personality that has been a growing phenomenon surrounding the papacy for centuries, but which took on entirely new dimensions after Vatican I and, even more, Vatican II.  As popes began to endorse things that had never been endorsed before, or were at least exceedingly novel and dangerous, the cloak of infallibility began to portrayed more and more as a cloak of impeccability, of popes who could do no wrong (unless they were Benedict, and, to a much lesser extent, JPII).

I’m not saying the Doctrine of infallibility is wrong; of course not, that would be heretical.  But I do fear it has been greatly misconstrued and misapplied, often for destructive ends, and the Franciscan papacy is looking more and more like an apotheosis of this tendency.

One thing I can say for sure – the millions of faithful Catholics in China who have endured decades of brutal repression and persecution are the last people anyone in the Church should ever view as an “enemy.”

Princes of the Church Cannot be Bothered to Defend the Faith, but Plan a McDonald’s at the Vatican…… October 20, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, asshatery, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, Francis, General Catholic, It's all about the $$$, Revolution, scandals, silliness, Society, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

……and there is all kinds of protest.

A culture or institution is in great sense defined by what mobilizes important personages within it to action.  While there could be additional private protests, as far as is known, a scant 10% of cardinals have decried the rapidly accelerating auto-demolition of the Church under Francis, and even that protest was meant to be private but was probably leaked by the Vatican to try to embarrass the critics into silence.

But OMG plan to open a McDonald’s on long vacant Church property near St. Peter’s, and suddenly there are very public howls of protest.  I mean, after all, we have to have our priorities.  Note that having very strong objections to large, principally American corporations, is a hallmark of the Left.  Once again, we see which religion really predominates among far too many men given the grave charge to support and defend the Faith of Jesus Christ and serve as the most influential shepherds of souls:

The decision to open a McDonald’s restaurant inside a Vatican property just around the corner from St. Peter’s Square has been met with harsh criticism from cardinals who live in the building.

But the man in charge of rolling out the project says the plan is moving forward despite disagreement.

Dubbed by some as “McVatican,” the new restaurant will be located in a Vatican property on the intersection of Rome’s Via del Mascherino and Via Borgo Pio, literally around the corner from the Vatican and St. Peter’s Basilica……..

……..In an interview with Italian newspaper La Reppublica [A very, very leftist rag, which, one, is probably the most disposed to be sympathetic to this anti-McDonald’s fervor, and, b, may say quite a bit about the complaining cardinal, that he would be willing to be quoted by one of the most anti-Church publications in Italy], Italian Cardinal Elio Sgreccia, president emeritus of the Pontifical Academy for Life, called the deal “a controversial, perverse decision to say the least.” [No wonder the Church’s pro-life efforts, especially in Europe, so often come to naught?]

The presence of the fast-food chain so close to the Vatican, he said, “is not at all respectful of the architectural and urban traditions of one of the most characteristic squares overlooking the colonnade of St. Peter visited every day by thousands of pilgrims and tourists.”

Cardinal Sgreccia called the deal “a business decision that, moreover, ignores the culinary traditions of the Roman restaurant.”……[Translation: I don’t want to see McDonald’s-eating hoi polloi around my building?]

……..In addition to Cardinal Sgreccia, who rumored to have written a letter of protest to the Pope, other cardinals living in the building have also voiced their discontent. Concern has arisen over what will become of the homeless who have been living outside the building, some of them for years, but who will be forced to leave once the restaurant is constructed[Why have they been living there for years?!?  Why didn’t the good cardinals, many with great resources at their disposal, get them help so they no longer squatted in the Vatican?!?  Is a McDonald’s more tacky than having homeless people – and you know how they often are – laying around in front of a building all the time?  Before they cleaned up the Drag (Guadalupe St) in Austin, homeless people camped out in front of a lot of the stores.  The University CO-OP, which is where you used to have to buy books back when we did such antiquated things, always had guys camped out in front, covered in urine and even feces……it was horrible.  Are they much better in Rome? What a sight for pilgrims to the Holy City!]

Cardinal Sgreccia told La Reppublica that in addition to being a “disgrace,” the McDonald’s would have been better used as a space used for “activities in defense of the needy in the area, hospitable areas of welcome and help for those who suffer, as the Holy Father teaches.” [All it takes is will.  Why didn’t you start that up?]

However, despite the aggravation of cardinals living inside the building, Cardinal Domenico Calcagno, president of APSA, has been unsympathetic, and said he doesn’t see what the problem is.

Also speaking to La Reppublica Oct. 15, Cardinal Calcagno responded to criticism surrounding the McDonalds by saying that everything was done “in respect of the law and that there will be nothing done which will go against the current rules, tradition and interests of the Holy See.”

“Above all there is respect for the law. Then the rest comes,” he said, explaining that APSA is “not prepared to make any step backward because everything is in order.”

Look, I find the idea of the golden arches in Vatican City, very near St. Peter’s, tacky as all get out.  It seems like another sign of the continuing trivialization of the Church.  One would think there could be some kind of classier joint found, one more amenable to the area’s culture and the Church’s moral and doctrinal role.  Like a Starbuck’s.

Seriously, this does raise another matter: doesn’t McDonald’s funnel money to immoral activities, like Komen and thus Planned Butcherhood?  I know they’ve been on the pseudo-sodo-marriage bandwagon for a long time.  That’s a far more serious reason not to allow McDonald’s to earn profits from pilgrims (and employees) on what is all sacred ground.  Did such important considerations even remotely enter into this decision?  From the way it sounds, not at all.

Now if this had been a Whataburger, I could have really gotten behind it.

h/t reader TE