jump to navigation

Youth “Transgenderism” The Latest of Many Destructive Psychological Fads March 8, 2018

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, cultural marxism, disaster, Domestic Church, family, General Catholic, horror, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, unbelievable BS.
comments closed

Psychology/psychiatry are often the butt of jokes, and I think rightly so.  It is far from obvious that in the vast majority of psychological treatment the cure has been worse than the disease.  Tens of millions of Americans are prescribed anti-depressants, and yet more people than ever are depressed, and a disturbing percentage of those on anti-depressants will have a psychotic episode.  26 of the last 27 mass shooters in this country were on anti-depressants.

So-called split personalities received massive media attention in the 80s and 90s and resulted in a huge increase in the number of people reporting this affliction.  After decades of study, however, most science has concluded that the vast majority of those reporting split personalities were faking it.

There have been many other such examples – the mass psychosis of the 60s was “anxiety neurosis” and millions of Americans were placed on tranquilizers.  We have tens of millions of little boys in this country being drugged out of their minds to make them behave more like little girls and make teacher’s jobs easier.  I’m sure you can supply your own examples.

Dr. Jordan Peterson believes we are in one of the most destructive psychological fads ever pushed (@~35:00 language warning for Owen Benjamin, so no embed in the post but the whole middle of the interview is very good) by the media, people desiring to be seen as part of a highly lionized movement given near total moral authority, and probably some parents who want their child to be “special” in the latest culturally approved way – that of pushing kids, almost exclusively little boys, into supposed “transgenderism.”  He believes we as a culture will have hell to pay with the adult product of the kids being experimented on today in one of the most horrific social experiments ever conducted, all for the benefit of the leftist social justice political organizing machine.

Historically, people experiencing genuine gender dysphoria, almost universally as the result of some terrible childhood trauma (generally of a sexual nature), have numbered about 0.01-0.03% of the population.  That is to say, 99.97-99.99% of the population did not experience this.  Now the fad is pushing the number up to where there are more people claiming to be transgender than inclined to the sins of sodom and gomorrah – upwards of 3% of the population:

Many more teenagers than previously thought may identify as transgender or gender non-conforming, a new study in the journal Pediatrics suggested. Only about 0.6 percent of U.S. adults identify with a gender opposite their birth sex, and previous studies showed about 0.7 percent of U.S. teens do so as well. The study published Monday suggested that the percentage might be closer to 3 percent, however. [Several things – I would be very careful with reading too much into these numbers (this post obviously aside!). Everything I have read, and it’s not an inconsiderable amount, on this subject suggests the number of transgenders historically averages are what I stated above – in the hundredths of a percent.  I am very dubious that the current number is 0.7%, which would translate into 2.4 million people!, or that 3% is really even in the realm of possibility – 10 million people!  It’s like the scam they pulled when advocating sodomy was the agenda – 10% of the population is “gay!”  No, it’s not, it’s not even close, first of all, many people drift in and out of the sins of sodom and gomorrah over their life – perhaps over half those who at one time self-identify as “gay” do so – and secondly the number is more like 2%, tops.  So my guess is that these numbers here have been exaggerated at least by a factor of 10, and possibly much higher. Nevertheless, it is not the raw numbers but the trends that this post is about.]

To put that in perspective, the U.S. Census Bureau estimated that there were 41.7 million Americans between the ages of 10 and 19. If 0.7 percent of them identify as a gender different from their birth sex, then approximately 292,000 U.S. teens are transgender. If the share is 2.7 percent, however, that would mean 1.13 million U.S. teens are transgender — an increase of 0.86 million.

