jump to navigation

“Millennial Democrats” Have Never Heard of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the entire Cold War, or the modern states of Russia and China November 29, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in attachments, cultural marxism, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, huh?, rank stupidity, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, unbelievable BS.
comments closed

Apparently, they believe North Korea’s nascent ICBMs (still appears they have no workable reentry vehicle, and it’s no mean task to get them to work, we spent years and billions on that alone) represent the first time the US has ever been threatened by nuclear-tipped ICBMs.  I would have thought they would have at least heard of the Cuban Missile Crisis, foolishly caused by the incompetence of John Fitzgerald Kennedy the proudest moment of the God-Emperor JFKs administration, but apparently not.

Then there was that 40+ year unpleasantness known as the Cold War, with thousands of hair-trigger warheads, some stationed only 5 minutes flight time away from the US coast in submarines, ready and able to go off at a moment’s notice.

And, of course, persisting to this day, Russia and China have ICBMs targeted on the US.  Both have continued to develop new warheads, new ICBM and SLBM delivery systems, and new defensive technologies even while the US has stood entirely pat with a now 25  year moratorium on the research, development, testing, and production of new (or existing) nuclear weapons save for some modest rebuilds in the increasingly unlikely hope that the current arsenal would work if called upon (it’s not that unlikely, yet, but each year makes the problems of so-called “stockpile maintenance and reliability” that much greater).

A more general question – has there ever been a tweet that actually increased a tweeter’s stature in the world?

Deliberate, weaponized idiocy is the primary recruiting tool of the democrat party.  It’s also a perfect demonstration of leftist projection – it was Obama’s policy of appeasement, including gifting North Korea with billions of dollars in aid, that likely funded their weapon’s development programs.  That, and turning loose $150 billion in Iranian assets in a the biggest giveaway since Munich 1938.  How much of that unfrozen Iranian money has ended up atop North Korean ICBMs is unknown at this time, but given how these two nation’s missile and nuke development programs are run basically as one big bi-national effort, probably more than a little bit.

So far from being the Shield of Faith they’d like to claim, insulating the American people from a dangerously unhinged North Korean regime, Obama was actually a primary instigator of whatever terror these democrats now feel.  But they could never admit that, it be like me denying Jesus Christ, though they have every reason to make their denial, and I have none.

I guess this would just be totally lost on them:

Advertisements

Vast Majority of college-educated democrats think sex not determined at birth November 16, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, cultural marxism, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, huh?, rank stupidity, scandals, secularism, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, unbelievable BS.
comments closed

A recent survey shows that 77% of self-declared college educated democrats do not believe sex is determined at birth, or, for that matter, conception.

Not really a surprise at all.  The core base of the democrat party has shifted from minorities and lower-income whites to brainwashed products of the liberal arts and social science departments of so-called “elite” institutions.  Income matters much less than it used to in political alignment, what is going on in this nation is a culture, not an economic, conflict.  Of course, the super-rich, maybe guilt-ridden, maybe just classist and tribalist cadre makes up a vital part of the democrat base.  But aside from that it’s really much more down to class aspirations and moral turpitude.  Not just lack of faith in, but sneering hostility towards believing Christianity is also key.

Anyway, to the results:

Three out of four college-educated Democrats seem to believe that a man can be a woman if he just says so, regardless of his biology, genetics, and genitalia, according to a skewed survey conducted by the Pew Research Center.

The main question in the August-to-September survey of 4,573 people is built on the phrase: “sex assigned at birth.” But that phrase was invented by transgender activists to help them claim that every person’s sex is independent of their biology and that a newborn’s sex should not be unfairly “assigned” by the doctors and parents who examine the newborns’ biology and visible genitalia. The Pew survey asked:

Which statement comes closer to your views, even if neither is exactly right?

Whether someone is a man or a woman is determined by the sex they were assigned at birth [more on the very loaded phraseology below]

Someone can be a man or a woman even if that is different from the sex they were assigned at birth

According to Pew’s write-up:

The survey … finds that Democrats with a bachelor’s degree or more education are more likely than other Democrats to say a person’s gender can be different from the sex they were assigned at birth. About three-quarters (77%) of Democrats with a bachelor’s degree or more say this, compared with 60% of Democrats with some college and 57% of those with a high school diploma or less. No such [education] divide exists among Republicans.

OK, so democrats, especially college uneducated ones, are crazy.  But what is terrifying is that nearly half the country, at least according to this one survey (skewed as it surely is), think the same:

Now, the survey question that produced the responses below was itself incredibly biased.  It was designed both to confuse and to elicit a biased response.  Some people declaring they do not think sex is determined biologically may have been tripped up on the use of the trans-activist phrase “assigned sex,” which may have caused some people to think of the exceedingly rare situations (one in a million, or less) where some infants are born with malformed genitalia, having some characteristics of both male and female organs.  A DNA test will instantly reveal what sex they are – if there by Y chromosomes, you have a boy, matey.

But at any rate, goodness gracious, 44% of American adults think that whether one is a man or a woman is independent of…..whether they are a man or a woman?!?  Even taking into account the loaded nature of the survey question, anything beyond 15% or so is a travesty.  We are beyond lost.  And amazingly, age is actually only a slight variable in this belief set. It all comes down to cultural-political affiliation, by which we might also infer, possession or lack of orthodox religious beliefs.  Or we can just conclude that 44% of Americans are stark, raving mad.

God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Trinity – These are reality.  Rejection of reality in favor of some fantasy is a rough description of madness. So, in a sense, rejection of Jesus Christ and His Church is tantamount to madness, especially in a culture which was built upon such belief.  Now, the vast majority of people in this country today, even those who call themselves Catholic, have never experienced, nor been taught, real, believing Catholicism.  The reasons for this can be laid directly at the feet of the council fathers and Church leadership who have manifestly failed in their duty to preach the Faith not only to those inside the Church, but to those outside, as well.  Cultures do not fall to this level of madness without first having undergone total moral innervation.  The crisis in the Church is one of the prime – probably THE prime – source of this moral decay.

And so now we have scores of millions of Americans who believe things that simply are not – that two men can be “married,” that killing babies is about “choice,” that individual liberty is the font of fascism, and that a man is not a man simply because he says so.

These are all indicators of extremely late stage moral decadence, of the type that have been universal harbingers of civilizational collapse in the past.  And, it must be said, the Church, in the failures of her leadership particularly but also across the board, has had a huge role in creating the environment ripe for a collapse.

Lord, have mercy on us.

 

USCCB Bishops – Immigration Not a Matter of Prudential Judgment       November 15, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, catachesis, cultural marxism, Dallas Diocese, disaster, episcopate, error, General Catholic, Immigration, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the struggle for the Church, unbelievable BS.
comments closed

At least, maybe, when it comes to the canard of instant mass deportation.

