Some interesting considerations below, where a self-described long-time progressive admits to being shocked, flustered, terrified, and offended at the presence of an obvious male in the women’s public restroom at Disneyland in Southern California. There are a whole lot of revelations below – paralyzing fear of being called out as politically incorrect and thus having one’s credibility destroyed in the secular pagan milieu, an incoherent feeling of being violated but an inability to do anything about it, and a demand that someone must fix the situation that goes along with a steadfast refusal to take personal action to help bring that fix about.
In short, it’s a pretty good summation of where we are as a culture, with the demands of the leftist extremists becoming more and more irrational, more and more invasive every day, and yet a sense that we are somehow powerless to stop this advance. But all it takes is will, the will to act, the will to be slimed by leftist activists on Twitter and other social media and not giving a damned what they say. That is, of course, easy to say, when one recognizes that even one’s professional standing and job could be permanently ruined by one act of moral bravery. Nevertheless, we eventually must fight, as the cost of delay will be much greater penalties in future if we don’t act now:
I was off to the side waiting with the two boys, when I noticed a man walk into the restroom…He took a few more steps, at which point he would’ve definitely noticed all the women lined up and still kept walking. My next thought was, “Maybe he’s looking for his wife…or child and they’ve been in here a while.” But he didn’t call out any names or look around. He just stood off to the side and leaned up against the wall. At this point I’m like, “…Am I the only one seeing this?” I surveyed the room and saw roughly 12 women, children in tow…staring at him with the exact same look on their faces. Everyone was visibly uncomfortable. We were all trading looks and motioning our eyes over to him…like “what is he doing in here?” Yet every single one of us was silent. And this is the reason I wrote this blog.
We had been culturally bullied into silenced. Women were mid-changing their baby’s diapers on the changing tables and I could see them shifting to block his view. But they remained silent. I stayed silent. We all did. Every woman who exited a stall and immediately zeroed right in on him…said nothing. And why? B/c I…and I’m sure all the others were scared of that “what if”. What if I say something and he says he “identifies as a woman” and then I come off as the intolerant ass… at the happiest place on earth? So we all stood there, shifting in our uncomfortableness…trading looks. I saw two women leave the line with their children. Still nothing was said. An older lady said to me outloud, “What is he doing in here?” I’m ashamed to admit I silently shrugged and mouthed, “I don’t know.” She immediately walked out…from a bathroom she had every right to use without fear.
And let me be clear, my problem wasn’t JUST that there was a man in the restroom. Its that he wasn’t even peeing, washing his hands or doing anything else that you’d do in a restroom. He was just standing off to the side looking smug…untouchable… doing absolutely nothing. He had to of noticed that every woman in the long line was staring at him. He didn’t care. He then did a lap around the restroom walking by all the stalls. You know, the stalls that have 1 inch gaps by all the doors hinges so you can most definitely see everyone…
So yes… there were women and small children using the restroom and this man was walking around knowing no one would say anything. So here I am…writing this blog, because honestly I need answers. We can’t leave this situation ambiguous any more. The gender debate needs to be addressed… and quickly. There have to be guidelines. It can’t just be a feeling… this notion that we’re shamed into silence b/c we might offend someone, has gone too far.
There was a man who felt entitled to be in the woman restroom, because he knew no one would say anything. There were 20-25 people by the time I left, who were scared and uncomfortable by his ominous presence. And the only thing stopping us, was our fear of political correctness and that the media has told us we don’t know what gender is anymore. I never want to be in the position again. I’m not asking for permission to tell transgender people to get out my bathroom. I need to know it’s ok to tell a man, who looks like a man, to get…out. Gender just can’t be a feeling. There has to be science to it. DNA, genitals, amount of Sephora make up on your face, pick your poison, but as a very progressive woman…I’m sorry it can’t just be a feeling when there’s but a mere suggestion of a door with a peep hole separating your eyes from my…or my children’s genitals.
