The Future of the United States = Rhodesia? October 20, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, history, horror, persecution, rank stupidity, Revolution, sickness, Society, The End.
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.
Leftism is Evil, Vol 1,987,530,233,877,202 October 20, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, rank stupidity, Revolution, scandals, secularism, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, unadulterated evil.
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, 2016Posted 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.
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, 2016Posted 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.
……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
Climate Change Propaganda Traumatizing Children October 19, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, It's all about the $$$, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, unbelievable BS.
I’d say convincing 7 or 8 year olds that the world is is such atrocious shape that sunsets and rivers are going to disappear comes very close to child abuse. Apparently some Australian public schools have instituted climate change indoctrination starting in the 3rd grade, because to make a lifelong convert to a religion, it’s always best to get them young:
Adults aren’t falling for climate change hysteria, so warmy alarmists are now appealing to their base: pre-teen children.
Doomsday climate change lessons are being taught to children as young as eight who are concluding that human activity threatens to destroy beautiful sunsets and waterways.
Six schools in the state’s north are trialling a “world first” curriculum that is expected to be adopted across the state, if successful.
The NSW Education Department-approved trial is being run by Southern Cross University’s Lismore campus and proposes to give students from Year 3 to Year 8 “political agency” and allow them to be “experts in their own lives”.
Running in tandem with the curriculum is a challenge project in which students form their own response to climate change and how they can personally prevent mass extinctions of animals, plants and their habitats.
Some children have concluded that humans have “succeeded in destroying much of the physical world”.
In virtually the entire West, the environment is actually in extremely good shape, far better than it was 40-50 years ago. I think that improvement has come at times at far too much cost, and that limits now being imposed on industry are not really about improving the environment, but as a punitive measure against disfavored industries.
But these kids are being terrorized into believing the world is literally going to end tomorrow, or a year from tomorrow, because of supposed climate change. That’s rather like Christians terrifying children with stories of hell if they misbehave even slightly – something I’m certain the sexular pagans would find completely atrocious. I guess it all depends on which religion one is proselytizing. Environmental collapse is the fake hell equivalent of the sexular pagans, and they certainly have never had any compunction about terrorizing people with that.
For me, this seems tantamount to child abuse. I have known kids who developed severe anxiety, could not sleep, and had to be medicated (or mom and dad chose to allow them to be medicated) because of scaremongering of almost exactly this type. To a Catholic, this is outrageous, but to a sexular pagan, these morality tales are so important in forming future behavior that the benefit (obeisance to the sexular pagan cult) is worth the trauma.
Just episode #4567 indicating we are facing not a political or social ideology, but a competing religion.
German Birth Rate Hits Record High – Can You Guess Why? October 18, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, asshatery, Basics, contraception, demographics, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, Immigration, paganism, rank stupidity, Revolution, sickness, Society, unadulterated evil.
1 comment so far
I’ll take muslim Immigration for $500, Alex. The native birthrate continues to plummet to less than one child per woman. A slight acquaintance of mine who lives near Freiburg was regarded as crazy by her peers for having THREE children. What was she thinking, what with carbon emissions and global warming and starving kids in Africa and Oktoberfest and TV shows and contraception and laziness? But while German woman have one or zero kids each, enough muslims have been invited to occupy the country, and have enough babies, that the overall “German” birth rate has gone up significantly in recent years. Which is pretty much the leftist plan all along – if the electorate you have won’t give you what you want, import a new electorate.
The only silver lining is that muslim birth rates are also collapsing, and second-third generation muslims in Western countries tend to have birth rates only slightly higher than the death wish native populations. Still, cold comfort to a Europe rapidly islamizing:
east one Western European country’s birthrate has shot above replacement level, only it’s not because Germans finally had a newfound appreciation for fertility.
According to Reuters, the wave of Middle Eastern migrants into Deutschland has led the German birthrate to its highest level in 33 years.
The rate was 1.5 births per woman in 2015, up from 1.47 births a year earlier, and the highest figure since 1982 when it was 1.51. It was also the highest rate recorded since the 1990 reunification of east and west Germany.
Years of economic growth and government support have helped raise the birthrate in Germany. But the figure is still below the 2.0 births per woman that demographers define as the minimum fertility rate needed to ensure a population replaces itself.
Western Europe has some of the world’s lowest birthrates, outdone only by Japan with a staggeringly low birthrate of 1.41. In Germany, twenty-eight percent of the German people are aged 60 years or over, with the second largest middle-aged population.