……….This week, Pediatrics released a study of Minnesota teenagers in grades 9 and 11. The study surveyed 80,929 students, and found that 2,168 (2.7 percent) identified with a gender opposite or different from their birth sex. The study referred to them as “Transgender and gender non-conforming (TGNC),” and labeled the other 78,761 (97.3 percent) “cisgender.” [First of all, Pediatrics, along with the American Academy of Pediatrics, which like many other supposedly medical organizations/journals has been co-opted by the hard left.  Secondly, how was the question phrased, and have its results been duplicated (for instance, was the question broadly worded, calling “transgender” those who ever have ANY, even the slightest, confusion over their gender)?  Third, ages 14-16 are the very ages when people are most likely to experience confusion over gender as they experience the onrush of hormones, the often horrid peer environment of the school systems, and most of all, the beginnings of the transition from childhood to adulthood.  In this hyper-sexualized culture, in fact, children such as these are forced to grow up much too fast and are exposed to horrible influence like pornography that can warp their development and push them into the very kinks this study is supposed to be analyzing?  Here’s an interesting idea for research – how about correlating the frequent use of pornography and self-abuse with tendencies towards perversion?  There is a huge body of evidence that points to “transgenders,” like those inclined towards the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah, being not born, but made.  What are the increasingly demonic schools doing to propagate this?]

These results represented a stunning increase from previous estimates. According to government estimates, about 0.6 percent of U.S. adults (1.4 million) identify as transgender. A UCLA study released last year estimated that 0.7 percent of teens between the ages of 13 and 17 are transgender, about 150,000 kids, CBS News reported.

“With growing trans visibility in the United States, some youth might find it safer to come out and talk about gender exploration,” Nic Rider, a University of Minnesota postdoctoral fellow studying transgender health, told CBS News. “Diverse gender identities are more prevalent than people would expect.”

Well I’m more than a bit dubious of this data, but coupled with other revelations, it does seem that the constant, wall-to-wall, glowing media coverage of transgenders and the great moral authority the Left instantly grants them in the cultural space is having an impact.  The number of very young children, even as young as 4, whose parents seek treatment to transform them, outwardly at least, from one gender to another when they can barely go to the bathroom on their own has risen very sharply in the past few years.  There is absolutely zero chance this is a natural phenomenon.  Can no one see the massive possibility for corruption and the most base self-interest in this? And as Dr. Peterson notes, we’re going to have to deal with some extremely ugly repercussions from traumatized adults who, I’m quite certain, will relate tale after tale of how their parents, or their trauma, induced them into drastic changes that literally destroyed their bodies physically and will prevent them from ever leading normal, happy lives.  Who knows the cancers and other ailments that will result from the hormone treatments alone, let alone the prevention of puberty and probable permanent sterility.  But the damage to their souls will, I fear, be much, much worse.

Oh yeah, it’s going to be oh so much fun.  In fact, it’s going to be a cultural disaster of massive proportions, for which the media-industrial complex will call for government intervention, of course, which is the point of it all.  Anything to weaken the family and church and empower the state, they are foursquare for.  And it’s exactly what all those uptight prudish no-fun-at-all Christians were warning about way back in the 70s and 80s when this descent into amoral madness started really getting rolling.



Obama’s No Fool: Blocking Non-Existent “School to Prison Pipeline” Paved Way for Parkland Shooting March 2, 2018

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, disaster, Endless Corruption, error, horror, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, unbelievable BS.
comments closed

Obama may have been lazy, corrupt, and incompetent, but he was no fool.  Quite the contrary, he knew exactly the effect his policies would have, and a high-profile shooting or two may well have been seen as desirable for achieving one of his highest policy objectives – denying those backward hicks any guns to cling to.

The Obama administration posited a belief that schools referring children under their care to local law enforcement for crimes committed in their schools somehow constituted a “pipeline” from the schools to prison.  They were most concerned about locales with a huge number of incarcerated men – inner cities and other communities with “disproportionate” numbers of residents in prison. Rather than understanding this phenomenon from its root cause in, it must be said, generally leftist social policies, but from some invisible incipient racism still lurking in American society, the administration decided to try to encourage school districts to change their disciplinary practices to make it all but impossible to expel or suspend a student, or to bring law enforcement into truly egregious acts that broke the law.

Well, facing at least a tacit threat to their sacred federal funding, numerous American school districts immediately changed their disciplinary policies to fall in line with the Obamanation’s wishes.  And lo and behold, it turns out that very heavily left-wing Broward County, Florida, was one of the first to fall into line.  Thus, even though he committed numerous violent acts that should have resulted in his being charged with and probably convicted of several crimes, Nikolas Cruz never once was charged and thus was able to lawfully purchase the firearm he used to commit his insane atrocity.