All of which, fine. I feel your pain. There is even a certain sense of I told you so.
But the title of the post was actually a tongue in cheek joke – progressives like this will never reach their limit. They (or the vast majority, anyway) are the problem. They always kowtow to whatever the more radical fringes of the Left demands of them. And they will submit this time, and channel their impotent rage onto more culturally approved targets, like Donald Trump, white males, and conservatives, generally. Somehow this will all wind up being our fault.
Of course, there are exceptions. Sometimes it is moments like those above that start a person traveling on the path from former progressive to solid conservative.
Most importantly, the “lesson” I’m trying to convey is that if we want this to stop, it’s going to be up to us and like-minded individuals to start calling these jackholes out when they try to invade the private space of the opposite sex. Don’t let them get away with it, but know you will probably wind up being the one being blamed and even victimized if you do call them to account for their perversion and effrontery. But if we want this culture, rapidly descending into a literal hell, to change, we’re going to have to be willing to suffer for it. Pay me now or pay me later, the price will only go up if we delay, when we are finally to pushed to such extremes that we have no choice but to fight back and where far weightier things – the ability to have Mass said publicly, the ability to raise your kids in the Faith – are at stake.
Of course this is just one of a thousand and more areas where pushback is needed. That’s part of the Left’s strategy, using full time paid activists they advance on a hundred fronts simultaneously, finally wearing out the outmanned and out-funded opposition. We all have to pick our battles. But maybe if you are confronted with a bearded dude in a women’s bathroom, don’t just silently fume, but wack him over the head with your purse (which should always have a nice, heavy breviary in it). Or at least scream and shout and tell him what a sicko perverted freak he is.
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.
Msgr. Fenton on the False Ecumenism Since Vatican II March 15, 2017Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, Ecumenism, error, General Catholic, manhood, priests, Revolution, scandals, secularism, Society, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
While largely unknown today, many consider Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton as the greatest theologian the United States has ever produced. In the mid-20th century, he was a huge figure within the American Church, editing the premiere theological journal of the country and doing battle with the forces of modernism which were already becoming more and more bold in their efforts to redefine the Faith according to the “synthesis of all heresies” which they held.
Some of Fenton’s most pointed battles were against Fr. John Courtney Murray, SJ, a favorite of the Kennedy clan and the man who many consider to be the father of the Church’s post-conciliar ecumenical ethos. Murray was especially influential in developing the Vatican II document Dignitatis Humanae, which discusses matters such as religious liberty and the necessity of the Church for salvation in truly unprecedented ways. Unfortunately for the Church and millions of souls, while many observers felt that Fenton had clearly defeated Murray in their numerous theological engagements in the Catholic press, it was Murray whose influence was far more decisive at Vatican II. Once the Council turned decisively towards revolutionary sentiments in the first session, casting aside the years of previous work in the various schema that had been produced before the Council, and which had been championed by Cardinal Ottaviani and his staff of peritus (including Msgr. Fenton), Fenton’s influence on the Council waned as dramatically as did that of the deliberately publicly humiliated Ottaviani.
At any rate, the principle point of disagreement between Fenton and Murray, among others, was on the necessity of the Church for salvation and the paramount need for souls to be within that Church. This spilled over into a closely related point: whether the American form of government with its “freedom of religion” (really, formally enshrined agnosticism as the state religion) was ideal, suitable, or even permissible for Catholics to support. Murray’s vision was much more Americanist in nature, not quite indifferentism but certainly close to what has become the reality in the post-conciliar Church.