But in reality, in their recent confab discussing the hot-button topic of immigration, what was presented an attempt to basically refute lay complaints that the US bishops – reverting to unfortunate, damaging, hurtful stands they took in the 70s and 80s – are infringing upon lay rights by insisting upon specific policy prescriptions as being the only doctrinally acceptable approach.  This echoes the dark days of the “Bernadin”-dominated US episcopate, when supposed paeans to “peace” and “justice” were in reality little more than far left talking points and anti-Reagan, anti-US defense rhetoric.

Well, personnel is policy, and Francis has been busy remaking the US episcopate in his own image and likeness.  With men like Blaise Cupich in positions of great influence, and the sidelining of more (relatively) conservative forces like Conley and  Chaput, this is hardly surprising.  Francis’ influence will likely be felt in the US episcopate for a decade or more to come, depending on how long he reigns, and how replaces him.

At any rate, here’s what the bishops, including the liturgical aesthete Cordileone, had to say about the laity and their uppity opinions regarding prudential judgment. I’ll provide a little color commentary along the way:

As the conclusion of a lengthy discussion on migration, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops decided Monday to draft a statement from their president expressing the need for humane and just immigration reform.

The Nov. 13 proposal was first floated by Archbishop Michael Sheehan, Archbishop Emeritus of Santa Fe. After debating how to go about preparing a statement, it was agreed by oral assent that Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Galveston-Houston, president of the conference, would issue a statement with the assistance of the Committee on Migration, chaired by Bishop Joe Vasquez of Austin, assisted by Archbishop Jose Gomez of Los Angeles.

The discussion followed brief presentations from Archbishop Gomez and Bishop Vasquez. The Los Angeles archbishop outlined the principles which guide the US bishops’ work on migration, which come from Strangers No Longer, a 2003 pastoral letter issued jointly by the US and Mexican bishops’ conferences……… [That is a poor, and in many ways politically extremist, document.  It is on a par with “Always Our Children,” which tacitly or openly endorsed most of the sodomite agenda, for bad documents written by bishops in the past 20 years.  It insists upon basically a free right for Mexican and other Latin American nationals to have free access, on demand, to US jobs, welfare benefits, and services, with nothing more than lip service, and even that slight, to the extremely negative impact mass immigration of low-skill, benefits-seeking, poorly-educated has on native workers in a post-industrial economy.  This is not 1890.  We don’t have millions of manufacturing jobs suitable for a 3rd grade intellect anymore. The bishops are living in a fantasy land, constructed from their near total disconnect with the flock they lead and their needs.  The robust economy and abundant riches they refer to constantly as the driving moral imperative in favor of ceaseless mass immigration with virtually no limit or control no longer exists.  Trump was elected precisely because millions of Americans, more and more of them formerly solidly middle class, can no longer find work.  Their wages are horribly depressed by competition from illegal and other foreign workers imported into this country specifically for the purpose of driving down the cost of wages. Thus the bishops, contrary to their rhetoric, are not really so concerned about the little man – there are millions of Americans suffering gravely from the immigration pandemic – they are actually carrying water for the transnational globalist elite, who want a large and ignorant labor force that makes little more than $5 an hour. This is an environment in which everyone suffers, including the immigrants, the vast majority of which lose their faith, and generally also their moral compass, in crossing the Rio Grande. I am being harsh, the bishops may simply be naïve and myopic, but a very solid argument can be constructed that they are deliberately acting in behest of powerful interests, all the while clothing themselves in the garment of “friend of the little guy” (so long as he is not a native-born American)].

……..Bishop Oscar Cantu of Las Cruces raised the question of how to counter charges that immigration policy is a matter of prudential judgement, and that the faithful may therefore in good conscience come to a judgement which differs from that of the bishops.

Bishop Thomas Wenski of Miami responded that “we’re making our prudential judgement, too … in the light of Catholic teaching.” He emphasized that “immigrants are not problems, but brothers and sisters; strangers, but strangers who should be embraced as brothers and sisters. We’re offering what we think is best, not only for the immigrants, but for our society as a whole. We can make America great, but you don’t make America great by making America mean.”

Immigration reform, he maintained, must “include the common good of everyone: Americans and those who wish to be Americans.” [OK, that’s your opinion, but many Catholic laity believe it is not only wrong, it is destructive and harmful and in many ways achieves the opposite of its intent (i.e., worse outcomes for Americans AND illegal immigrants).  We can certainly disagree in prudence.]

Bishop Soto responded that deportations do not fall under the category of prudential judgement, but rather were included by St. John Paul II in his 1995 encyclical [sic] Evangelium vitae among the sins which cry out to heaven, and so is not merely “consistent with Church teaching,” but “to discard it as a prudential judgement doesn’t reflect our tradition.” [First of all, this is a red herring. No one is seriously advocating, or seriously expects, mass deportations to begin this year, or next, or the year after that.  I for one am single-minded – build the dang wall, worry about what to do with those here after that.  We must control the situation, the inflow, before we try to reverse it.  Once the crisis is passed, we can talk sensibly about how to deal with those here.  Secondly, there are four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance.  An encyclical is an important document but not the place for novel de fide definitions.  Thirdly, Evangelium Vitae, which focused primarily on abortion and contraception as evils against human life, mentions deportation once, in quoting Guadium Et Spes, the 3rd worst document of Vatican II, for a list of evils which are “infamies.”  Whether an “infamy” equals one of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for justice is quite unclear.  If so, Vatican II added about 30 other sins to that list, because Guadium Et Spes 27 condemned, equally, and without distinction, everything from genocide and abortion to “living conditions” and “where people are treated as mere instruments of gain rather than as free and responsible persons.”  That is to say, while GeS 27 sounds impressive, it’s theological import and meaning are muddled, at best.  Naturally, then, it would be a favorite of a progressive bishop.]

Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco recommended the five principles from Strangers No Longer as a sine qua non, on which “there can be no disagreement” among Catholics. “While there’s room for prudential judgement, it’s not something that can be taken lightly” because it “involves such basic considerations of justice.” [But justice to whom?  Aquinas and Augustine would indicate that justice begins with those closest to home.  When there are periods of abundance, or when economic and cultural circumstances permit, there can be quite liberal approaches to immigration. With prolonged economic depression and cultural disassociation growing to the level of near open conflict, however, prudence would indicate, even demand, a much more conservative approach.  This has been the situation in the US for over 200 years, with periods of mass immigration leading to problems followed by periods of restricted immigration allowing for cultural and economic assimilation.]

———-End Quote————

But let’s be honest, this issue of mass immigration in the present context, is at least as much – and I mean this from the bishop’s perspective, as well – about insuring permanent ascendance for progressive/leftist politics in this country as it is about any purported concern for the huddled masses yearning to breathe free (and is in fact probably much, much more about the former than the latter).