Yes it may be a bit conspiracy oriented to think Obama saw that far ahead and actually desired this kind of outcome, to whip up such a frenzy of anti-gun sentiment as we see now (in at least a portion of the American populace, but I sense the majority is still strongly supportive of the 2nd Amendment), but he certainly desired chaos and destruction, all of which serve leftist ends of ever-growing statism.

At any rate, it’s amazing that inanimate black objects are being blamed for the sins of many, many failed bureaucrats and deranged policies:

Despite committing a string of arrestable offenses on campus before the Florida school shooting, Nikolas Cruz was able to escape the attention of law enforcement, pass a background check and purchase the weapon he used to slaughter three staff members and 14 fellow students because of Obama administration efforts to make school discipline more lenient.

Documents reviewed by RealClearInvestigations and interviews show that his school district in Florida’s Broward County was in the vanguard of a strategy, adopted by more than 50 other major school districts nationwide, allowing thousands of troubled, often violent, students to commit crimes without legal consequence. The aim was to slow the “school-to-prison pipeline.”

“He had a clean record, so alarm bells didn’t go off when they looked him up in the [NCIS] system,” veteran FBI agent Michael Biasello told RCI. “He probably wouldn’t have been able to buy the murder weapon if the school had referred him to law enforcement.”

Disclosures about the strategy add a central new element to the Parkland shooting story: It’s not just one of official failings at many levels and of America’s deep divide over guns, but also one of deliberate federal policy gone awry.

In 2013, the year before Cruz entered high school, the Broward County school system scrapped and rewrote its discipline policy to make it much more difficult for administrators to suspend or expel problem students, or for campus police to arrest them for misdemeanors– including some of the crimes Cruz allegedly committed in the years and months leading up to the deadly Feb. 14 shooting at his Fort Lauderdale-area school.

To keep students in school and improve racial outcomes [meaning raising the minority graduation rate], Broward school Superintendent Robert W. Runcie — a Chicagoan and Harvard graduate with close ties to President Obama and his Education Department — signed an agreement with the county sheriff and other local jurisdictions to trade cops for counseling. Instead of the criminal justice system, students charged with various misdemeanors, including assault, were referred to counseling, which included participation in “healing circles,” obstacle courses and other “self-esteem building” exercises. [Because if there is one thing we all know millennials desperately need, it’s to think even more highly of themselves]

Asserting that minority students, in particular, were treated unfairly by traditional approaches to school discipline, Runcie’s goal was to slash arrests and ensure that students, no matter how delinquent, graduated without criminal records.

Instead of howling to burn Dana Loesch to death, or murder Marco Rubio, maybe those devastated beings of Broward County should turn their attention to their incompetent sheriff, department of human services, and school superintendent.

This Nation Is Headed for a Most Unhappy Breakup February 23, 2018

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, cultural marxism, different religion, firearms, General Catholic, horror, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, unbelievable BS.
comments closed

I’m not a big fan of David French or National Review – or T. Codrington Van Vorhies IV of the National Topsider, as Iowahawk calls them – but he does raise an important point in a recent post on how the Left is driving increasing political, social, and moral polarization in this country, to the extent now that we have two very large segments of this country who can no longer agree on even such basic things as what constitutes a male or female human, and whether bakers should be forced by government gun to bake a cake for a non-wedding of two people of the same sex.

What is developing is a situation where each side is so alienated from the other – a process driven by the Left’s relentless demands for always more revolutionary change – that it finds being governed by representatives of the other side intolerable.  Furthermore, the internet has encouraged and enabled the formation of ideological bubbles where most of us screen our sources of information to those which not only tend to comfortably reinforce our views, but even have a tendency to make them more extreme in confirming them.

However, as French notes, it is the Left that always, always leads in both of the phenomenons above.  The right was concerned and a bit panicked about the election of Obama, but we didn’t have public breakdowns and still-ongoing (more than a year after the event) screaming hissy fits about the election of someone other than our preferred candidate.  And it is the Left that is much more typically broadly ignorant of policy, and especially the viewpoints of the Right, than it is the other way around. The Left has virtually always forced the issues that divide us, and always always always presses for ever more radical developments, especially moral/cultural ones, but the right is also becoming radicalized as a process of both natural reaction to the constant antagonism of the Left, and as part of a process of coming to recognize its core principles more and more through media dedicated to that purpose.  The end result of this process appears to be such polarization that a Civil War type breakdown seems increasingly likely.