In contrast, what we read below is fully in line with the Doctrine of the Faith as handed down through the ages, and fitted for the understanding of contemporary man. I pray that one day the Church return not only to a full appreciation of Fenton’s work, but also to its implementation in a general reinstitution of classical scholastic theology. The following excerpts come from The Church of Christ: A Collection of Essays by Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, pp. 299-301. I add my own comments:
The anti-Catholic agitators are continually charging that Catholics are striving to do away with freedom of religion in the United States. [As for me, guilty as charged.] In answering these men, some of our less skillful apologists [what a nice dig at Murray!] become so confused that they actually give the impression that Catholics are completely and absolutely satisfied with the situation here in the United States today, that we believe it to be the best that many of our fellow citizens should remain as they are, apart from Our Lord, from His Church, and from His true religion. Unmindful of the constant and devoutly sincere prayer of the Church that all of those who wander apart from ecclesiastical union and fellowship with Christ should be brought by God’s Grace into that fellowship, [A prayer repeated at every Good Friday in the TLM, but one which the vast majority of Catholics today have probably never heard] these writers describe as ultimately good and satisfactory a situation in which the nation itself takes no more cognizance of the true religion than it does of false systems of worship…….
……….We would by denying the force of that missionary charity within the Church, or misjudging the nature of the Church itself, were we in any way to give the impression that we do not care whether our fellow Americans enter the true Church or not. The true religion is the great good which we desire for our fellow citizens and for our country. The true Church, outside of which there is no salvation, is likewise a great and necessary good we seek for the men and the nation we love in the affection of charity.
………..The Vatican Council’s [That would be Vatican I] first dogmatic constitution, Dei Filius…..declares that “If anyone should say that the faithful and those who have never arrived at the only true faith are in a like situation, so that Catholics can have a legitimate reason for withholding their assent from and doubting, until they shall have completed the scientific proof of the credibility and the truth of their own faith, that faith which they have already received under the Church’s Magisterium, let him be anathema.” [Wow, a council that levels anathemas. Wonders never cease.] The third chapter of this constitution declares that “those who have received the faith under the Church’s Magisterium can never have any legitimate cause for changing that faith or doubting it.” [Et tu, Francesco?]
………The thesis that the state or the civil society is objectively obligated to worship God according to the Rite of the Catholic religion thus stems basically from a realization of the fact that the debt of religion is a real obligation incumbent upon every human being and every social unit, and from a recognition of the truth that there is only one objectively acceptable religious worship, that which is paid to God within the framework of Our Lord’s Mystical Body. This thesis is likewise in line with the fundamental principle of Catholic missiology, the truth that God wills that all men should enter His one true Church. Thus it refuses to see as genuinely and ultimately desirable and good a situation in which some men, even though through no fault of their own, are not citizens of God’s supernatural kingdom on earth.
Let me know if the excerpts don’t quite form a cohesive whole. I’m out of time and really wanted to get this post out but may have taken out a bit much “meat.”
The practical implementation of Dignatitis Humanae and the cult of false ecumenism it has engendered (for the only true ecumenism, contra the previous pontiff, is what he called “the discredited ecumenism of return” to the faith) is probably the second greatest wound to the Church unleashed in the decades since Vatican II, after Sacrosanctum Concilium. The latter attempts to rip out her heart, the former, her mind. No wonder the Church’s missionary efforts have totally collapsed in the years since. They were intended to. The revolutionaries – whether they intended to be or not – could not have chosen their targets better. It is a bitter shame better men like Fenton did not succeed, but I have to accept that God allowed all this to come to pass, for some reason.
Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, ora pro nobis.
In Horrible Decision, Anthony Kennedy Allows Trial Verdicts to be Nullified if Jurors Are Found Insufficiently Politically Correct March 15, 2017Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, huh?, Immigration, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, unbelievable BS.
This story did not get much coverage, but has the potential to be huge. It will almost invariably lead to endless appeals and an end to the anonymous jury system, with jurors being investigated after the fact for any beliefs that might exonerate those found guilty of crimes. It also fits in perfectly with the general left-wing assault on civil liberties ranging from practice of Christianity to freedom of speech to freedom of association. Now jurors can be publicly excoriated if they are found to have uttered something politically incorrect at any point prior to or during a trial involving some “minority.”
