Comrade, Hate Your Da*nable Whiteness March 17, 2017Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, disaster, error, foolishness, non squitur, persecution, Revolution, scandals, secularism, Society, unadulterated evil.
So, all whites are irredeemably racist. Sounds racist to me:
Somehow the anti-racism movement of the 50s and 60s has transmogrified into a racial supremacist movement in its own right, directed against the “deplorables.” Basically this is an attempt to punish whitey for voting the “wrong” way.
The increasing dominance of the democrat party by the hard left has pushed theminto being repugnant to increasing numbers of Americans. Their electoral hopes outside their coastal enclaves increasingly depends on unfettered Hispanic immigration. That, and massive fraud. Outside urban voters and their small but hard core of progressive activists, the democrat agenda has become increasingly toxic to most Americans. They are now more or less attempting to bully and threaten into voting D. The message is clear: the best, perhaps only way for whites to “prove” they are not racist is by shutting up, paying ever increasing taxes to mollify the democrat base, and voting D.
Over 20 years ago, a corporate diversity officer for a Fortune 100 company laid it all out plain as day. The point of all the mandatory diversity indoctrination was to fundamentally remake America into a multicultural (read: leftist) utopia by discriminating against whites. Even if white males were more qualified or had better records, the preference would be towards “minorities.” There was also a heavy revenge element involved. The perception was that white males had kept others down for centuries and now it was their turn to suffer. I do not exaggerate, the diversity officerette stated all this and more straight up and plain as day. You could either shut up, get with their program, or expect a short and unsuccessful career. That company is a major federal contractor. Don’t think that incidental.
And that was 1994.. They’ve only become more radicalized and unhinged since.
The sickeningly lost far left “ethicist” Dr. Peter Singer is at it again, opining that intellectually disabled children are less “valuable” than animals. This kind of wholly perverse, reprobate sense is where the inevitable logic of the leftist-materialist conception of the world will drive someone – to the brink of insanity and right over it.
In his apologetics for infanticide, Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer has used a baby with Down syndrome as an example of a killable infant based on utilitarian measurements. (He actually supports infanticide because babies–whether disabled or not–are, in his view, not “persons.”)
To Singer, moral value primary comes from intellectual capacities, and that means that developmentally and cognitively disabled human beings (also, the unborn and infants) have less value than other human beings, and indeed, a lower worth than some animals. [Since he bases his view of a right to life on such arbitrary standards, when super-brilliant AI machines get developed by stupid technologists who create what they cannot control, and they develop capacities infinitely above human intelligence, Singer will have no complaint when they decide to kill all of us off? What is the floor of intelligence that allows one to have a right to life? Who gets to decide this? Deranged imbeciles like Singer? What is different between Nazi’s deciding all Jews (and Catholics and Gypsies and others) had to die based on their own arbitrary definitions on who gets to live, and Singer’s? I suppose we can thank God that Singer is not, yet, empowered to make such decisions.]
Were society to ever adopt Singer’s bigoted anti-human exceptionalism views, it would mark the end of universal human rights, opening the door to tyrannical pogroms against the most weak and vulnerable–you know, the kind of people that the Singers of the world deem resource wasters. [Materialists almost always posit life as a zero sum game – if someone is better off, that means someone else must of necessity be worse off. In a sick sort of way, they demand the deaths of others so they can have it better.]
It would also break the spine of unconditional love, as our children would have to earn their place by possessing requisite capacities.
Take the recent statements by Singer, published in the Journal of Practical Ethics in which he explains why he would adopt a child with Down syndrome out (my emphasis).
He then expresses a profound bigotry against people with cognitive and developmental disabilities:.
For me, the knowledge that my [hypothetical Down] child would not be likely to develop into a person whom I could treat as an equal, in every sense of the word, who would never be able to have children of his or her own, who I could not expect to grow up to be a fully independent adult, and with whom I could expect to have conversations about only a limited range of topics would greatly reduce my joy in raising my child and watching him or her develop. [You are an idiot. Thank God He never gave you such a child. The parents of Down Syndrome children I know often regard them as the easiest child to love, as they have no guile, they are as simple, kind, and genuine as one can be. And yet, very soon, in many countries Down Syndrome people will cease to exist. No “downie” has been born in Iceland, for instance, in nearly a decade. All have been killed via elective abortion.]
“Disability” is a very broad term, and I would not say that, in general, “a life with disability” is of less value than one without disability. Much will depend on the nature of the disability. [What if we have a vote, and decide old age is a disability, consumes a disproportionate amount of medical resources for “little” return, and kill everyone over age 70? How would he feel about that? Age brings with it inevitable disabilities. Singer, BTW, turns 71 this year.]
But let’s turn the question around, and ask why someone would deny that the life of a profoundly intellectually disabled human being is of less value than the life of a normal human being.