Correspondent MFG sent me this link, and he notes – quite intelligently – that this seems an attempt by the bishops to up their rhetoric and try to squash lay arguments against the bishop’s very liberal pro-immigration stance.  The prudential judgment argument has been a powerful one, and they seem to be trying to take that away.  As MFG notes, the way to combat this attempt is by returning to first sources and principles, going back to Aquinas, Augustine, Peter Canisius, and others to demonstrate the proper Catholic understanding of the role of government, of citizens of a land’s duties to one another and to those of other countries, of Catholic moral principles (in a hierarchical sense), and all such related topics.

Doing this in a systematic fashion will show that Catholics of any stripe, lay, clergy, whatever, are fully  within their rights to advocate for much more limited immigration than the status quo of the past 50 years, and to preserve the culture and heritage of the land they love, which they see slipping away faster and faster all the time.  This latest bit of rhetorical weaponry from the bishops is frankly very ugly, very manipulative and smacks of desperation.

UPDATE: Commenter CMatt makes a great point that I failed to address (in my defense, I covered quite a bit, anyway) – these are bishops talking, yes, but not necessarily YOUR bishop, and their authority over you as a soul is basically non-existent.  It only exists to the extent that the bishops unanimously approve documents or actions of the Conference, and even in that situation it is more of a tacit authority, something novel in the history of the Church and of dubious significance for souls.  That is the huge problem with episcopal conferences, and why Pope Leo XIII found them far from his liking – they muddy the lines of authority greatly and cause tremendous confusion when their actions are contrary to the Doctrine of the Faith.  Much of Testem Benovolentae, Leo XIIIs encyclical denouncing the heresy of Americanism (which the US bishops have never faithfully implemented) has to do with these manifest problems that emerge from such conferences – bureaucratization, secularization, inordinate focus on money/funding, an excessive interest in the material works of mercy vice the spiritual works, etc.

I’m Not Wrong, I’m Just Ahead of My Time November 9, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, cultural marxism, General Catholic, history, reading, scandals, sickness, Society, true leadership, unadulterated evil, unbelievable BS.
comments closed

Four years ago, I posted my opinion, based on quite a bit of evidence, that the United States irrevocably lost the war in Vietnam after the Kennedy administration approved, and helped instigate, the assassination of the only patriot leader of sufficient standing and capability to lead the fledgling nation of South Vietnam through a domestic insurgency and foreign invasion, Ngo Dinh Diem.  I didn’t get much flak for that post – I think it was outside most reader’s area of interest – but I was gratified to see last week that an author has written a book advancing just my point – that Diem was falsely maligned by the US press and a Kennedy administration that badly wanted a pliant stooge leading Vietnam, rather than a dedicated patriot who was vehemently opposed to seeing mass US ground troops taking over the war in his country.  Diem knew that a US takeover of the war would de-legitimize his government and be the perfect propaganda piece for the communists to convince rightly nationalist Vietnamese to oppose the southern government.  This is, to a very large extent, what happened.  US involvement post-Diem expanded massively, successive unstable puppet governments ruled the country until the ineffectual and autocratic Thieu took over, and support for the government of South Vietnam remained divided and tepid, at best.

There is a long post on the book at The Federalist, which my friend, fellow Catholic, and Vietnamese Patriot Hiep Nguyen sent me.  Some excerpts below:

That man is Ngo Dinh Diem, president of the Republic of Vietnam (better known as South Vietnam) from 1955 to 1963, his rule and life cruelly ended in a military coup tacitly supported by the U.S. government. A recent book on Diem’s life, “The Lost Mandate of Heaven: The American Betrayal of Ngo Dinh Diem, President of Vietnam,” by military historian Geoffrey Shaw clarifies why Americans would do well to mourn the tragic loss of a man many deemed to be Vietnam’s best chance of defeating communism……..

[Follows an interlude in which the dominant leftist narrative of Diem as a grasping, incompetent autocrat is described at length.  We’ll skip that]

……..Shaw’s biography of Diem paints a far different picture of “America’s Mandarin.” For starters, Diem was a deeply religious man, whose Catholic faith was central to every decision in his life. Often attracted to the religious life, Diem had to be constantly pushed to embrace his natural skills as an administrator and politician.

Diem had a reputation both as an ascetic scholar and a capable bureaucratic, one who seemed to perfectly fit the role of the ideal Vietnamese Confucian leader. Indeed, as Shaw shows, Ho Chi Minh admired Diem’s austerity, and likely sought to emulate it. Even at the height of his power, Diem lived meagerly, and was known to constantly give money away to any in need. He was known to rise early every day to attend Mass, and worked brutal 16-hour days………

…….The Buddhist protesters who so famously undermined Diem’s regime in the months leading up to his ouster were in fact a minority within the south, incited by Buddhist extremist leaders very likely supported by the communists. Rather than a reflection of the teetering authority of the government, the Buddhist crisis was more likely a propaganda effort to obstruct what so many contemporary accounts and historical documents suggest: Diem and his brother were incrementally winning on both the political and military fronts. [Winning, but as the author notes, incrementally, and not nearly fast enough for the nascent 24 hours news cycle-dominated American politics of the time.  Of course, the problem of instantaneous victory increased exponentially after mass American ground forces were committed, which is the very thing Diem refused to countenance.  He wanted to win the war for the long haul and build up a survivable independent nation at the same time, and had done a good enough job that the North under Nguyen Tat Thanh (Ho Chi Minh) was compelled to basically invade the South with massive ground forces to keep the Viet Cong from being crushed]

So how have we come to have such a skewed perception of Diem and his reign as president of South Vietnam? According to Shaw, two sources share the majority of the blame: an American press heavily biased against Diem, and a circle of senior government officials — led by Averell Harriman and Roger Hilsman — hell-bent on replacing him.

Correspondents from such publications as The New York Times and Washington Post, contrary to their portrayal by Burns and Novick’s television series, were often junior reporters in search of the next sexy story to burnish their credentials. Many spent most of their time in Saigon and other major cities, inevitably drawn into the circles of rumor and intrigue that represented only a segment of Vietnamese society. This created a skewed perception of Vietnamese popular opinion, which was particularly troublesome given that Diem’s efforts were focused largely on protecting and improving the lot of poor South Vietnamese farmers, who made up a majority of the population.

Throughout the Kennedy administration, the press corps published article after article condemning just about everything Diem did, while urging his removal. The media’s presentation of events on the ground were far more negative than those military assessments offered, or those of U.S. Ambassador Frederick Nolting, who supported Diem’s regime. The media’s hatchet job was so over-the-top that U.S. officials on a number of occasions complained directly to the editors of the New York Times and Washington Post[So here we have it, fake news a la the 1960s.  The author is right, most of the reporters in South Vietnam in the early 60s were very junior, and very ambitious.  They were not as intellectually and physically lazy as today’s media, but they were not nearly so well informed as they thought.  They were also heavily biased against Diem for a wide variety of reasons, but more importantly, generally had no idea what they were writing or talking about.  The intricacies of South Vietnamese politics, still confusing even 50 years after the fact, were way, way beyond them. They sought simplistic “good guy bad guy” scenarios to create narratives for the public back home, just as the media does to this day.]