Naturally, “Catholic” Anthony Kennedy sided with the Supreme Court’s left-wing minority to decide the issue. He is the most powerful man in America by a long shot, and was never elected to so much as dog catcher:
A recent Supreme Court ruling turns criminal justice on its head, putting the jury on trial for political incorrectness and letting the criminals run free. Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado is utter lunacy:
After a Colorado jury convicted a Mexican man of sexual harassment, two jurors signed affidavits that a retired police officer on the jury had expressed racial animus during deliberations. The juror was reported to have stated that “nine times out of 10 Mexican men were guilty of being aggressive toward women and young girls,” among other slurs. The defendant’s counsel sought to overturn the conviction based on racial animus but was denied by the trial judge.[Who declares that statement to be a slur? It might be wrong, it might be a slur, but it could also be a mere statement of fact. Who gets to decide what constitutes a slur? Yet another power acceded to an unelected, unaccountable jurist?]
Civilization has been protected from verdicts being retroactively nullified due to alleged flaws of the jurors for centuries, thanks to the no-impeachment rule rooted in English common law.
As Justice Anthony Kennedy explained in the 5-3 majority opinion this week in Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, the rule “promotes full and vigorous discussion by jurors by providing considerable assurance that after being discharged they will not be summoned to recount their deliberations” or otherwise harassed. It also “gives stability and finality to verdicts.”
Yet Justice Kennedy joined the Court’s four liberals in Pena-Rodriguez to overturn that standard for accusations of racial bias. [Remember, Anthony Kennedy was the man possessed of the god-like power to peer into the souls of tens of millions of Americans opposed to so-called same-sex marriage, and find nothing but bigotry and blind animus. This is the creature that decides the fate of hundreds of millions of people.]
What exactly constitutes “racial bias” that should result in the verdict being overturned? The Supremes don’t say, guaranteeing endless appeals on grounds of alleged juror political incorrectness.
Presumably it will still be possible to incarcerate white male heterosexual Christian criminals. All other guilty verdicts are likely to be held up indefinitely while the jurors are retroactively investigated for any indication of ideological impropriety.
The ruling is a step toward corrupting juries with political standards based on the progressive obsessions with race, gender and class.
Beyond that, it is a step toward reducing our legal system to a dysfunctional farce.
Indeed. If there is an extreme imbalance in the failing US constitutional system of checks and balances, it is in the judiciary. Every single leftist advance in the culture, going back decades, has come from the judiciary, not the people themselves. Even constitutional amendments have been found “unconstitutional.” Basically anything a left-leaning judge does not like can be found to be unconstitutional, and rationalized on the most ephemeral of precepts: emanations from the penumbras, and all that. Amazing.
As far as turning the legal system into a dysfunctional farce, to those who want to see the United States, as it has been, destroyed, this is a feature, not a bug. Anything that undermines people’s support for the USA That Was is good to them, as they think it will bring forth their much longed for revolution.
Of course, the vast majority of the people longing for revolution today will be among the first lined up and shot should it occur. Along with millions of other relative innocents.
So now you have another reason to strive to get out of jury duty.
I really meant to post this on the weekend, or at least on Monday, but events conspired to prevent me from doing either.
Starting Friday night, I began to see videos on Youtube from the Fatima Center highlighting an upcoming atrocity in Rome – the opening of St. Peter’s for Anglican “Evensong” prayers on Monday, March 13 – the fourth anniversary of the election – God knows why – of Bergoglio to the papacy. Fatima Center did a really good job highlighting why this event was so novel, so egregious, and then took steps to mobilize the faithful in resistance.
Unfortunately, the Vatican kept this event intentionally buried, never publicizing it on any of their PR arms (newspaper, radio, website, etc). It had to be found on the website of the tiny Anglican community in Rome. Thus, it was found out late, when there was very little time to mobilize opposition, which I am quite certain was why it was so little publicized. Nevertheless, efforts were made to stop the event, which did, however, go on.