In countries like Italy, the low birthrate of 1.41 has become such a problem that government sponsored PSA’s were launched hoping to entice citizens into having more children. Of course, this move severely angered the country’s child-hating feminists, who began decrying the campaign as a return to Mussolini fascism.
Is there anything feminists don’t hate, including themselves? As a tradition-embracing Catholic blogger, I complain a lot – no, it’s true – but sheesh I cannot imagine how miserable these women must be to constantly carp and bitch and whine and scream about every. little. thing. that. comes. along. Without babies, a country’s economy and then its culture will implode. But don’t dare even hint what a woman might do with her private parts, besides sterilizing them and allowing them to be used by any Tom, Dick, Jane, or Harry for 15 minutes of instantly regretted, soul-crushing “fun.” Because that’s “empowering,” which is why so many young ladies today are cutters, doped to high heaven on powerful psychoactives, or have just plain gone nuts.
Ah, yes, the alternative to the patriarchal society God-instituted by design, knowing human nature incomparably better than we ever could. So awesome!
How much do these endlessly obtuse feminists think people are going to care about women’s rights when we’re back at a 17th century level existence (if we’re lucky) following a general societal collapse brought on by death-spiral birth rates? Of course, I give them too much credit, they never think, just emote.
Still screaming at dad for ruining her life because he wouldn’t hand over the car keys.
I’ll preface my broad, sweeping attacks again by noting that there are so-called millenials (folks 16-35, roughly) who are not idiots, not whiners, and who are in fact very good, hard-working, creditable people. Having said that, this Madison Ave. defined “generation” continues to cover itself in ignominy. So thoroughly indoctrinated by leftist propaganda in the school systems (public and private)they are utterly unable to think for themselves, left with a totally distorted view of themselves as the greatest, bestest, smarterest generation ever by the disastrous self-esteem participation trophy movement, these kids are ripe for any demagogue or slick-sounding hustler to come along and sell them on some sexular pagan paradise, which these kids will learn to their great cost will be nothing of the sort.
I am amazed at how well the leftist indoctrination in the schools has played out. These kids are completely ignorant of the evils of leftism/socialism/communism and are so pumped full of media lies they actually believe George W. Bush was responsible for more deaths than Josef Stalin. Of course, the kids have to admit they have no idea who Josef Stalin was. Oh, and communism is totes great, get on board the free stuff gravy train!:
More than one in five U.S. millennials would be open to backing a communist candidate, and a third believe George W. Bush killed more people than Joseph Stalin, according to a new poll released Monday. [In their defense, what do these kids know? Virtually nothing outside what idiot box sites like Twitter, Vox, Slate, and Buzzfeed have told them. They grew up seeing Bush ’43 described as the devil himself, compared constantly to Hitler, but have probably only the foggiest notion of Josef Stalin, and have heard none of his mass murdering crimes. It is obvious kids are being intentionally dumbed down by federally funded schools far more concerned with political indoctrination than they are with giving young people a broad based education which will teach them how to think. After all, the powers that be want good, docile worker bees, not independent thinkers. The pathetic part is, these kids think they have arrived at their leftist leanings on their own, when all they are doing is parroting what they have been very carefully propagandized to say]
The poll, commissioned by the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation and carried out by YouGov, surveyed Americans of all ages about their attitudes towards communism, socialism, and the American economic system in general.
Overall, the poll found, Americans remain broadly hostile to socialism and communism, even though 67 percent of the populace believes rich people don’t pay “their fair share” and 52 percent believe America’s economic system works against them. [And they may be right. After all, the vast preponderance of the most wealthy in this country hold leftist opinions, and I don’t see any of them volunteering to overpay their taxes by several hundred percent. But the cultural assumption is that the rich is made up of right-wingers. That hasn’t been the case for 20 years or more as the same cultural forces that are producing a whole generation well disposed towards leftism first moved through the elite levels of society, who all attend the same prep schools, Ivy league colleges, and have developed into a terrifyingly monolithic block of opinion totally disdainful of traditional values and especially Christianity]
But American millennials are more sympathetic towards communism, the survey found. While 57 percent of respondents overall had a “very unfavorable” view of communism, only 38 percent of millennials felt the same way. Close to 20 percent said they were likely to vote for a self-described communist, while barely 50 percent said they were likely to vote for a self-described capitalist.