Most people think that the life of a dog or a pig is of less value than the life of a normal human being. On what basis, then, could they hold that the life of a profoundly intellectually disabled human being with intellectual capacities inferior to those of a dog or a pig is of equal value to the life of a normal human being? [Because we’re not pathologically mendacious God-denying amoral monsters like you! Humans are special, humans are even sacred, in a sense, because they are created in the image and likeness of God. Denying that leads one open to such gross evils in thinking as Singer routinely demonstrates. I would also ask, hypothetically, how do you “prove” that a dog or a pig or a fruit fly has greater intellectual capacity to a human? All but the most profoundly disabled people – and note how he mixes, probably deliberately, the notion that someone with Down’s is inevitably profoundly disabled, which is not always the case – can speak, something no dog or pig has ever done.]
This sounds like speciesism to me, and as I said earlier, I have yet to see a plausible defence of speciesism. After looking for more than forty years, I doubt that there is one. [I just gave you one, the difference is, we humans have infinite worth, in all of our individual forms of being, because God gave us that worth by creating us in His image. The extremely ugly, utilitarian world you posit, Singer, is a direct result of your rejection of God. I take it Singer has never read Solzhenitsyn, and if he has, he didn’t understand it at all.]
I would also add, this is the kind of inanity that an intellectual comes up with in trying to justify abortion on demand. That is the specter looming over everything Singer says, the unacknowledged “god” of his moral universe whose awful appetite he must seek to rationalize away.
Speaking of insanity, ever read the history of the various factions of the Japanese far left during the late 60s and early 70s? In addition to helping found the PLO and stage some of their most horrific early terror attacks, in 1972 they purged half their own membership by murdering them in miserable ways. They then took a hostage and staged a week long standoff with the Japanese police. They were finally arrested after killing two cops and an innocent bystander.
No, not everyone who falls into liberalism will eventually become a hard leftist and even murderously unsane, but the logic of the belief system always tends in that direction. The fact that abortion is the most sacred policy position/religious doctrine of the ideological left is bloody testimony to that fact.
You won’t get much argument from me. Of course, we know that, in the end, Christ and His Church – including all the Truth He has revealed – will prevail. But we also know that the end of the world will be preceded by a great apostasy, the horrific persecution of true religion, the standing up of a satanic cult in the place of that religion, and a man of sin preceding the antichrist. That is to say, the Church, in her human element, will all but be destroyed. The preponderance of thinking among Fathers and Doctors has been that this would be a rapid process, taking place over a few years. Maybe it will be more drawn out, however.
Michael Matt categorizes just a small number of the recent atrocities emanating from Rome and the episcopate at large. It seems Soros money may well be pouring into Amchurch and significantly influencing attitudes – or at least making possible closer coordination between already progressive bishops and the broader anti-Trump push that is presently ongoing (to a degree that is astounding – virtually every single protest, town hall, riot, etc., has been astroturf, planned, organized, funded, and directed by Soros money. None of this is genuine).
What we are seeing certainly seems like a coalescing – in the open, as opposed to the dark corners in which they normally operate – of a transnational one world one religion global elite. Note Matt’s comments that what is being pointed at in all this is a call to conversion, but a conversion to what? There are strong rumors of an intercommunion declaration for Lutherans, whether they want one or not (that is, a wholly one-sided, Catholic affair, a surrender). I’m quite certain that won’t be the end of it. I also like the note that they seem to be rushing to get things done, this year. Given the portentuous anniversaries this year represents, that’s something worth pondering.
What do you make of the conclusion that Francis must be opposed? Is Francis not deviating from the Faith, and obviously, openly so? Goodness now even open fornicators/cohabitators are to be “welcomed,” not admonished or exhorted to convert!
And we all know just what this means – as the initial arguments by Church (maybe I should say “Church”) leftists like Curran and others in favor of contraception were supposed to be limited to mature, faithful, devout married couples, discerning in conscience whether to use contraception or not, we have seen how the Church, as people experience it in almost all local parishes, in practice tacitly now endorses, or at least never condemns (which is the same thing), contraception use by anyone at any time. So it will be with communion for divorcees and now, apparently, fornicators – there will be much brave talk of “paths of discernment” and “mature accompaniment,” but in the end – and it will take zero time – we all know that what will emerge is a deliberate, if unspoken, destruction of the Church’s condemnation of fornication and adultery (with many more coming).
That’s the end goal. That’s your “new church” coming into being. Liberal protestantism. The far left of the Lutheran spectrum and/or US mainstream Episcopalianism, which is beyond moribund and will soon die. That’s what the West’s elites want to propose as a one world religion, but islam will mow it down.
IOW, viz yesterday’s fisking, it is about subordinating the Faith to the progressive zeitgeist. You can see exactly how that will play out in that post.
Uncovering scandals in the Archdiocese of New York, or chastising Bishop McElroy’s latest idiocy, is essentially meaningless if you refuse to discuss the elephant in the Church. I assume you know to whom I am referring.