……….As for Kennedy’s administration, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Averell Harriman  [A nominal Republican, but a very liberal, Rockefeller type] led a cadre of officials within the government vehemently opposed to Diem’s regime. Much of this stemmed from Harriman’s distaste for Diem’s attempts to maintain autonomy over his government, the latter often spurning U.S. directives he viewed as misguided, if not a threat to the survival of his country.

Probably the most famous example is Harriman’s support for the neutrality of neighboring Laos, a policy that allowed the communists to take over large parts of the Laotian countryside and use it to transfer fighters and materiel to communist insurgents (the notorious Vietcong) in the south. The route through Laos became known, jokingly, as the “Averell Harriman Memorial Highway.” Diem was adamant in calling this out for what it was: a direct attack on his nation’s security and viability. Harriman, a classic example of a condescending WASP bureaucrat, was widely known to despise Diem for resisting U.S. policy.

Shaw’s research shows it was Harriman who instigated and led growing support within the Kennedy administration for Diem’s removal, consistently setting the tone of cabinet discussions as explicitly anti-Diem. As would be expected, he sought to sideline those individuals — like Nolting — who offered a different, more sympathetic take……….

…………Harriman’s argument — that Diem’s persecution of Buddhists had “made it impossible for the United States to back him” — eventually won in the White House, despite a congressional fact-finding mission in late October 1963 (the month before the assassination) that concluded Washington should stick with Diem. The White House ignored the report, and a wealth of other information, and communicated to Vietnamese military coup plotters they would not oppose Diem’s removal.

The men who supported the coup surely must have known what would happen to Diem and his brother. When the two were discovered inside the Church of Saint Francis Xavier in Cholon on 2 November, soldiers acting on coup leaders’ orders secured them inside a personnel carrier, where their executioner “cut out their gallbladders while they were still alive, and then shot them.”

This was the ignominious end to an American ally, a man whom observers — Americans, French, British, Australian, and even North Vietnamese — believed (or in the case of the communists, feared) was Saigon’s best chance to preserve an independent South Vietnam.

………Ngo Dinh Diem came to power in South Vietnam through the help of the United States. Burns-Novick’s film and Karnow suggest even this was a farce, given Diem’s ultimate rejection of the planned 1956 nationwide elections, though Shaw’s careful research proves this a problematic thesis, as well. Although the communists quite expectedly called “foul” when Diem demurred on elections, Ho Chi Minh’s government had already been in direct violation of the 1954 Geneva Accords by building up their military forces and supporting communist insurgent networks in the south.

Meanwhile, in the north, the communists were busy suppressing revolts, murdering thousands of people during their unpopular and poorly contrived land reform efforts. Moreover, as Shaw argues, their flagrant violation of the Laotian neutrality agreement years later proves the communists would never have allowed a free and fair nationwide election anyway. Diem simply saw the sham for what it was.

Indeed.  Those purported elections, upon which so much of the left-wing criticism of Diem rest, was always going to be a sham. First of all, the North outnumbered the South, even after 1 million mostly Catholic North Vietnamese fled south during the brief period of UN control after the French collapse.  Secondly, with a violently repressive communist government, anyone but a leftist bonehead could predict that the North Vietnamese would vote 100% for the communist government, just as the people of the Soviet Union used to vote 100% for the single-party commie candidate in their sham elections.  Thirdly, as noted, the North had already violated the 1954 accords on numerous fronts.  Only an idiot would submit to an election under such circumstances.

And I think this is the ultimate rub – not so much for the mainline democrats of the day (1956), which were a very different crowd than the democrats of today – for the hardcore leftists in the media and academia who have always held such opprobrium for Diem.  They wanted the North to win. The North were part of the great leftist utopian machine, and thus sacred parts of the worldwide leftist revolutionary element.  Many of these people are the same ones who marched in demonstrations against the war shouting “Ho Ho Ho Chi Minh, NLF (National Liberation Front – the Viet Cong) are going to win!”  Diem, an ardent Catholic and anti-communist, was the antithesis in what they wanted to see in government.  Bringing him down would go a very far way to seeing through the ultimate goal of a North Vietnamese communist victory.

I say that is the largely unstated motivation of the historians and media personalities who have blighted Diem’s name.  The government officials complicit in the plot to murder Diem were generally not of this cohort, they were simply liberally minded American incompetents horribly out of their depth and seeking to cover up their role in an unfolding catastrophe.

I think as time goes on there will be a general re-appraisal of Diem’s role and the inevitable events that followed after his death.  I think this historian Shaw (and I have not read the book) is very much on the right track.  Diem was a flawed man, as all men are, but he was by far the best leader the South Vietnamese had, and the one most likely to prevent the country from falling to communism.  It is quite possible to imagine a much different history to that still suffering nation had he not been betrayed by his erstwhile “allies.”

Cardinal Farrell: Priests Have No Role to Play in Marriage Prep October 10, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, asshatery, cultural marxism, Dallas Diocese, disaster, error, family, foolishness, Francis, General Catholic, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the struggle for the Church, unbelievable BS.
comments closed

Hey, that cardinal’s hat wasn’t going to land on his head all by itself.  It had to be earned.  Kevin Farrell may not pray much, have a great depth of spirituality, or even know much theology, but he sure as heck know who the piper is, and what tune is being called.

There are actually two aspects to this report.  One is the outrageous statement made by former Dallas bishop and now Cardinal Farrell, and the other is how the Catholic media presented this statement, at least in the form of the headline.

To cover the claim, first:

Marriage ministry needs to be done by married couples because priests have “no credibility in this area,” Cardinal Kevin Farrell, prefect of the Dicastery for Laity, Family and Life, told a church gathering. [So, marriage is in the direct area of responsibility for Cardinal Farrell]

Delivering the keynote address to 500 delegates from the Diocese of Down and Connor at the Faith and Life convention in Belfast Sept. 30, Farrell discussed Pope Francis’ 2016 apostolic exhortation “Amoris Laetitia” (“The Joy of Love”) and appealed to parishes to establish study groups on the document and to train couples to teach, prepare, guide and accompany married couples. [Giving a talk to a large group of laity concerning “Faith and Life,” Cardinal Farrell chose to make a bold statement]

On the role of priests in marriage accompaniment and preparation, he said they had “no credibility when it comes to living the reality of marriage” even though they may know the principles, the philosophy and the theology. [This is manifestly incorrect.  Priests have the primary responsibility to train and form lay people in every aspect of life, but especially regarding the Seven Sacraments. More in a second.]

Speaking to Catholic News Service afterward, the Dublin-born former bishop of Dallas said parishes would have to be prepared to train laypeople for such a role, which he saw as a new model of accompaniment in line with the pope’s vision for the church…….[So is this really about what’s best for couples, or who provides the best catechesis, or is it about implementing an ideological agenda in the Church?]