Millennials were also more likely to take a favorable view of communist leaders. Twenty-five percent view Soviet revolutionary leader Vladimir Lenin positively. Eighteen percent were favorable towards Chinese dictator Mao Zedong, despite a body count in the tens of millions. Thirty-four percent were favorable to Karl Marx, and 37 percent were favorable to revolutionary and T-shirt fixture Che Guevara. [Didja know Che was the scion of a guilt-ridden wealthy heretical leftist Spanish Catholic family that fled Spain when Franco quite rightly won the Spanish Civil War? Another person who never learned to think beyond his programming. He wanted to help the poor by……..miring them in even more grinding communist poverty! Or maybe he just wanted power for himself and all his high-minded rhetoric was just a means to that end]
A full third of millennials believe U.S. president George W. Bush is is responsible for more deaths than Soviet leader Joseph Stalin…….[This has to be the most offensively stupid thing I’ve read this year that didn’t come from Francis or one of his flunkies]
……..Notably, despite his infamous purges, Stalin enjoys a 12 percent approval rating with millennials.
Useful idiots. That’s all they are.
And oh gee giant surprise the whole BLM movement and the violence outside Trump rallies is just political theater organized and carried out by a tiny group of paid demonrat revolutionaries. But you knew that already.
Evil Anniversary: Planned Butcherhood 100 Years Old October 17, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, asshatery, contraception, disaster, error, General Catholic, horror, It's all about the $$$, paganism, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, unadulterated evil.
Hard to believe the evil creation of the diabolical Margaret Sanger has been around 100 years. It shows how long the several decay in moral standards in our culture goes back. It is also interesting to contemplate where Sanger first got radicalized – the women’s suffrage movement – and the inseparable ties between that movement and attacks on the moral order. There really was then, and remains today (far more so), a desire to destroy the Christian moral order and upend patriarchy. What evil hath been wrought to this end is beyond human comprehension:
As this month marks Planned Parenthood’s 100th anniversary, we should pause and consider its destructive legacy.
Founded by eugenicist Margaret Sanger in 1916, what is now known as the Planned Parenthood Federation of America began as a small birth control clinic in New York City. Sanger was motivated by her belief that artificial birth control and eugenics would “assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit,” including “morons” and “various criminal types” who “populate the slums.”
Today, Planned Parenthood affiliates operate over 650 clinics across the country and the organization is America’s leading abortion provider, performing 324,000 abortions last year, which works out to about one abortion every 98 seconds.
Over 57 million abortions have been performed in the United States in the years leading up to and following the tragic Roe v. Wade decision by an activist Supreme Court. Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood has worked tirelessly to make abortion the cornerstone of Sanger’s legacy. What is that legacy?
- Fighting parental notification laws that protect children who seek abortions.
- Advocating for taxpayer-funded abortion in the United States and overseas. [Now the official position of the demonrat party]
- Attacking life-affirming pregnancy resource centers that provide humane abortion alternatives.
- Opposing laws guaranteeing informed consent for women seeking abortions.
- Opposing partial-birth abortion bans.
- Opposing bans on sex-selective abortion.
- Opposing laws that protect children that survive abortions.
- Opposing commonsense health and safety standards for abortion facilities.
- Using its 501(c)(4) advocacy arm to spend $30 million electing pro-abortion politicians to public office. [a few more: covering up child sex abuse, covering up sex trafficking of minors and adults, condoning and covering up sexual slavery, performing abortions on minors without parental notification, etc., etc. This is the locus of demonic sacrifice that gives supernatural impetus to the general attack on the moral order]
Planned Parenthood purports to provide a wide range of health care, but its own data reveals that it is a profit-driven, abortion-centric organization.
……….Despite its leading position in the abortion industry, Planned Parenthood continues to receive hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars through grants and reimbursements every year. Planned Parenthood’s most recent annual report reveals it received over $550 million from taxpayers last year alone.
Hillary desires to increase that to up to nearly $1 billion by the end of her first term. Planned Barrenhood then turns around and uses federal tax dollars – your money, and mine – to attack its opponents and aggressively advocate not only for abortion but for an whole swath of gravely immoral programs, from the indoctrination of children into perversion and degrading practices, to “free” contraception. And all along, they work feverishly with groups like Komen to keep the extremely strong links between chemical birth control/abortion use and various deadly cancers under wraps. Why do you think Banned Parenthood utterly freaked out when Komen tried to cut off funds in 2012? It wasn’t because they were overly afraid it would lead to a stampede of de-funding, but because cutting that tie could have permitted Komen to start to publicize this well known, if deeply memory-holed, link.
Explosive Question: Should Women’s Suffrage Be Abolished? October 17, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, Domestic Church, error, family, foolishness, General Catholic, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, suicide, Tradition, Virtue.