Two videos below, one explaining the event and how it ties in with the overhaul of ecumania occurring under the pontificate of Francis – especially in this both great and dark anniversary year of 2017 – and the other featuring Chris Ferrara, who explains its dark significance. Of course, Anglicans lack valid orders and thus any liturgical simulation they perform anywhere, but especially in St. Peter’s, amounts to sacrilege. Allowing sacrilege within the very Basilica of St. Peter is simply breathtaking in its blasphemy. Ferrara explains how the cult of ecumenism is ultimately behind this latest abomination.
Sorry I did not get this coverage out before the event took place, but I haven’t seen this covered in many other places, so I thought it deserved a post, regardless:
Now Ferrara’s commentary:
And, as usual, so far as I am aware, no cardinals or bishops publicly condemned this ecumenical confab before it occurred. I am aware of few priests who did. I’m sure more will as they become aware of it, but both the indifference and information security on this were really tight.
Matt: Don’t Give Up, Fight for the Church! March 10, 2017Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, different religion, Francis, General Catholic, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, true leadership, unbelievable BS.
I really like this video from Michael Matt. It makes a very good corollary to the two videos in the post below. Sort of like diagnosis, and treatment plan.
I should never like to give the impression that I am hopeless or despondent over the state of the Church. Much aggrieved, certainly, outraged, definitely, but not hopeless. I do know God will prevail in the end, and that all of this somehow ties in with a plan of Providence that may well forever elude human understanding. I also know that situations, even extremely dire ones, can sometimes turn on a dime, that what appears a hopelessly lost cause can rapidly transform into unbelievable triumph.
So I really like the last several minutes of the video below, and the exhortation to fight. I agree with Matt that I don’t know how to “define” Francis. I have read and seen some of the same things he has: that Francis is antipope, that Benedict’s abdication was null because it was made under duress, that Francis is the false prophet, that the Chair of Peter has been vacant since ’63, or ’58, or whenever. And while some of these arguments may have more merit than others, I have not – I cannot – fully embrace any of them because I. Just. Don’t. Know. Francis was elected. He sits in Rome. He is viewed by all the world as the pope. He exercises petrine powers. But he also attacks the Faith in ways never before seen, at least not from this most holy office. So what is he? I don’t know. Scary. Terrifying. A destroyer. A fool. A knave. a weak, flawed, failing man. All of the above.
All I know for certain is that he is wrong; dangerously, destructively, wrong. And I know he must be opposed. I have known that for a long time. I also know he – and more importantly the cardinals and bishops who surround his office and who can either put his policy wholly into effect, or block and undermine it – must be prayed for with passionate intensity. I have been doing that, too, for a long time.
As to whether “neo-Catholics” are “getting it,” I really have no idea. I don’t have the time to read their thoughts much anymore. I’m willing to take Matt’s analysis at face value, but I also know a lifetime of intellectual habit and deeply held belief – the pope must never be questioned or doubted, ever – is not an easy thing to overcome. So we shall see. As to whether there are portents to a mass resistance to Francis’ pontificate and the forces that elected, we shall have to wait for the future to see that, too. I a way, I pray that is correct, but what will that mean? Schism? Or simply a formal recognition of the schism that has existed for 60 or more years, ever since the modernist forces that badly influenced, if not hijacked, a council, first started to reveal themselves en masse?
It’s all a bit much for me to figure out. I shall be content to continue to do my part in bringing awareness, as Matt says, to how extremely radical and unprecedented this pontificate is. All else I leave in the hands of Almighty God, whose Will shall eventually triumph.
While much of what the priest in the sermons below presents is somewhat old news to any who have been following developments in this pontificate with any closeness, it is still extremely handy to have it all gone over in detail and explained just exactly how pernicious, destructive, and even blasphemous Francis’ efforts to wholly remake (as in destroy) the moral edifice of the Church are.