I don’t see much hope of the polarization decreasing in the future. In fact, I look forward to it continually increasing.  I also think the two sides will grow less and less able to live together.  However many believing Christians (and orthodox Jews) there are, there are tens of millions of people who continue to live with a fundamentally Christian moral framework.  Coexistence with the always more radical left is becoming increasingly difficult, and for more and more, impossible.  This cannot lead anywhere good.  I expect the national breakup with be short, sharp, ugly, and bloody.

Anyway here is French’s spiel:

 In most states, the Overton window moved to the right, and it’s still moving right.

We can do this issue by issue, but an issue-based focus obscures a larger and far more significant reality. We’re no longer fighting about “the” Overton window. Our differences have grown so profound that “the” window has broken. We’ve got two windows now. One for red. One for blue.

Since 1994 the Pew Research Center has been studying political polarization in the United States, and you can watch the two windows form right in front of your eyes. Here are two images that show the difference between the political positions of the “median Republican” and “median Democrat” in the “general public” in 1994 and in 2017:

And this brings us back to the three stories that started this piece. There is a difference, I believe, between progressives and conservatives. Given their control of the academy, legacy media, and Hollywood — along with their intense geographical concentration in large, urban enclaves — progressives are not only racing further to the left, they’re also deceiving themselves about their cultural strength.

They think they’re “winning” when they’ve really moved mainly themselves. The other window either remains unmoved or moves right in response. Arguments on the far-left side of the blue Overton window (like campus temper tantrums) are greeted with complete incredulity and open mockery on the right.

In fact, even progressive conventional wisdom (such as the notion that a man can become a woman) is at best on the far-left edge of the Republican Overton window. At best. Similarly, I’d challenge a Republican to walk into a Brooklyn coffee shop and find a single person who didn’t think you were a violent bigot for believing that Caitlyn Jenner is still a man and that the Second Amendment alone grants you the right to carry a weapon.

We may have exhausted all the “why Trump won” arguments, so I won’t go there. But I will say that the notion that one Overton community will govern the other is increasingly infuriating and even terrifying to the losers of national political contests.

None of this is exactly new.  It’s been apparent to many for decades.  But the process of dissolution of common interest and increasing animosity only continues to accelerate.  The Founders set up a system that could take surprising amounts of strain, but every system has its limit.  When we cross that limit is anyone’s guess, but I am thinking we’re getting closer than anytime in the past 150 years, with the possible exception of the late 60s.

Teach the Children Hell: Leftists Co-opt Traumatized Students to Advance Anti-Gun Agenda February 21, 2018

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, rank stupidity, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, unbelievable BS.
comments closed

The Left has tried a new and seemingly effective tactic in their effort to totally disarm the entire law-abiding US population – co-opt children ostensibly traumatized by a recent attack (this one from generally liberal South Florida) into forcing weak-willed Republicrat politicians into a corner, forcing them to do something, anything to “stop the violence.”  How about the FBI responding to multiple tips (by name), and local mental health authorities not shirking their duties?  Nah, that’s too easy, and more importantly, doesn’t advance the agenda.

So now Trump is apparently going to advocate banning bump stocks, though those had naught to do with the Parkland, Fl shooting, and possibly raising the age of legal ownership for AR-15 type rifles from 18 to 21.  Because it’s fine to use an AR-15 type to die for your country at 18, but not for you to own one legally.

Ben Shapiro covers the Left’s very coordinated and, it seems, effective efforts below.  Gee, as well coached as these kids obviously are, one might almost wonder if the whole thing was at least allowed to happen, in order to serve a “greater” cause:

While not contained in the quotes included by Shapiro above, these kids have taken a nakedly partisan tack in response to this shooting, openly excoriating Trump and Republicans generally while showing great warmth and support towards demonrats and especially the far Left wing of that party.  In fact, it appears to me that these youths are very callously using the deaths of their fellow students as simply an opportunity to advance a policy position they have long preferred – using the logical fallacy of shroud waving in a despicable way to ban evil guns, rather than take action against the people who perpetrate acts of evil, or demanding the government hold accountable those who very apparently allowed this atrocity to take place.