Reader TT sent me a recommendation to a short book that contains two lectures given by the Catholic Bishop of Denver, CO, J.P. Machebeuf, in 1877. In those lectures, basing his reasoning almost entirely on the Epistles of Saint Paul – that is, inspired and inerrant Scripture – Bishop Machebeuf argues passionately against women’s suffrage – then a growing cause celebre among the nascent progressive faction in this country. I read this book months ago, and have been meaning to blog on it for some time, but never took the time to sit down and try to frame the matter in a way I thought would provide a reasonable discussion, as opposed to instant recourse to emotion.
Machebeuf relies principally on the following quotes from Scripture in his argument:
I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ and the head of every woman is the man and the head of Christ is God; the woman is the glory of the man, for the man was not created for the woman but the woman for the man (I Cor xi:13).
Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord, because the husband is the head of the woman as Christ is the head of the Church. Therefore as the Church is subject to Christ, so also let the women be to their husbands in all things. (Eph v:22).
I will therefore, that men pray in every place……..In like manner the women also, in decent apparel, adorning themselves with modesty and sobriety…..as it becometh a woman professing Godliness with good works. Let the women learn in silence, with all subjection, but I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over man, but to be in silence, for Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not seduced, but the woman being seduced was in the transgression; yet she shall be saved through child bearing, if she continue in faith andlove and sanctification in sobriety (I Tim ii: 6- 8)
To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband’ s power, and he shall have dominion over thee. (Gen iii:16)
From these scriptural quotes – which are not being relayed outside modifying context, I would judge – and a few others, Bishop Machebeuf argues against allowing women the vote. He also uses his assessments of the peculiarities of female nature as arguments against women’s suffrage, finding women perhaps more inclined to emotionalism, less inclined to the broader, long-range common good (as opposed to their own perceived, individual good), and perhaps less well disposed for making such decisions. He also feels women’s involvement in politics, even simply as an involved voter, would detract time from women’s primary duty in providing for the household and rearing the (hopefully many) children. Primarily, however, the bishop finds women’s suffrage an affront to what he understands as God’s divinely revealed order, an order which places women, in such matters as the public trust, if not subordinate to men, at least in no position to dictate to men, through their vote, how public affairs should be conducted.
Bishop Machebeuf also presciently notes that the matter of women’s suffrage was simply the tip of the spear for a much broader move towards “women’s rights,” or the general trend towards feminism we have seen wreak such havoc on the family and culture over the past several decades. He had the foresight to see that the then very small women’s movement would metamorphose into a mass movement dedicated to the destruction of the moral order ordained by God. A couple of quotes on this matter suffice to reveal the whole:
[The woman] cannot perform the duties of both man and woman at the same time, which makes it impossible for a woman to be a faithful wife and mother, attend to her household duties, and hold a public office – which seems to be the main object of the friends of women’s rights [Demonstrating that the Bishop foresaw, quite rightly, that the women’s suffrage movement was not just about giving women “equality” with men in terms of voting, but even putting them in positions of authority over men in the temporal realm by seeing women elected to public office. Now we stand on the precipice of seeing perhaps the most amoral character in American political history elected to the highest office of the land. And that character is a woman]
You know, beloved brethren, what some of those discontented women want; they want to shake off the authority of men, they want to turn upside down the order established by a just God, they want to rule over man.
What are we to make of this? Is this just some uncomfortable relic from a bygone, far less enlightened age, or could the bishop perhaps be onto something? Obviously, his thinking is entirely absent from the public mind of the Church today, at least outside maybe a few isolated individuals (who are treated as crackpots), but we also know the “public mind” of the Church, as expressed by the large majority of bishops, priests, cardinals, and lay people, is at divergence with the perennial belief and practice of the Faith on a vast panoply of subjects. That is to say, simply because his belief seems very much at odds with the beliefs posited by the vast majority of those who claim the name Catholic today, that does not mean they are necessarily wrong because of it.
One way to look at this subject, perhaps, is to look at the course of history in the many nations that have adopted practically universal suffrage, including women, over the past century or so. Has that trend not been overwhelmingly towards the left, towards self-seeking, and towards the undermining of the moral and religious order and its replacement with an entirely new and hostile order oriented towards paganism, immorality, totalitarian government, and selfishness? Polls in this and most every Western country reveal that women are far more likely to vote for the left-wing candidate than men. They have played a vital part of the left-wing coalition in this and many other countries. The rise of the Left has been a disaster for the Church and for the moral order, generally.