……..Ministering by couples to couples is better done by “people who have walked in their shoes,” the cardinal said. He admitted he did not “have a clue” how to answer some of the questions on couples’ difficulties, which his own nieces and nephews had put to him. [Well that’s more the shame for you and your family, not to mention the Diocese of Dallas which you led for nearly a decade, and now the entire Church.  This claim is based on a logical fallacy, that only those who live an experience can speak sensibly on it. In point of fact, being buried knee deep in an experience can actually warp one to a point that making a sensible, helpful contribution on it is impossible – one is simply too close to the problem.  Even though Cardinal Farrell makes some statements about the laity needing to be trained, lay-led catechesis in the vast majority of the Church (re: Novus Ordo world) has been and remains a disaster.  Most laity are very poorly and narrowly educated, and what education they have received has been dominated by leftist/modernist suppositions.  It is very hard not to see this as yet another avenue by which to undermine the sanctity of marriage.  And, by the way, Cardinal, lay people have been doing the lion’s share of what a paltry excuse for “marriage prep” exists in the Church today.  Priests, largely sequestered in their offices as administrators and occasional “sacramental administrators,” have only rarely played a substantial role in marriage prep for decades.  Indeed, my wife and I received exceedingly poor marriage prep, consisting of two 1 1/2 hour meetings, from an old hippy couple in Austin, both divorced and remarried.  What shining example we received!  We didn’t learn diddly squat, except that sex is groovy and we should contracept.  There are exceptions to this sad practice, which has done so much already to undermine marriage in the Church, and turn American Catholics into creatures indistinguishable from the broader culture when it comes to marriage, and now you wish to visit the American/Western disaster upon the broader world (or has Cardinal Farrell so adopted his beloved leader’s ideology that he has convinced himself that it’s 1955 again, and mean old priests, casting poor divorced souls out of church left and right, refusing to hear their confessions, are giving lay people really severe, strict, morally impossible catechesis. What planet do these guys live on – or are their arguments really so weak they must create a straw man Church)?  Anyway,  those exceptions are far too rare, and generally concentrated in traditional parishes and the few brave, persecuted, orthodox Novus Ordo priests.]

“I have no experience of that and the majority of priests don’t have that experience,” Farrell said, noting that many of the married couples who attended the 2014 and 2015 Synod of Bishops on the family insisted that more lay couples be involved in marriage ministry. [Priests absolutely DO have, or CAN have, experience of a beautifully lived marital vocation, in the form of the witness provided by their parents!  This is where many great Saints and moral theologians, such as Alphonsus Maria de Ligouri, gained their experience, and it was sufficient to guide dozens of generations of married Catholics to sanctity.  It is only in this period of cold hearts and dead faith that the leadership of the Church find it necessary to invent all kinds of new failed programs to replace the old, successful ones, the ones that were given up for dead because they failed to “resonate with the new man.”  But the new man is the same as the old, it is only the faith of the new men in leadership which has failed.]

Well, we can certainly see that in Cardinal Farrell, Francis found the right man for his job of remaking the Church in his own image.

Now, if you’re like me, Cardinal Farrell was speaking quite boldly, even definitively.  He left no doubt that he feels that priests “have no credibility in this area.”  That’s a quite definitive statement.

So how did the Catholic press, especially Catholic News Service writer Sarah MacDonald, report this really remarkable declaration from Farrell?  Get this headline: “Prefect suggests couples can be better at marriage prep than priests.”  Hmmm.  Is that your takeaway from this?  That Cardinal Farrell suggested that priests could be better at marriage prep than priests? It read to me like he just came out and said it, like a bald statement of fact.

And so we see that fake news is not limited to the secular world!  That’s how you got Trump, Mzzz. MacDonald.

Beyond the differences, he is a Peronist Pope” – Lieutenant Governor of Buenos Aires, March 14, 2013, the day after Francis was elected Pope.

You’ll get one or two posts today, and like it!

Dallas Own “Ultraliberal” Cardinal Farrell Attacks Correctio Signers……. October 5, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, Dallas Diocese, different religion, episcopate, error, General Catholic, Liturgy, persecution, Revolution, scandals, self-serving, Society, the struggle for the Church, unbelievable BS.
comments closed

…….and thus serves his patron and master.  GloriaTV calls Farrell ultraliberal – an assessment I would have argued with once but not so much today (Farrell is a veritable weathervane for the ecclesiastical winds) – and notes his line of ad hominem attack against the signers of the Correctio Filialis:

Pope Francis “is not a heretic” according to the ultraliberal Curia Cardinal Kevin Farrell, 70. Taking to cruxnow.com on October 2, Farrell attacked the Filial Correction by launching personal attacks against the signatories rather than by responding to their arguments. According to him the signatories “use any excuse just to attack him [Francis].”

In response to the interview, one of the signatories, Deacon Nick Donnelly, states on twitter that Francis “is not accused of being a heretic, but of promulgating heresy”.

During a NCR-interview in 2016, Farrell insinuated that Amoris Laetitia has the same authority as the Bible, “Basically this is the Holy Spirit speaking to us.”

Please don’t tell me what good things Bishop Farrell did while he was here.  First, that was then, this is now, but even more, he did a heckuva lot of bad things like totally ghettoizing the TLM and even blocking priests from offering Mass partially in Latin, Ad Orientem, or basically anything that substantially improved the reverence of the Mass. And that’s only his malfeasance with regard to the Liturgy.  He did a few things better than his seminary but on the grand scale – and as we find out more and more after his departure – he was just what you would expect a creature of McCarrick would be.

I will say that there is scant difference between “promulgating heresy” and being a heretic.  I suppose one can maintain the pious hope that Francis is acting in ignorant innocence with his manifold attacks upon the ancient Faith (get ready for further attacks on the Liturgy and Communion for protestants!), but I believe the massive evidence we have accrued in less than 5 years indicates that invincible ignorance is out of the question.  I am also becoming increasingly aware of very poignant, pained, and emotional personal interventions made by good souls to Francis to amend his ways, but he has coldly and brusquely dismissed all of these.  Perhaps some of these will make it to print one day, unfortunately what I have learned is too much of hearsay and unsubstantiated to print.

For some good news, Cardinal Farrell maintains that his small advisory role at the  Apostolic Signatura will not prevent him from pursuing formal correction of Francis should the situation demand it:

The nomination as a member of the Apostolic Signatura is “not a full-time position”, Cardinal Raymond Burke told journalists on Monday. He will assist in the work and serve as a judge when asked to do so.

Burke further stated according to Vaticanista Edward Pentin, that the nomination will not change nor delay his plans to issue a fraternal correction of Pope Francis if he further declines to answer the dubia.

I’d say the time for that correction is now, good Cardinal Burke.  However, I can understand delay if you are having difficulty finding others to join you in this correction, though I suspect with the Correctio out there are gathering support, now is about as good as time as you will find.