Note the very deliberate F-U to the pro-life movement, commonly associated with the Right politically and, thus, support for relatively unrestricted private gun ownership, in calling this the “March for Our Lives.”  These shrill kids are obviously being coached, and Ace notes that the leftist media seems to be doing much of the coaching, with talking points going from statist media one minute and out of the mouths of these kids the next:

See Sexton’s post: He makes an interesting catch. CNN runs gun control talking points as “news,” then these same talking points make it into the mouths of the Child Crusaders, and then CNN now runs the Children Crusaders repeating CNN’s talking points as new news, this time out of the mouths of babes.

As Steven Crowder notes below, so-called assault weapons like the AR-15 are rarely used in these mass shootings, and are responsible for only a very small portion of murders involving a firearm on an annual basis.  So once again we see the prevaricating bait and switch of the Left, this time coming from children attempting to capitalize on the deaths of their deceased comrades (demonstrating the degree to which leftism corrupts even at a very early age), where they talk about banning or limiting one type of gun, but what they really mean, and intend to achieve, is a near total ban on private ownership of firearms a la Britain – where, incidentally, the murder rate has skyrocketed SINCE firearms were made very difficult for civilians to own:

I know some see me as a hard-hearted Pharasaical jerk, and I’m about to confirm that notion again, but these kids earn no sympathy from me.  As noted below, they are wholly ignorant of the issues at hand, hold very widespread false beliefs (propagated by their leftist media allies) regarding firearms (guns can be bought with no ID, no background check, minors can purchase “automatic weapons” with no problem, automatic weapons are easier to buy that setting up a social media account, etc, etc), and are essentially demanding the nation, and thus millions of law-abiding, hard-working, family-protecting gun-owning citizens turn over the nation’s firearms policy to a bunch of indoctrinated, uneducated, politicized children on the basis of having ostensibly experienced some trauma.  Actually, I should say correctly, they had my sympathy, but these obvious political agents of the Left have completely and irrevocably lost it, as they seek to hijack a tragedy for their own personal benefit and the direct personal harm of me and my family (that is, to take away my wife and I’s ability to protect each other and our children).  And in the meantime, they intend to usurp a right given by God and recognized by the Constitution for tens of millions of taxpaying, law-abiding Americans.  My only response to them is, go frank yourselves and if you want to live in a left wing gun regulated paradise, enjoy your stay in Mexico, where the murder rate is nearly an order of magnitude higher than it is in the US in spite of extremely rigid firearms laws.

As Dr. Peterson says, when you’re 15 or 18 or 20 you don’t know anything, haven’t accomplished a thing, and need to get your own life in order before you lecture the world on all its faults. You don’t even make serious proposals, you just rant against conservatives, Republicans, and the “older generations.”

Unfortunately, the Left may have pulled a coup in drawing children into this debate, since few politicians want to be seen as standing on the side of putting children in harm’s way, even if that characterization is manifestly false, banning guns is not the way to achieve that safety, and there are many other ways to improve the safety of children in government-run taxpayer funded schools leftist indoctrination camp. But that’s where we’re at, and if you want a bump stock, I suggest you buy one now.

And maybe rekindle that interest in acquiring firearms that mysteriously disappeared once the Obamanation left office. At the least, prices will probably be going back up, so now is the time to buy.  There are some very good deals to be had out there now, at least compared to the last 8 years when the threat of Obama prompted millions to purchase tens of millions of guns (BTW, a recent study concluded that there are not 300 million firearms in private possession in the US, but upwards of 650 million!).  Yeah, good luck confiscating all those.

In closing, I’d  just like to add, when will people stop giving their money and time to CNN, ABC, CBS, and all these other naked organs of leftist propaganda, so that the whole bloody business will collapse and go away?  Even many conservatives, especially older conservatives, continue to get most of their information from the lamestream media, even though they know the information conveyed is often very biased, missing key nuance/exculpatory evidence, or just plain false.  Stop watching them!  They are already dying, but a concerted effort will help hasten that end.  Unfortunately the politicians, especially at the federal level, continue to treat the statist media as the gold standard, so they are inordinately influenced by what some agenda-driven jaded teen says to 300,000 people on CNN, and ignore what Steven Crowder or Ben Shapiro say to 3,000,000 people on Facebook and Youtube.