If the SSPX Regularizes Under Francis, There Will Be No Going Back February 28, 2017Posted by Tantumblogo in different religion, error, Francis, General Catholic, persecution, SSPX, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
Rorate Caeli, with all the good work they do, continues to hint strongly that an accord regularizing the SSPX is very close to being finalized. Rorate has also long indicated their unqualified support for this regularization to occur, even, or especially?, under Francis. The great hope, I believe, is that regularization of the canonical status of the SSPX will introduce a great leaven into the Church, strengthening the cause of Tradition all around and hastening the much longed for restoration of Holy Mother Church. Of course, most feel there is much to be desired in regularization as an end to itself, as something that is very necessary for the good of the souls within or associated with the Society of St. Pius X.
I have not been so wholeheartedly in favor of this regularization, at least not now, under Francis, because I see the man as having a very clear agenda to wholly remake the Church, and that does not include long “permitting” recalcitrant recusants like the SSPX and others who hold to the great Tradition of our Faith to remain even a minor annoyance. Many in the Society seem aware of the potential for danger, even what might be called a “betrayal,” in the regularization, for the same penalties and attempts at co-opting made in the 70s and 80s seem to be at least quite possible in the present-day Church environment, but some tend to brush these concerns aside, claiming that if the Society could “escape” the post-conciliar milieu once, they can do it again. It is this kind of thinking I’d like to address in this post.
But before I do, at what cost will the regularization be granted? I am supremely doubtful that Francis regularizing the SSPX without any changes in thought, practice, or behavior on their part is simply one of his patented acts of mercy. Indeed, some believe there already exist hints that the Society IS changing in response to the potential for regularization. An anonymous priest recently levied the charge that the SSPX has been noticeably quiet in response to many of Francis’ errors and attacks on the Faith. A brief review of the SSPX website covering articles going back a month or so does not reveal any specific criticisms of the present pontificate, even though there are continuing general explorations of the problems of the post-conciliar Church and even the notion of papal heresy considered generally. Those who follow the SSPX more closely than I do (which is hardly at all) may rebut this particular claim. Even still, I would find it remarkable if this pontiff would really regularize the SSPX without some kind of quid pro quo. And let’s consider this, even if there is no quid pro quo demanding SSPX silence on certain matters, is it not human nature to want to play it safe during periods of delicate negotiation and subsequent “re-entry” into the full, regular life of the Church?
I’d also like to note that I am not entirely comfortable with the sense of fear and trepidation I have over regularization now, under Francis, while I certainly desire it as an overall objective to be realized. Part of me desires to see the SSPX enjoy full canonical recognition/regularity instantly, which would largely simply recognize their reality as being Catholic and part of the Church. I have a certain measure of guilt over my sense that this accord, if it occurs, will be supremely dangerous to the cause of Tradition and could even set it back decades, erasing all the small gains made in recent years and pushing whatever tiny bit of tradition remains to the extreme fringes of the Church, if not wholly outside it. But I completely understand the “regularization now is the only acceptable stand” arguments and on many levels wish I could share them.
But regarding regularization and then some kind of betrayal, could the SSPX simply “go back?” We have to look at the history. Archbishop Lefebvre did not set out to create a canonically irregular body “separated” from the Roman authority or somehow at odds with it. He simply wanted to preserve some semblance of the traditional practice of the Faith amidst the insanity of the immediate post-VII years, so he started a seminary to continue training priests in the pre-conciliar ways. As was inevitable in Church of the 70s, most bishops and powers in Rome were overtly hostile to this new priestly society. It didn’t take long before charges of disobedience were levied and refusals to abandon the traditional practice of Faith – the Catholic Faith – resulted in a certain ostracization from the “mainstream Church.” Eventually the issue was forced by various matters, especially the consecrations of 1988, for which Lefebvre, the four consecrated bishops, and others directly involved were excommunicated. Some of those excommunications were lifted by Pope Benedict XVI, but the canonical irregularity has remained.
The reason I go over this very complex history, admittedly very briefly, is because it is critical to understand that what happened then is radically different to what would have to occur if the SSPX is regularized, finds its situation intolerable, and then tries to revert to its present status. What occurred very gradually and under very different circumstances then – a gradual process of alienation between the SSPX and the authorities in Rome – would have to occur suddenly, almost violently, should the Society be regularized. Back in 1974, say, no one knew what would develop 5 or 10 or 15 years later, what the “end point” would be. But today the situation would be inverted, where all would know exactly what was in the offing and what the final destination would be – more excommunications, loss of canonical status, etc. This is huge.
Then there is the factor of human nature. After fighting a long, lonely struggle for decades, and finally achieving fully regular canonical status, would the wherewithal really exist to separate themselves again should things go south? It took an enormously charismatic, convicted figure in Archbishop Lefebvre to create and hold together the SSPX during its initial, very trying period of formation and then alienation from authority. Does such a figure exist today? Again, it is so important to note that everyone now knows where another irreconcilable dispute between Rome and the SSPX will lead to, instantly, this time. None of that was certain or known when Archbishop Lefebvre was treading these choppy waters decades ago.