Interestingly, Bishop Machebeuf predicted that this would happen, that as women diverted attention from the home and rearing of children, towards what they were told would be the greener pastures of political and economic “empowerment,” that the rearing of children would necessarily suffer, and that neglect and the relaxation of familial and societal moral discipline would soon lead to a general, and grave, moral decay.
Bishop Machebeuf does not say in so many words, but what he is arguing in favor of, and what he reveals to be divinely ordained by God through Scripture, is that virtual curse-word today, a patriarchal society. It is very clear today, and has been for some decades, that the radical feminist movement, which was given birth (apropos turn of phrase, no?) by the women’s suffrage movement (and has continued to use many of the same methods), has developed into a movement oriented towards the destruction of the traditional patriarchal society and its replacement with something different and far more destructive. Since patriarchy is so clearly endorsed by Scripture, feminists have both waged war, and sought to co-opt, Christian leaders into their movement, even though in so doing, those leaders have helped hasten the destruction of their religion and the entire moral order. It is little wonder that it was only ten years from the institution of women’s suffrage in the United States, and the approval of contraceptive use by a major non-Catholic ecclesial body (Lambeth Conference, 1930). The decline of the moral order has unalterably advanced since then.
Am I calling for the abolishing of women’s suffrage? Perhaps in theory, though not very strongly even there. I think the bishop basically right in his assessment, but I do wonder why there are not more texts of this type that have come down to us. Was Bishop Machebeuf an outlier, even 140 years ago? Or is his rare “hardness” or orthodoxy in this matter simply an early indication of the grave problems inherent in the American episcopate all along, but which would not reveal themselves en masse until about a century later?
Either way, we are about 500 billion miles from this being even a remotely viable issue or something to push for, publicly. The vast majority of people, even – or, especially – those who call themselves Christian and/or Catholic, are so totally convinced that women voting is such a natural good, such an inviolable right, that even broaching the subject (outside a specialty audience like those who tend to read this blog) would be, at present, simply to instantly discredit oneself, or have oneself labeled as a member of the lunatic fringe. Then again, Catholics – true Catholics – have always been perceived as such by the society at large.
Having said that, another thing TT sent me, a link to a post by Mundabor, contains relevant argumentation that is probably better than I could make. It’s said a bit more strongly than I would phrase things (as you know, I am always so milquetoast and diplomatic), and overlooks one reality – that the female readers of my blog and probably his, too, are far better informed and make far better choices than the vast majority of men out there in the general populace – but he does provide a helpful condensation of the arguments it would take me many hours to frame. So take this for what you will, and I look forward to the discussion that will follow (emphasis in original):
It fills me with rage at this stupid age to know that, in the most crucial US election in the last decades, there is such a discrepancy between female and male voter orientation. It seems that this wave of Reprobation (make no mistake: voting for Clinton can only be a mortal sin) is mainly fueled by the female sex, who is more prone to swallow hook, line and sinker all the rubbish about the “first female President”, the “objectifying of women” and all that insignificant noise meant to cover the real issues: the fact that Christian heritage and fundamental liberties (besides the Country’s security) may well be at stake.
Women of past ages knew very well that it was better for them that only men could vote, or be a judge. It helped a lot to keep the emotions out, and preserve an ordered society. It prevented the brutal emotional manipulation of serious issues we see today.
In a society in which only males can vote you can’t get very far with the emotional appeal to the “poor pregnant girl”. In a society in which only males can vote you could never attack the Second Amendment. In a society in which only male can vote not only Trump would clean up, but you would probably have a better Democrat opponent in the first place……..[I don’t think this goes nearly far enough. If there had never been women’s suffrage, I don’t think there would have ever been a Trump, or a nation fallen far enough to give us two such unworthy candidates.]
…….Women suffrage has done great damage to women. It has allowed them to hurt themselves in so many ways: with abortion, with divorce, with a stupid push for an “emancipation” that has become a double burden, with the attempt to dismantle a patriarchal society that served them so much better than making of them the toys of many men…….
………It would be better for everyone, and particularly for women, if they were not allowed to vote. In time, this would cause a reversion to what every Catholic (that is: sensible) woman must wish: a solidly patriarchal society honoring women for their real qualities and helping them to give the best of their feminine nature, whilst stifling the self-destructive tendencies unavoidably generated by their (otherwise so beautifully) emotional nature.
Two thousand words is very long for a blog post, so I’ll end here, but I’ve really only scratched the surface of a very complex, and important, topic. I may err above where I say debating this will confine one to a lunatic fringe; not that I’m wrong about how people would receive such an argument, but as to whether that matters or not. That is to say, the truth must be revealed no matter how it is received.
So, perhaps we’ll have more on this topic in the future.