It is also very edifying to know there are priests out there – I certainly won’t ID him, but non-SSPX, traditional priests – who are calling a spade a spade and demonstrating clearly that, given the choice between “the pope and Jesus Christ,” this priest, at least, intends to side firmly with Jesus Christ.
There is much good formation here. Both sermons are well worth your time and constitute elements of a 6 part sermon that has all been uploaded to the Sensus Fidelium channel on Youtube.
Sermon one reviews the travesty that is Amoris Laetitia, and the clear “interpretations” Francis has given to bishops in Argentina, Malta, and other locales, which clearly demonstrate the revolutionary intent of this unprecedented encyclical. There are many clear judgments and hard-hitting phrases that we most certainly need to be hearing from our priests:
The second sermon deals with the reaction to Amoris Laetitia in the form of the dubia submitted by 4 cardinals asking very pointed and clear questions of Francis. As is already widely known, Francis has chosen to simply ignore this dubia. One hopes eventually the cardinals will then take the issue to the next level, which is to publicly examine Francis’ works in the light of Tradition, but we shall have to see:
I disagree slightly with this excellent priest in one area, that is in referring to this as a “real Henry VIII moment in the Church.” Elsewhere, he says more correctly, to my mind, that the Church has never, ever, in her entire recorded history had a pontiff make such direct, destructive attacks on the Doctrine of the Faith.
We are in a completely unprecedented situation. This post-modernist crisis is the worst the Church has ever seen for the completeness of the embrace of error and the tiny scope of the remnant faithful, but Francis has taken it to an entirely new and different level.
But while Henry VIII was certainly a lout, a glutton, a destroyer of religion, and a persecutor of the Church, he was, after all, a layman. He started the process of destruction of the Faith in one country and was rightly excommunicated for his crimes, but what we have in Francis is something entirely different. Here it is an attack from within, from the highest office in the Church, the man given such enormous torrents of Grace to correspond faithfully to the tenets of his office and the Doctrine of the Faith that his heart must be as hard as diamond to be executing the plan he is so obviously carrying out. Not only is the scope of destruction Francis can achieve infinitely larger than anything Henry VIII could have done, but after decades of neglect and collapse the forces of orthodoxy and resistance are so much smaller than they have been at probably any other time in the history of the Church.
To me, Francis’ destructive potential is greater than Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, Luther, Calvin, Melanchthon, Zwinglii, and all the rest combined, because he presents himself as not only within the House of God but as its head! Catholics will for decades to come be fighting off arguments from protestants, atheists, etc., based on the errors that Francis has introduced. Even worse is the aid, comfort, and intellectual armament being conferred on those modernists within the Church. Now we shall be forever quoting pope against pope in trying to defend the Faith.
And we haven’t even begun to see this play out. Francis will be gone in a few years, more than likely, but what will follow in his wake? Even if that next pope is not as radical as Francis, will he roll back any of the revolutionary changes already under way? Or will he allow them to persist and continue to rot the Church from within, as the appeasement of the use of contraception did to the Church during the 70s, 80s, 90s, etc?
The only way forward for the Church, then, is for some future pope to deliberately refute the errors abounding today and anathematize the current resident of the
Vatican Doma Sancta Martha. We have got to pray that such a future pope, with enough backbone and love of Christ to do so, emerges.
On a lighter note, is not this priest a most effective, practiced speaker? Few other priests use so much inflection, emotion, and vary their meter as much as this one does.
SJW Millennials and Severe Personality Disorders March 8, 2017Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, asshatery, demographics, disaster, error, family, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, rank stupidity, Revolution, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, unbelievable BS.