Please pray for Cardinal Burke and all those who are working to stop the total dissolution of the Church.  They need much support for strength.  I am personally praying that more bishops – especially some active ones- will sign the Correctio and then join Burke in his own correction.  Where things go from there will be in God’s hands, but I pray the truth may see the light of day and the Lord’s will be done.

People are Endlessly Dumb, re: North Korean “Hydrogen Bomb” October 2, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, cultural marxism, error, foolishness, General Catholic, huh?, rank stupidity, Revolution, secularism, self-serving, silliness, Society, unbelievable BS.
comments closed

I know this is fairly off topic, but this bit of insanely incorrect, maddeningly dishonest, blindingly negligent agitprot/”reporting” from the New  York Post (I know, I know) is just so stupid I had to comment.  It just goes to show how the American media is the most ignorant in the world, even of their own nation’s recent history (and I mean, well within living memory).

You see, if North Korea initiates a “hydrogen bomb” type device in the Pacific, it’s literally the END OF THE WORLD:

The ocean would be devastated and low-orbiting satellites would cease to function.

Planes would literally fall out of the sky as technology stopped working and huge waves carrying radiation rushed ashore. [No, they won’t.  None of this will happen.]

Marine life in the immediate area would be killed and thousands of other animals and humans would remain at risk for long periods of time. [The risk would be trivial to non-existent, even in the case of a very dirty surface burst]

Radiation would disperse, flowing into an unknown number of waterways.

These are among just some of the terrifying prospects the world faces if North Korea followed through on its threat to carry out a hydrogen bomb test in the Pacific.

North Korea’s Foreign Minister Ri Yong-ho told reporters in New York his country may consider doing just that in retaliation to tough UN sanctions………..

…….Oliver Buhler, a professor of applied mathematics at New York University, told Motherboard there would be waves and big ones at that.

“An underwater explosion or an above ground explosion would clearly create a bunch of waves, strong waves,” he said. [Really?  That’s interesting, because the US and France have both conducted numerous surface and sub-surface thermonuclear initiations up to 16 megatons – far larger than anything North Korea is able to produce – and there were no tsunamis, no tidal waves, not even a pinprick.  A single small hurricane is tens of times more powerful – expends more energy – than all the nuclear weapons in the world combined.  This is nothing but scaremongering of and to the blatantly ignorant, the kind of thinking that concludes in numerous young people believing that a single nuclear device is enough to kill all life on the planet forever]

There would also be a shockwave which would radiate outwards and carry “upwards of 140 kilotons of energy.” [Which on the scale of the Pacific is absolutely nothing]

Buhler said the waves would disperse and the bomb would act more as a storm arriving over a period of time. [???]

Motherboard also reveals how radiation fallout could continue for years after the blast occurred. [Yes but at trivial levels.  Remember, the US, Soviet Union, Britain, and others conducted hundreds of above ground tests for ~15 years, and many of these devices were massive and initiated at ground/sea level, meaning they were extremely dirty (produced tons of fallout).  This resulted in some slightly elevated potential for cancer over a decade or three.  It’s not “fallout” a la “The Day After” with lesions and hair falling out and all that.  The worst case was Castle Bravo in 1954, whose power was underestimated by physicists by 250% and which therefore caused some fallout to descend on some Japanese fishermen, killing some of them.  But that’s because they were only 40-50 miles away from the fireball and directly downwind, having escaped notice in the quarantine zone]

In an analysis for The Interpreter, Australian space analyst and writer Dr. Morris Jones paints an equally horrifying picture of what would happen post-blast.

Morris writes that the physical blast and electromagnetic effects would be catastrophic and, if the blast occurred without warning, things could get even worse. [Whaaaa?!?  The blast might extend over a few miles away from the initiation.  It will probably upset some fish and that’s about it. If North Korea has it initiate in Long Beach harbor, that’s an attack, not a test, and of course it would be catastrophic. But not in the middle of the open Pacific]

Electronics on planes would fail, causing them to fall from the sky while satellites in low-Earth orbit would be impacted. [This is just sheer stupidity. This author at an Australian leftist panic site is confusing an EMP attack, which requires a space-based burst, with an end-to-end missile to target detonation near the surface.  Surface and even airbursts do NOT GENERATE EMP! EMP only “works” if the device is initiated in outer space, otherwise the gamma and X-rays are stopped within a few miles by the atmosphere.  Rule of thumb: if you are close enough to lose your electronics in an atmospheric nuclear initiation, you will die of blast and heat before the radiation does you in (excluding enhanced radiation devices (so called neutron bombs), which still only “work” over maybe a 10 mile radius)]

That’s even before we consider the effects on ocean and marine life which would be hugely serious. [Only in the local area.  Just to remind, there were literally hundreds of surface level tests, and dozens of them were multi-megaton, larger than probably anything North Korea will be able to produce.  We don’t even know they have perfected a two-stage (thermonuclear) device…….250 kt is will within the range of a boosted fission weapon (fission salted with tritium to up the yield)].

I hate this kind of lying scaremongering.  Only one of the “experts” quoted in the article (there’s lots more) had the faintest clue what he was talking about.  Most of the “experts” were just political operatives with bylines or cozy sinecures at NGOs.  That mathematician at the top is a real dodo.

Look nukes are bad and testing and atmospheric testing causes a lot of problems it is highly desirable to avoid but the effects are cumulative and take a long time to really have an impact.  One test in one place will cause local devastation (hopefully, the middle of nowhere) but global effects are minimal to non-existent.

Anyway a little Catholic content coming your way shortly, God willing.

Secular Paganism Ascendant: Leftists Attempt to Impose Religious Test for Federal Offices September 14, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, cultural marxism, Ecumenism, Endless Corruption, General Catholic, paganism, persecution, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, unbelievable BS.
comments closed

At one time, Christianity was culturally, morally, and, to a lesser degree, politically ascendant in this country.  At least, some notional shade of Christianity, defective at various points and divorced from the Church, but, the United States was culturally and morally recognizable Christian for at least the first 150 years of its existence.  During that time, while the “no religious test” endarkenment error enshrined in the US Constitution always applied (and to eventually a highly destructive degree), one had to at least pay a certain lip service to being a Christian in order to occupy high office.

Over the past century or so, a different, irrevocably hostile religion has gained cultural and moral suzerainty – sexular pagan leftism or rationalistic materialism.  Especially since the 1960s, it has supplanted Christianity as the de facto official religion of the United States, to the extent that nowadays there is increasingly a religious test being applied not only for federal offices, but even for any public role at all, and these tests are rapidly multiplying out into private life.  As a for instance, a private corporation that is a federal contractor embraced the most radical interpretation of Obama’s transgender bathroom executive order, and basically declared that any criticism of transgenderism or sodomy of any stripe would be a fireable offense, even if this criticism occurred outside of work (such as via social meadia).  Basically, Christians were commanded to keep key moral precepts to themselves, or better yet, to jettison them entirely, on pain of losing their jobs.  And, of course, we have seen in recent years numerous careers ruined when individuals are exposed for holding heresies held to be damnable by the sexular pagans.