From a psychological perspective, for a very long time, the Society maintained that they did not need to “return” to the Church, but that the Church needed to return to herself, and then reconciliation would occur naturally. Almost, in a sense, “Rome” coming hat in hand to the Society begging forgiveness for having lost its collective mind in the 60s and 70s and asking readmittance to the Church the SSPX had maintained. Whether that notion was ever realistic or not, the point is, Rome has not changed. In fact, under Francis, it has gotten far worse than it’s been in decades. Will a return at this time not entail a certain surrender of the vital, animating focal point of the Society’s existence?
Our experience in recent years with other, admittedly much more secular organizations, is that those who have resisted the secular pagal progressive zeitgeist for years, even decades, and then surrender on some key point – like the Boy Scouts – quickly surrender on all or many points of vital import. Resistance becomes totally untenable. They become co-opted, as it were, by the process of accommodating whatever it is the powers that be demand of them.
I’m sure people within the SSPX ,or closer to it than I am, have hashed over these matters in far more detail than I can. Indeed, the SSPX-SO split off because they see regularization as tantamount to surrender. I’m sure they’re aware of the risks. At least, I hope they are. Because I fear what is at stake in this process is far more than the canonical status of the SSPX, but possibly the entire traditional practice of the Faith, extending to the Ecclesia Dei communities, tradition-embracing religious orders, and even Summorum Pontificum and the ability of some diocesan priests, under friendlier bishops than we’ve had here in Dallas, to offer the TLM. All of these latter entities either came into being as a direct result of the SSPX’s existence, and the pressure that existence exerted on the Church. Indeed, many of them were created or allowed to exist both as a form of pressure on the SSPX (keeping people who otherwise might have associated formally with the SSPX from doing so) and as a carrot to lure them “back.” If the SSPX is regularized and back within the fold, then what purpose do those things serve anymore, from a realpolitik point of view? None. How long will the be permitted to continue to exist?
These men in power today in Rome, they do not fool around, and they despise all things traditional to a degree many readers would find unimaginable. Is this a leap of Faith, trusting in God’s Grace to prevail in the end, or a leap into the abyss? On a cost-benefit ratio, do the benefits come close to equaling the dangers here?
Anyway, those are my concerns. Some will think this makes me a bad Catholic and short on faith, but I simply see so much danger here, and we have the example of the Franciscans of the Immaculate to guide us. I’m also less and less sure what real meaning canonical regularity has in a Church where adultery is praised and fornicators are held up as virtuous examples for the rest of us, while being a faithful soul is excoriated as the very worst kind of person to be. With this kind of rank (and mass) moral inversion ongoing, the finer points of canonical regularity seem like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
An Accurate Assessment from Iraq: “[Obama] despises Christians” February 27, 2017Posted by Tantumblogo in disaster, Ecumenism, episcopate, error, foolishness, Francis, General Catholic, Holy suffering, horror, persecution, sadness, scandals, sickness, Society, the enemy, unadulterated evil.
I’d say that’s about right. The article below details recent muslim atrocities against Christians around the world, focusing on the near total destruction of the ancient Christian communities of Assyria, which were all but obliterated by the invasion of ISIS into this region in 2014. Now that ISIS is being forced out of Assyria in a very half-hearted, desultory manner, some Christians are returning to relate the horrors they experienced at the hands of this terror group, which the US originally helped back and arm when it was thought, among our unqualified, really dumb “elites,” that ‘anybody but Assad’ was an appropriate policy for Syria and the Mideast:
Reports of Christian life under the Islamic State (ISIS) continued throughout November. Many of these came from the ancient Christian towns surrounding Mosul, such as Batnaya and Qaraqosh, conquered by ISIS in August, 2014, and liberated in late October, 2016.
One Christian man, Esam, from Qaraqosh, related what ISIS did after his sister’s husband refused to convert to Islam: “He was crucified and tortured in front of his wife and children, who were forced to watch. They [ISIS] told him that if he loved Jesus that much, he would die like Jesus.” The Islamic militants tortured his brother-in-law from 6 in the evening until 11: “[T]hey cut his stomach open and shot him before leaving him hanging, crucified.” Two other members of Esam’s family, a Christian couple, were abducted and separated by ISIS. To this day, the husband does not know where his wife is; he only knows that she was turned into a concubine, a sex-slave…….
………Another handful of Christians told how they “were threatened, forced to spit on a crucifix or convert to Islam,” but they “miraculously survived more than two years under Islamic State group rule.”……
……..Before being driven out of these now-liberated Christian towns around Mosul, ISIS plantedexplosive devices in teddy bears and toys that would be detonated when children picked them up, “killing unsuspecting families.”