What is it Michael Savage has said for years? That liberalism is a mental disorder? That might be a bit broad and harsh, but for the hardcore social justice warrior millennials, their brittle, unhinged behavior may have been an inevitable outcome of their upbringing in daycare centers and the rare overinvolvement of guilt-ridden helicopter parents. So says this author I’ve never heard of, whose conclusions I agree with so of course he must be right (teasing, this actually is important and parallels a recent Paul Joseph Watson video I’ll include at the bottom):
If you were to come across someone who cried in the streets, who saw the world in terms of black and white and made death threats against strangers, who cowered in a special room and made public displays of naked self-harm and blood letting, you might conclude that they were suffering from a personality disorder.
All these symptoms can be found in the High Conflict Personality Disorder category known as Axis II in DSMV, including Anti-Social PD, Histrionic PD, Paranoid PD, Narcissistic PD, and Borderline PD.
Alternatively, you might reason that these are the everyday behaviors of the modern Social Justice Warrior (SJW).
Of course, not every SJW has a personality condition, but sufferers from High Conflict disorders are often drawn to extreme beliefs and behaviors under the illusion that they are acting politically.
A 2016 UK survey found that, since 1990, rates of depression and anxiety among the young have increased by 70%, while the American Counseling Association has reported a “rising tide of personality disorders among millennials.”
Goodness. What could have caused this generation-wide descent into self-reinforcing mental disorder?
The majority of millennial children (now aged 18-34) had two working parents; this was partly an ideological project of feminism and partly economic necessity. The downside was the damage done by daycare, services for which grew by 250% between the 1970s and ;90s (see Laura Perrins’ work on psychological trauma caused by daycare). According to Bowlby’s Maternal Deprivation Thesis, babies require two years of intimate attention to enable them to form the caregiver-child bond essential for secure ego formation. Any disturbance of this process will “predispose the children to respond in an anti-social way to later stresses.”
The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development has found:
Children in full-time day care were close to three times more likely to show behavior problems than those cared for by their mothers at home.
The more time in child care of any kind or quality, the more aggressive the child.
The result is young people who, a decade and a half after daycare, scream at the parent/State for not protecting them sufficiently. It is no coincidence that “safe spaces” resemble daycare centers.
Unfortunately, “safe spaces” enforce the distressed person’s fear of the world, trapping them in their original trauma within a psychological frame of permanent and inescapable victimhood.
Faced with histrionic students, university staff end up behaving like “Helicopter Parents”: those largely absent, full-time working parents who overcompensated by flying in to fuss over their child. Attempting to assuage parental guilt, one of the tools they used was “positive parenting” — a philosophy created by social Progressives.
Parents were taught to not scold or punish, and instead to use “positive reinforcement” in an attempt to raise their children with “high self-esteem.” This ideology also became fashionable within an increasingly progressive school system that awarded children prizes for “non-competitive sports” and for merely taking part in school activities……..
……..A false picture of the world and a vastly inflated sense of self-importance did not compensate for the foundational trauma of parental neglect. Instead, as Dr. Jean Twenge has explained, Positive Parenting created young people with a “narcissistic wound” for whom the real world would be perceived as a threat to self-worth. [And a mystery they are wholly unable to navigate, let alone unravel]
Sooo…..insecure, uneducated, brittle narcissists with delusions of grandeur.
Well, that should bode well for the future.
My boss, who is within a year or two of my own supremely awesome Gen X age (no daycare for me, just a latch key kid from age 7, but I did get that all-important two years of cuddling), and I were discussing the prospects of hiring a college intern this summer. He was really wary of hiring a millennial. I gave him my experience – some are perfectly normal, awesome go-getter kids with a lot of motivation. I tend to imagine anyone successfully navigating engineering school cannot be entirely lost in infantile narcissism, but who knows?! We’ll find out this June. He says he’ll can ’em in a week if they have any attitude.