The end-game for this process is when it becomes completely normalized and enshrined in law (at least common law), such as when despicable leftist senators Dianne Feinstein and thievin’ Dick Durbin tried to apply a religious test to Catholic federal court nominees:

“Do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?” is an unusual and inappropriate question for a senator to ask a judicial nominee. In fact, the Constitution forbids it.

But that didn’t stop Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., from probing Notre Dame Law professor Amy Coney Barrett about her faith. Sen. Dianne Feinstein. D-Calif., also chided Barrett for being a practicing Catholic, proclaiming, “The dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern.”

Both senators appear to have forgotten Article VI’s admonition that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Officer or public Trust under the United States.” [Well, this has always been a contentious issue.  The attempt to disassociate the government of the United States from an explicit compact with the Christian Faith was the biggest mistake the Founders made.  Over the nation’s history, the degree to which an official’s or candidate’s faith could inform his decision making has varied widely.  John Kennedy more or less had to apostatize the Catholic Faith in order to get elected, stating that he would not allow the Faith – or the “Pope in Rome” – to guide his decision making.  He was not so much opposed by militant secularists at that time -though there were a few – as by bigoted protestants who didn’t want a Catholic president*.  But as I said at the top, in most places in this country, for the first 70% or so of its history, you had to be at least publicly accepted as a fairly decent Christian/Jew in order to get elected.  Certainly there were exceptions, but for the most part, the rule applied.  Much public discourse up till the mid-20th century was heavily populated with references to the Christian God.  Now that is practically forbidden.  Interestingly, however, outside the decadent post-Christian West, acceptance of atheism is plummeting and belief in God is growing rapidly, to the extent that, globally, the number of atheists is actually shrinking.  But in the US, we are still in a period of rapid Christian decline and sexular pagan ascendance, most especially among the cultural, political, and economic elites, but also within the private lives of tens of millions of Americans who, even if they self-identify as Christian, put very little of the Faith in practice in their lives.]

The senators’ hostility to religion was loudly on display as Barrett and Michigan Supreme Court Justice Joan Larsen appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday, having been nominated by the president to fill two federal appellate vacancies………

……..Barrett faced numerous questions about her writings, including her criticism of stare decisis or the role of precedent in judicial decision-making in certain circumstances……..

………She also faced questions about a 1998 article that she co-authored as a law student, discussing Catholic judges participating in death penalty cases. In that article she considered situations in which the law and a judge’s religious faith conflict. [And she unfortunately took the JPII neo-liberal stance that the Catholic Church “condemns” the death penalty as gospel, and thus claimed that Catholics must oppose the death penalty.  Well, she is a product of Notre Dame.  As for a Catholic recusing themselves in cases that touch on the Doctrine of the Faith – baloney BS.  Believing Catholics must ESPECIALLY apply themselves to those cases that most closely correlate to the Doctrine of the Faith, otherwise, they are failing in their duty as Catholics.]

Senate Democrats attempted to distort her article, claiming she would put religious beliefs above the law. [The Law of God is above the law of man.  And sexular pagans do this constantly, putting their religious beliefs ahead of the Constitution as written and seeking to re-write it and/or obliterate it] But in fact, she wrote, “The legal system has a solution for this dilemma—it allows (indeed it requires) the recusal of judges whose convictions keep them from doing their job.”

Barrett is not the first to broach this subject. Many Catholic judges have considered and written on this issue, including Judge William Pryor, who sits on the 11th Circuit, and Scalia.

At any rate, these two did finally make it out of committee after this little demonstration by the sodomite-serving leftists.

Had Hillary been elected, I think we would have seen this kind of attack become completely regularized and accepted, if by some miracle any conservative would have ever been able to get elected after her.  Trump is increasingly appearing to be at best a pause, however, he is doing precious little to roll the leviathan back at the governmental level, though he has stirred up a significant cultural resistance.  Well, some of us always knew he wouldn’t be a conservative.  However, if he folds on the wall and caves to corrupt Republicrats on virtually everything else, I don’t know if some less undesirable judicial nominees are enough to vote for him again.  Without the wall, this nation as it was established and intended to be is finished.

*- The best thing Kennedy could have done would have been to implore the leading cardinals of the time – Cushing, Spellman, Meyer, etc – to consecrate the US to Our Lady and Christ the King in a public Mass immediately after taking office.  Doing so would have radically altered this nation’s history.  Alas, he was not remotely interested in doing so, and, probably, few of the cardinals would have been, either.

Media Scum Show their Hateful Loathing of Ordinary Americans……. August 30, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, cultural marxism, disaster, Endless Corruption, General Catholic, horror, paganism, persecution, scandals, secularism, sickness, Society, unbelievable BS.
comments closed

…….and since we’re speaking of the heroism on regular display in Houston and southeast Texas, also revealing their callow envy at people they know to be far better than themselves.

What a spiteful little bit of bile, via Ace:

There’s actually quite a bit being revealed, probably more than the artist intended.  He shows much more his own ignorance of (and bitter anger towards) Christianity than he says anything remotely relevant of Christians, even erroneous fundamentalist protestants.

A local priest has told a joke/story about God’s intervention in our lives a number of times, and it is perfectly apropos for this cartoon and the whole Harvey situation.  It involves a man trapped on his roof amid steadily rising flood waters.  The man is praying for God to rescue him, and lo, about an hour later, comes a boat offering rescue to the man.  But the man refuses, continuing his prayer.  A little later comes another, larger boat.  Again the man refuses to be rescued.  Still later, when the man has had to climb his chimney as the water rises ever higher, a helicopter passes over and begins to lower its rescue cage, but the man waves them off.  Finally the man is swept off his chimney by the waters and drowns.  When he meets God, he asks why God didn’t rescue him.  God answers “I sent you one small boat, one big one, and a helicopter – what more did you want?”

That is to say, there is nothing to say that a “helicopter sent by government” was not influenced by Grace to respond to a particular person’s needs at a given time or place.  The idea that only a complete redneck imbecile would think that demonstrates the incredibly childish level of understanding our self-appointed “betters” in the media have of Christianity, and their utter disdain for the operation of Grace.  Only those possessed of a reprobate sense would have such a callous view of even the potentiality of the miraculous.  And yet these are the opinion-shapers – even still, even after a million self-inflicted wounds to their credibility – that form the thinking of tens of millions of Americans, probably still a majority.

As for me, I have no truck with anything they say or do anymore.  The media come across to me as high chiefs of a strange and always hostile religion.

More leftist hatred of the petit bourgeoisie here.