Those who survived ISIS, accused former U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama of doing nothing when Iraq’s largest Christian city, Qaraqosh, fell to the Islamic terrorists more than two years ago, when its Christian population was over 50,000. One man said, “Obama has never helped the Christians. In fact, he despises them. In the last 26 months, he has shown he despises all of them. But we have hope in the new president, Trump.” A Catholic priest said: “The US government led by President Obama could have protected us – or at least helped us to protect ourselves. But unfortunately Obama abandoned us.” A young girl wearing a cross added: “We hope this new guy called Trump will help us more than Obama did.” [I would add, given the scale of the tragedy, Francis and the Church at large have been far too silent on the horrific persecutions Christians and Catholics in particular are suffering around the world]
Hey, muslims take care of their own. I know with complete certitude that Obama is no Christian, and I believe the evidence that he is either a practicing muslim or overwhelmingly sympathetic to them is overwhelming.
The article goes on to list an amazing list of atrocities perpetrated by muslims against Christians, which all occurred in one month, November 2016. There are over 20 separate attacks listed, and this list is most likely quite partial.
If one didn’t know better, you’d almost think there’s a religiously motivated war going on, but thank goodness, we know that’s not the case. Francis has told us so, even going so far as to claim that there is no such thing as “muslim terror.”
Francis will probably be dead and buried before the folly of his interreligious fantasizing really becomes apparent, with large sections of Europe being overrun by the forces of islam. Whether Rome will be one of those remains to be seen, but given the large and increasingly radical “refugee” populace there, the Church’s ancient home may eventually become untenable. That seems unthinkable, but given the trends abroad in the world, the unthinkable is becoming increasingly likely.
Milo What? Islamic Professor Defends Rape and Slavery at Georgetown February 24, 2017Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disaster, Ecumenism, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, Immigration, It's all about the $$$, persecution, rank stupidity, scandals, sickness, Society, unadulterated evil.
As you can guess, the reaction to the proclamation of these particular abhorrent beliefs has been just a little bit different from what was directed at Milo, because a prof is a member of the great left-wing machine and leftists always take care of their own. h/t to reader skeinster who sent this along (I know reports of this have been around for a while but they were fairly scattered so it’s likely many have not seen this):
Two weeks ago today, a professor from Georgetown University publicly rose to the defense of slavery and rape, and not a single major media outlet—with the exception of a blogger on the Washington Post website and a brief posting on foxnews.com—has said a word about it. The absence of outrage is not hard to figure out: Jonathan Brown’s defense was limited to Islam. [yet another sign that islam is the de facto state religion of this country]
Brown, a convert to Islam, holds an endowed chair in Islamic studies at Georgetown. The Jesuit-run institution has a wealthy benefactor in Saudi Arabia, a nation which bans Christianity. How sweet.
What did Georgetown get from this arrangement? Money, and a lot of it. Twelve years ago, Saudi Arabia wrote a check to the Jesuit-run institution for $20 million; it went to support the school’s Center for Muslim Christian Understanding, run by Brown. And what did Saudi Arabia get from this peculiar “understanding”? Legitimacy. [And much more than that. They got the silence of a Catholic university on the evils of islam. They got influence at a body that in turns greatly influence mainstream Catholic thought. They got influence on American and Catholic thought leaders for years to come. They got more and more acceptance of the idea that islam is deserving of special rights and privileges]
The fruit from this decayed tree is now apparent. Georgetown now employs a tenured professor who defends slavery and rape, provided the slavemasters and rapists are Muslims. This is apparently Georgetown’s idea of diversity. It also shows how phony the school is. Why all the handwringing about Georgetown’s ownership of American slaves in the 19th century when it employs defenders of slavery today?
Brown’s position was not made in the heat of debate. If anything, his comments were well prepared: they were delivered at the Islamic Institute for Islamic Thought. After being criticized by some, he tried to walk it back, offering a lame Tweet that meant nothing.
“As a category, as a conceptual category that exists throughout states and trans-historically,” Brown said clumsily, “there’s no such thing as slavery.” It gets better. “I don’t think you can talk about slavery in Islam until you realize that there is no such thing as slavery.” [Naturally. If you can’t defend your religion’s behavior on a subject, pretend the subject doesn’t exist. Also, taqqiyah.]
It is not certain what Brown would say to slaves in Mauritania and Somalia today—they are owned by their Muslim masters. Would he tell them to stop promoting fake news?……..
Brown is also incompetent. If slavery doesn’t exist in Muslim-run nations, why the need to justify it? “Slavery cannot just be treated as a moral evil in and of itself,” he opined. He really means it. “I don’t think it’s morally evil to own somebody because we own lots of people all around us.” [This guy is really screwed up. Go figure for a western convert to islam]
(Who he owns he did not say, but perhaps the Southern Poverty Law Center will look into it. Maybe I’ll convert to Islam and see if I can buy him. I’ll use my credit card—Mastercard for the Master.)