As for the post title, you know the old dumb hippie song “Teach, the children well?”………..there you go.

Popular TV Remodeling Couple Pilloried for the Sin of Having 5 Children January 19, 2018

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, asshatery, cultural marxism, demographics, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, rank stupidity, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, unbelievable BS.
comments closed

This is the upside down, inside out, black is white world we live in, shaped by dystopian leftist views and mores for decades now.  Just a few decades ago, having a large family was seen at least as a neutral thing, and generally was viewed positively, as a sign of blessing.  Certainly, there have been misanthropes for decades, often liberal protestant types, who in the 20th century coalesced around the suffrage movement and radical social theories (like eugenics) to first start to push the notion that people = bad.  But at the time, those people were generally extremist nuts.  Nowadays, the default view by the typically childless “elites” is that children = bad, a drag, an endless source of carbon emissions, while they happily plan on collecting the Social Security checks and other benefits the children of others, the children they could never be bothered to have, will provide.

It’s a sick, sick, sick, sick world:

Fans of “Fixer Upper” no doubt have heard that stars Chip and Joanna Gaines have announced they’re having a fifth child.  Feminist commentator Kristen Pyszczyk does not approve.

“Procreation is becoming a global public health concern, rather than a personal decision. So when people do irresponsible things like having five children, we absolutely need to be calling them out.” [Actually, low birth rates are leading to massive social disruption and economic decline.  Japan’s economy has been in a zero growth recession for exactly as long as its birth rate has been less than replacement rate.  Europe is being remade due to the necessity of having to import millions of largely muslim immigrants to replace the babies they never had.  And the US would be experiencing a population decline, due to our lower-than-replacement native-born birth rate, and much of the poor economic performance of the last 45 years can be attributed to lack of population growth.  All the bases upon which the population explosion belief are grounded are utterly false.  But it’s a religious conviction with these people, so no amount of logic matters.]

While having a child or five is a very personal choice, it’s also a choice that affects everyone who inhabits our planet. So while many people might find the backlash unwarranted, it’s actually a conversation we need to have in order to challenge our uncritical acceptance of the life-fulfillment-through-procreation story. [That’s a massive assumption – that this well known couple has a larger than average number of kids out of some selfish desire for personal fulfillment. There are surely numerous reasons why they have 5 kids, but knowing their (protestant) Christian convictions, obeying God’s call to be fruitful and multiply is probably foremost.  Notice that feminists are all about “choice” when it comes to killing babies, but not when having them.  Reveal much?]

Now, as a feminist, I tend to oppose any cultural conversation that involves telling a woman what to do with her body. But women have long been told that they need to have kids to have a meaningful life, and they are groomed for motherhood from a very early age. [So let me make a totally unsupported assumption about you, Joanna Gaines – I imagine, transplanting the feminist critic’s selfish outlook into this unwitting recipient – and then launch on a rant, which just happens to perfectly correspond to my already held convictions, about how having lots of kids in order to “fulfill oneself” is horribly, horribly selfish.  And yet, which type is more in the solipsistic “Eat, Pray, Love” crowd – feminists, or devout Christians?”]

But we don’t often hear arguments for alternatives to motherhood. Women need to be presented with options for a fulfilling life that don’t involve taking 20 years of their lives to care for offspring. Changing the narrative around motherhood should help to offset some of the cultural conditioning we receive throughout our lives. [The eternal selfishness of the feminist mind is on stark display here.  There is more than a slight whiff of “doth protest too much” in this tawdry critique.   Unhappy with your life choices?  Find being used as a receptacle by unworthy men a bit more empty than empowering?  Taking it out on someone else may make you feel better for a few minutes, but cats are no substitute for children and grandchildren.]

Note the paradox – not having children is the key to humanity’s survival.  What she means is, “I demand the power, for myself and fellow travelers, to decide for others how many children they are allowed to have, at what time, and under what circumstances.  You see, like the endlessly evil and personally immoral Margaret Sanger, I believe only the right kind of people should be allowed to have children. Holding this view is a testament to my immense virtue and a sure signal of how much better I am than you, the grunting, rutting hoi polloi.”

Thus, our self-anointed “elites.”

Congratulations to the Gaines on their expectant arrival.


“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:

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!