Seriously, the cultural and economic ramifications of this ignored-yet-coddled generation are shaping up to be mammoth. Largely children of baby boomers, they may turn out to be even more destructive than their parents. Millennials are shaping up to be extremely marriage- and child-adverse. They prefer apartments, and high-rise apartments at that, to single family homes. They want to live in hip urban centers, and nearly as many would rather use Uber than own their own car. The economic portents of those three factors alone are enormously negative. Whether they ever marry or not, it appears millennials will have even fewer kids (on average, we’re talking in the broadest sweeps) than any preceding generation. The US appears poised to start down the path of final demographic decline that Europe began 40-50 years ago.
But as I’ve said many times before, it is the kids who are the ultimate, most suffering victims of the great cultural marxist consumption of our culture. These kids didn’t choose to be raised by people making $7 an hour or indoctrinated into the cult of narcissistic self-esteem. They are as much victims as anyone, the parents visiting their own sins upon their children. Sadly, each proceeding generation has grown worse and worse. I shudder to imagine what the few kids of the millennials will turn out as. Maybe a large enough percentage will be sane homeschoolers living in rural areas/the exurbs to start to turn things around.
Probably don’t quite have the numbers yet.
Is this post too much like the fave of leftists from a few years ago, the “studies reveal all conservatives are stupid” kind? Or is it OK in this case BECAUSE IT’S TRUE!
Tempting Christ – Avoiding Satan’s Trap March 7, 2017Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, Ecumenism, episcopate, error, Francis, General Catholic, horror, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, Spiritual Warfare, the struggle for the Church.
In posting this video, The Remnant asks why St. Augustine called the Cross “satan’s trap?”
Strange question, isn’t it? How could the Cross, the very vehicle of our salvation, be a “trap” for faithful souls?
Watch the video, and see if you can figure it out:
From the standpoint of this very good sermon, the “trap” was satan’s belief that he could undo this Messiah by having him killed. Satan was unable to determine that Christ was truly God, and so erred in believing engineering the most horrific, shameful death possible would destroy all the good this Messiah was intending to accomplish.
But I think the analogy works on another level, too. How else can the Cross possibly be a trap? We have no need but to look at the present Bishop of Rome, and, shuddering, find the reason.
The Cross also becomes a trap when people reduce the act of salvation to it, and it alone. When protestants, and their unimaginative emulators in the Church, proclaim that one is saved, wholly and entirely, by Christ’s salvific Sacrifice, independent of one’s actions, this is a terrible error that has led countless millions of souls to their eternal doom.
Personified in the totally novel, made in America phrase (invented in the late 19th century) “once saved always saved,” this pernicious error has grown and multiplied until it has come to dominate most sects and made very deep inroads into the Church herself. This is the opposite error of Pelagianism, which posits that it is possible to earn salvation entirely by one’s own efforts at virtue, independent of God’s Grace flowing through that one-time but constantly re-presented Sacrifice.
Salvation through a one time proclamation that Christ is one’s “personal Lord and Savior” is refuted numerous times in Scripture, most notably I Cor xv:31, Heb iii:13 and especially Mt xxv:31-46, but the supposedly “scriptural” protestants have twisted it to their own destruction, as St. Peter warned they would.
Of course, Catholics know the truth, that we are saved through Christ’s Sacrifice, yes, but also by cooperation with Grace through the good works we do and the sins we avoid. Christ tells us repeatedly through Scripture that we establish the fact of our existence in the state of Grace through good works, and that those works are necessary for our salvation. Christ’s Sacrifice offers us the potential for salvation, which was all but impossible before, but does not guarantee it based on a silly one time altar call. Such an American concept, anyway, that salvation is like placing an order in a drive thru.
It is terrifying to contemplate that the man elected to the Chair of Peter so openly seems to hold protestant beliefs as much superior to the Sacred Doctrine of the Faith. Francis has heaped praise on the sects and feted numerous sect leaders, and seems to never tire of heaping scorn and derision on faithful Catholics. It is the inversion of the Truth and the damage being done to souls is incalculable by human means.
Our Lady, however, revealed the answer, at least figuratively, at Fatima, when she showed Lucia, Jacinta, and Francisco the souls falling into hell like snowflakes.