When someone in the audience challenged Brown, he became indignant, as well as inconsistent. “The fact that there was slavery is wrong [thus did he contradict his remark that there was no such thing in Islam]. Okay. If you’re a Muslim, the prophet of God…had slaves. He had slaves. There’s no denying that. Are you more morally mature than the prophet of God? No, you are not.” [HE’S DEMANDING STUDENTS ACCEPT THE DICTATES OF ISLAM, A FALSE SATANIC RELIGION, ON A CATHOLIC CAMPUS!!! This is an appeal to authority based on his view that Mohammad – if he existed – is supposedly “god’s” prophet. Does Brown know that, unlike Christ, Mohammad worked no miracles, did no great good deeds witnessed by tens of thousands, in short gave absolutely zero evidence of any supernatural connection or powers short of a book he wrote, alone, under supposed guidance from Gabriel? Does Brown admit of the satanic verses where the Koran (at least, a version where these bits are not expunged) admits that satan fooled Mohammad? Did satan ever trick Christ into teaching error?]
One would hope that all of us are more morally mature than Muhammad. After all, he was not only a slavemaster and an advocate of violence, he consummated his marriage with his bride Aisha when she was nine years old. That’s what we call rape.
Speaking of which, Brown went on to say that non-consensual sex—it’s called rape—is okay with him, at least if the offenders are adherents to Islam. He took aim at the Western notion of “consent,” maintaining that “It’s very hard to have this discussion because we think of, let’s say in the modern United States, the sine qua non of morally correct sex is consent.”
Continuing his defense of rape, Brown criticized Americans for making a big deal about individual rights. “We fetishize the idea of autonomy to the extent that we forget, again who’s really free? Are we really autonomous people?” In other words, since none of us is really autonomous, the difference between us and a rape victim is more contrived than real. [And you can tell from this exactly how far into islam this guy has gone, and it’s pretty damned deep. This is exactly why islamic societies are so backwards, hidebound, superstitious, and casually disdainful of human life. They place no value on the self as a unique soul created in the image and likeness of God – or to the extent they do, they have horribly perverted this understanding precisely in order to justify Mohammad’s abhorrent, amoral behavior.]
Brown and Georgetown would be on the front page of every newspaper in the nation if he had justified Christians enslaving and raping Muslims.
Dang straight. Good piece by Deal Hudson.
This is what the Left has in store for you folks. Get rid of Christianity, create a failed totalitarian leftist state, then submit to the almighty allah.
Brown does a fine job of revealing the demonic immorality at the heart of islam, as well as islam’s inability to logically, rationally defend itself. The appeals to authority start within moments. And I would say Christianity’s long struggle to extirpate slavery from Western civilization sufficiently establishes its inherent moral superiority.
Only a muslim extremist would claim differently. Good to know just what $20 million in dirty Saudi oil money will buy.
Professor Jordan Peterson on Middle Class Socialists, and My New Motto February 23, 2017Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, cultural marxism, General Catholic, horror, manhood, paganism, persecution, Revolution, secularism, Society, true leadership.
I’ve realized more and more of late, that I’ve become something of a political opinion junky on Youtube. I used to listen to music through headphones while working outside the house on weekends (often around noisy machinery), but the music began to deteriorate so I started listening to some podcasts and things like that. Then the wave of “alt-right” or conservative programs broke through on Youtube in 2015 and I’ve found myself listening more and more. I can only listen to so many sermons while working, and the political stuff tends to be more, ahhh……..energizing.
Thus, the increasing spate of right wing or alt-right political commentary on the blog. Sorry if that’s a downer, videos are also much quicker and easier to post than pure opinion on my part or quoting 1500 words from a book, so it’s also fit in naturally with my even more time-compressed post-job-change blogging style.
At any rate, one person I like to listen to on Youtube – to a point – is Professor Jordan Peterson, a professor of clinical psychiatry at the University of Toronto. Professor Peterson is an academic, naturally, but one who is revulsed by the social justice warrior left. And that’s where he’s at his best, diagnosing the noxiousness of the SJWs and their cultural marxist ideology, and the devastation it is wreaking on the culture. When he gets into his idea of “truth,” and wisdom, which is Christian-tinged but also filled with problematic ideas from men such as Carl Jung and other modernist New Age types, he’s on much more shaky ground, though I will say that he is unusually capable of presenting an extremely deeply thought out political-moral-social philosophy. He’s one of the few people able to communicate those ideas in the public square in a way that non-academics can comprehend, though I think he reaches some wrong conclusions. It’s a minor tragedy in a sense, here is a man plainly called in a very special way by Christ to speak the Truth in a powerful way, but I feel he may be a bit hamstrung from taking the next step in reducing Truth to the God made Man by his deep involvement in contemporary intellectual ideology (and especially, psychiatry).