Still more ripoff – professional muslim agitprop agent Linda Sarsour misrepresents pro-radical muslim political campaign donation efforts as “hurricane relief.”  Most despicable, using money bilked from  unsuspecting people to stir up hatred and envy among those possibly rendered vulnerable to these terrible vices by the trauma they’ve experienced.  I suspect it will not result in much measurable success in Texas.

Be very careful who you donate to.  Already several shyster donation ripoff sites have been exposed in the Houston area.

 

They Demolished the Liberal Arts, Social Sciences, Compromised Natural Sciences – now SJWs Come for the Engineers August 4, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, cultural marxism, disaster, error, foolishness, It's all about the $$$, non squitur, persecution, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, technology, unbelievable BS.
comments closed

Dr. Donna M. Riley, SJW extraordinaire, has been appointed Dean of the Department of Engineering Education -whatever that is, they didn’t have those in the benighted, practically prehistoric days of the 1990s when I was in school – at the University of Purdue. She aims to introduce a deep exposure to leftist political ideology into engineering curricula already overloaded with state-mandated coursework and already desperately short of actual practical engineering education for the real world/industry.  I think this much is obvious in her statements that engineering must be “de-centered from Western civilization” and her repeated and focused attacks on “specifically ‘colonialist’ white men.”

But the fervent proselytes of the religion of sexular pagansim must conquer the entire world – it is a fundamental tenet of their faith –  and having some corners of campus relatively uncorrupted by their perverse and destructive ideology simply must not be allowed to stand:

When one thinks of the Progressive subversion of higher education, many people assume that the hard sciences are devoid of the kind of social justice agenda one finds in the humanities. But in a fascinating piece for the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal, engineer Indrek Wichman complains that engineering education has become more about social engineering than actual engineering. “A phalanx of social justice warriors, ideologues, egalitarians, and opportunistic careerists has ensconced itself in America’s college and universities,” he writes. “The destruction they have caused in the humanities and social sciences has now reached to engineering.”

Social justice warriors, Wichman continues, “have sought out the soft underbelly of engineering, where phrases such as ‘diversity’ and ‘different perspectives’ and ‘racial gaps’ and ‘unfairness’ and ‘unequal outcomes’ make up the daily vocabulary. Instead of calculating engine horsepower or microchip power/size ratios or aerodynamic lift and drag, the engineering educationists focus on group representation, hurt feelings, and ‘microaggressions’ in the profession.” [This “engineering education” aspect, now instantiated in many universities as the controlling authority over the first year or two of so-called engineering education, is how the SJWs are inflicting leftist indoctrination on every student, since they control the requirements for freshman education]

Wichman points to the example of Dr. Donna Riley, the recently-appointed dean of Purdue University’s School of Engineering Education, which “envisions a more socially connected and scholarly engineering education,” according to its website. “This implies that we radically rethink the boundaries of engineering and the purpose of engineering education.” Radically rethinking boundaries — that phrase is a huge red flag. [As is “scholarly education,” which means heavy exposure to fields already dominated by SJWs]

Dr. Riley declares that her personal purpose is to “seek to revise engineering curricula to be relevant to a fuller range of student experiences and career destinations [interesting coming from one who has built a career not on actual engineering, but on the politicization of same, and the diversity/grievance industry that has funded her advancement. She apparently wants to see opportunities in this blood-sucking field increase], integrating concerns related to public policy, professional ethics, and social responsibility [leftism]; de-centering Western civilization; and uncovering contributions of women and other underrepresented groups [uncovering – meaning, inventing]…. We examine how technology influences and is influenced by globalization, capitalism, and colonialism [WTF is that even an issue in the world anymore]…. Gender is a key…[theme]…[throughout] the course…. We…[examine]… racist and colonialist projects in science….” [Just straight up leftist propaganda/indoctrination]

Riley goes on, Wichman reports, to disparage “the free movement of capital, the role of Western civilization, and the nature of men, specifically ‘colonialist’ white men. How can it improve the practice of engineering to bring in such diversions and distractions?”

It can’t, of course, but social justice warriors couldn’t care less about the practice of engineering. They care only about politicizing every aspect of life and education. [And don’t give a damn how many have to die as a result of their policies, resulting in shoddier engineering.]

“Riley’s purpose,” Wichman says, “seems not to be how best to train new engineers but to let everyone know how bad engineers have been, how they continue to ‘oppress’ women and persons of color, how much we need ‘diverse perspectives,’ and how the ‘struggle’ continues to level all distinctions and differences in society.” [piece goes on to note how much of engineering publications, especially in the academic environment, are already totally penetrated with SJW illogic]

You should read the CV of this woman they appointed head of the Engineering Department at Purdue, long one of the most respected engineering programs in the country.  She’s done virtually no, you know, actual physical research into engineering phenomenon, but has ridden the affirmative action and social justice gravy trains her entire career.

Go take a look at the Virginia Tech engineering education website, which is surely heavily influenced by Riley’s appointment as head of engineering education at VT, one year before she got a plum assignment at Purdue (the SJWs, they do seem to climb the ladder so quickly, don’t they?).  Even though white men make up over 60% of the VT engineering student body, you can hardly find a white face on the homepage of the department, while every manner of greatly advantaged minority is represented.

I’d even go so far as to say that anyone who has held appointments in Women and Gender Studies programs – fields utterly corrupt and devoid of value, according to Dr. Jordan Peterson, among many others, and actually so pernicious as to destroy rational enquiry – is unworthy to hold a professorship in an engineering department.

Honestly this crap has been going on in engineering since the late 80s at least, but it’s mostly been lip service to date, and hasn’t impacted the quality of engineering programs to a marked degree (it does vary by college, some have really declined in quality while others have maintained standards).  I saw this at UT where I was the only white male student to get a nice scholarship from Mobil, but my grades had to be a solid 1 point higher than the  minority students who received it, only one of which actually went on to graduate with an engineering degree.

And this has been the goal all along. I will never, ever forget my first direct exposures to SJWs and politically motivated persecution.  It was my first job out of college, and the plant had hired a white female diversity officer from some leftist hellhole. She made no bones about it, political correctness, affirmative action, “diversity” preferences in hiring, and all the rest were just reverse discrimination, which was perfectly fine and justified since the evil white male had been putting it over on all the poor oppressed minorities for centuries, and it was time for us to get ours.  That woman is now a senior VP at a very large and connected federal contractor, supervising, you guessed it, human resources and diversity programs.

Yeah, you could say I have strong opinions on the subject.

BTW this Riley chick is very politically connected, she got an invite to the Obama White House due to her LGBTQRSTUV-&*# status:

Spoiled white chick with major daddy issues seeks to wreck male dominated field.  Surprise, surprise.  But it disgusts me that she has built a career out of attempting to destroy something much better and greater than herself.  The real shame is on the institutions that have hired her and given her such influential positions.  It’s enough for me to write off Purdue, Virginia Tech, and Carnegie Mellon.