There are tons of videos of Dr. Peterson absolutely eviscerating the Left, but this is a good, short one:
That is, even when it still bothered to purport to be concerned about the “little guy,” or the working class, that concern was self-motivated and based more on their own titanic envy against anyone richer/more powerful than themselves. This same idea has now spread and metastasized into the moral sphere, where Leftists hold anyone who believes differently than they do on not only practical policy but also basic moral issues to be not only wrong but evil. Pride is the root of all sin. What sins are being unleashed by the titanic, and wholly unearned, pride of the Left are terrifying to behold.
Another gem below, which is so important because it introduces the monumentally important work of Alexandr Solzhenitsyn to a broader audience, explains how ideology – which is most prevalent on the Left but can, to a much lesser and generally less dangerous extent, exist on the right – can give rise to the most appallingly evil, destructive, monstrous political-social regimes the world has ever seen. That is also the danger inherent in the collapse of Western institutions through the pervasive influence of cultural marxism, which has deliberately corrupted education, especially the education in history, civics, and philosophy (teaching how to think), that whole generations have been produced who are totally intellectually detached from any ability to think critically or analyze present events in the light of history. How else would millions of young people (and others) in the West have become so disenchanted with their own birthright and heritage – a heritage formed and shaped immensely by the Church – and come to prefer the “other,” be it traditional Marxism, cultural marxism, Mohamaddism, etc:
A shorter, more powerful, in some ways, view of the same:
One area of Professor Peterson’s crusade against the creeping totalitarianism of the Left is through his refusal to use the preferred “gender pronouns” of his students. So boys want to be called girls, a she insists on being called a he, etc. He’s gotten into a great deal of hot water over this, as one can imagine. There are presently disciplinary proceedings being arranged against him. He is also in trouble for denouncing Canada’s coming governmental embrace of sharia law in the form of instituting what amounts to an anti-blasphemy law favoring islam. Once again we see how islam is rapidly becoming the de facto state religion of the West, at least among the governing elites.
Professor Peterson is suffering for his beliefs. His health has badly deteriorated in the past year as the persecution against him has ramped up. He’s on the right track, I think, but I will pray for him that he come to recognize much more clearly that truth descends, always, from Jesus Christ, and that he jettison some of his intellectual baggage.
Finally, a bit of a silly personal aside, picked up from some random thing I stumbled on today. Yes, I’m getting a bit salty in my old age, but I think there is a great deal of wisdom in this quote from Tucker Carlson:
The beginning of wisdom is to know what an a$$hole you are.
Yep. I think that’s about right. Works for me, anyway. The more I meditate on that fact, the better I tend to behave to those around me, and the more humility I tend to evidence.
UPDATE: Just a note, I use scare quotes around “social conservative” and “conservative” in this piece because the people involved have covered themselves with this cloak, even though the key players are not either, to my mind, in reality. Egg McMuffin is an opportunist who is collaborating with very toxic left-wing sources to try to wound Trump. He, like the Left, is trying to re-litigate the election by other means. This “Reagan Battalion” is relatively new and at least partially funded by democrat operatives. Sounds like a sure fire paleo-con site to me!
Some amazing work below by Sargon of Akkad. I’d like to leave this matter of Milo’s fall behind, but this simply adds too much to the picture to ignore, and also reveals the depths to which certain “conservative” groups will go in their attempts to destroy Trump.
You don’t have to watch the whole thing. The last 8-10 minutes switch to a different but related topic. But the first 17-18 minutes are absolutely must see.
Before I get into the revelations, however, let me note that I’ll address more aspects of the Milo situation at the bottom. This is a complex matter, in which no one is completely free from guilt.
Having said that, what has Sargon (among others) found out? First of all, there was a leak on the massive and often problematic 4chan site Sunday about noon forecasting exactly what was about to break on Milo. This was obviously a leak from someone within the “mainstream” media, and showed exactly what was about to be dumped on Milo and, more importantly, why. In a word, it was all about damaging Trump, gradually eliminating allies and so poisoning his name that democrats would – against all odds, and they are steep – win control of the Senate in 2018 and then move to impeach Trump, for what, at this point, I have no idea, because he’s barely had time to actually do anything. For breaking their little leftist hearts, I suppose, and showing that their permanent electoral majority, at least at the presidential level, may not come to pass as they so fervently hoped.
So, this was obviously an orchestrated takedown. It was not just a random release of something some independent sleuth “found” – it had been out for over a year, and I had seen parts of the Joe Rogan show in question. But who orchestrated it? Well, a self-interested cabal of self-described “conservatives” who happen to be tightly affiliated with, and funded by, democrats, and, oh yes, that paragon of virtue and former CIA operative, Evan McMullin. A quarter of a million dollars of oppo research allegedly went into this effort, which just goes to show how much the establishment will waste money on things that could be found for free with a little interest and hard work.
The key part of the video is from 11:00 to 17:00. This establishes the connection between the site that broke the news, with highly edited videos, the NeverTrumper brigade on the “right,” democrat operatives, and Evan McMullin. I know some folks voted for McMullin out of exasperation over their choices in the two major parties, but his involvement here – which he has admitted – perhaps reveals more of his true character than his public rhetoric. The story exploded incredibly fast, over a matter of minutes and not hours, precisely because all had been worked out in advance behind the scenes, as the 4chan leaker revealed.
McMullin’s goal, and that of the NeverTrumpers who worked with him to pull this off, is ultimately to destroy Trump a la the lines laid out by the 4chan confessor – whose post, I must remind, came out many hours before the first post broke at the “Reagan Battalion” site. So, this is NeverTrumpers making common cause with the leftist media, leaking stories in advance to destroy a despised target. This is hugely revelatory.
As Sargon notes, this is not about concern for children. None of these people and groups involved in the Milo takedown have expressed concern about numerous statements from leftists either saying the same thing, or admitting/doing far worse, ranging from Richard Dawkins to Leah Dunham to George Takei to Brian Singer. But of course their is not criticism for these folks, they’re part of the great left-wing machine, and the Left always protects it’s own. It’s quite different on the “right,” of course, where invective for conservatives who buck the establishment is often far more severe than anything directed at the democrats and their allies.
Having said all that, Milo, to a large degree, made this destruction all but inevitable by his bizarre and damaging comments on his own experience at the hands of a Catholic priest, and another unnamed individual. Now there are some that hold that Milo can only “save” himself by coming forth and directly ID’ing those who abused him, or other men he’s allegedly seen taking part in boy-rape. As Sargon points out, however, this would be an even shorter path to destruction for Milo than his disastrous comments, as making these allegations without proof would invite massive defamation suits and would simply discredit him in another way – which may be why some of these folks are demanding he do just that, to complete the destruction. They would inevitably then turn around and lambast him for ruining “good people’s” names without proof. He’s stuck. However, if you’d like another point of view regarding this imbroglio, see the video at the bottom. It’s much less sympathetic and demands that Milo name names as a way of proving his opposition to pedophilia. I certainly can sort of understand why folks would be demanding this, and I can also understand the severe criticism of Milo’s very warped views of “man-boy” relationships, a view almost certainly imposed on him by his abusers, but I still don’t think the demands entirely reasonable or fair, and the criticism may become a bit harsh at various points, mixing sad humor from a wounded soul with deeply heartfelt beliefs.
In a previous post on this matter, I said, as I’ve said before on other matters, that people who experience child sex abuse are never quite right again. I have probably erred a bit in saying this, which was based both on my own experience associating with people abused as kids and out of my great desire to convey the total horror of these acts and their impact on children. I don’t think the degree of damage that occurs to a child in these absolutely disgusting situations can be overstated. But in my desire to convey this, I may have unintentionally conveyed that Grace cannot overcome such damage or even appeared to be discouraging towards survivors attempting to recover from abuse. Neither was my intent, in fact, it was the opposite, to maintain a proper level of righteous outrage against these kinds of acts, but I probably need to temper my default rhetoric somewhat. I plan on doing so going forward.
Regarding Milo, and George Takei, and Corey Feldman and Corey Haim, and probably far too many to name, this is just heartbreaking. The two Coreys, thank God, did not so internalize their abuse as to proclaim it wonderful and good, as the first two in my list did. As Joe Rogan notes here, in a video I don’t recommend you watch save for the first 1:30, we must wonder just how many of those who proclaim affinity for the sodomite lifestyle are not doing so because they were abused by men as children. My thinking is that it would be a shockingly large number, quite possibly, the distinct majority. This event is so shattering and soul-destroying that some people not only have their sexuality changed, but apparently feel compelled to go back in time and redefine it as a “good,” in order to deal with it emotionally. As the video at the bottom notes, pedophiles deliberately seek out disaffected young boys, boys who either have problems at home, or who are unsure of themselves, who are shy and uncomfortable and don’t fit in, and then shower attention on them and make them feel “wanted” and “loved.” Once they have broken down the poor soul, they then move to their real objective, the satisfaction of their unnatural, perverted, hideous desires. That a Catholic priest once again played a role in this………it is such a shame it is unbelievable.
And as the video at bottom points out – it’s long, but worth your time, as this man is an expert in dealing with recovery from abuse, physical and sexual – it is not uncommon at all for childhood victims of abuse to apologize for and defend their abusers, even blaming themselves for the abuse (making themselves the “aggressor” in a sexual relationship with an adult). Of course this self-damnation stems from an attempt to reconcile soul-destroying behavior from someone in a position of authority, who violated the most sacred trust imaginable.
Anyway, I think I’ve said my piece on this now and put out all the nuance I planned. Milo’s comments were surely warped, but I’m not sure how personally responsible he is for them. But this must be a warning to all of us of what kind of evils will emerge from the growing subculture of Sodom and Gomorrah – how many other devotees of these sins share similar twisted beliefs because of their own nightmarish experiences?
These men do have a history, for those who care: