[From "Three Reasons to Be Happy on 9/11"]
1. MILLIONS of Americans (they’re called “truthers”) still believe in the laws of physics.
2. Millions of Americans believe in questioning statements of government officials.
3. Truth exists
[From "Three Reasons to Be Happy on 9/11"]
1. MILLIONS of Americans (they’re called “truthers”) still believe in the laws of physics.
2. Millions of Americans believe in questioning statements of government officials.
3. Truth exists
[From "Francis and the Mystical Cult of Multiculturalism"]
JORGE BERGOGLIO, aka “Pope” Francis, worships man. In a particularly vivid display of this reverence, he kissed the feet of politicians from South Sudan this week. His famous knee problems did not prevent him from getting to the floor.
Humble pie. A true pope would consider this kind of groveling before any politicians an affront to papal dignity.
But it is highly unlikely that Francis would have kissed the feet of just any politicians, as much as he might have embraced their politics. It’s not surprising this type of display was reserved for Africans.
Similarly, does he urge Japan or Kenya to take in millions of immigrants from alien cultures? No, he urges Western countries, and Western countries only, to subsume their own cultures and keep open their borders to all who seek entry. The European man, whether he lives in Italy or America, is urged to destroy the stable cultural environment in which he thrives, not Asians and Africans.
But why is this?
The Vatican II religion is a cult of man. The worship of man inevitably leads to the cult of the Other, to the worship of man most foreign to the culture of Europe, the wellspring of Catholicism on every continent.
For multiculturalists, “diversity” is just a code word for a forced, homogenous sameness. They seek to destroy the true diversity of peoples created by God. They are opposed to nature and to the adoration owed to God alone.
They kiss the feet of not just any man, but the non-European most of all.
Walk into a “Catholic” church today in an American suburb, and you will probably see a smiling picture of an African somewhere in the vestibule. Not that Africans can’t be just as much part of the universal Church or aren’t worthy of charity. But the ubiquity of African faces sends a political message. “See, we are multiculturalists too.” It’s pandering and demeaning to Africans, who must in many cases see through the vanity of it all. It’s all about the goodness of the worshipper, not the object of such attention, who is deprived of his real humanity when he becomes an idol.
[From "St. Gregory and the Plague"]
TAKEN with the author’s permission from the forthcoming book, PLANNEDemic – The Great Pandemic Farce of 2020, by Hugh Akins [Check www.ca-rc.com for availability]:
Catholics, Christians and patriots are well advised to contemplate the heroic and effective action taken by Pope Saint Gregory the Great, who in the Year of Our Lord 591, faced a pestilence that took many lives, even the life of his predecessor on the Chair of Peter a year earlier.
Saint Gregory certainly did not tell his large flock to cease attending public Masses, to stop exercising the virtues of faith, hope and charity, to quarantine themselves in their homes, to avoid all contact with those stricken with the plague, to practice social distancing, to comply with every despotic mandate to come down from godless authorities bent on the destruction of Christianity. No! The Saint and Vicar of Christ called for the entire city of Rome to assemble for a large public procession to beg God’s protection and healing.
President Trump, the CDC, Mayor de Blasio and Governor Cuomo of New York, and practically every other governor today would have had the Saint arrested for violating their sinister Police State lockdown orders!
Pope Saint Gregory the Great would still not have budged, as today’s popes and bishops have done, and even many traditional pastors, closing the doors of their churches like so many cowards and traitors. [Editor: St. Gregory also did not reject the Catholic faith.]
No, not he, the true man of God that he was.
“On that day the faithful…walked through the streets of the city praying and singing… The plague was so potent at that time that 80 people collapsed and died as they walked…
[From "Corona and the Deification of Man"]
You are absolutely correct when you say, “Americanism is a civil religion, a form of toxic idolatry.”
I’ve upset lots of conservatives and unfortunately lost a few friends during this lockdown. In a number of group texts, I’ve explained that American conservatives are just liberals who have a different messiah than the one Democrats accept. Both really, liberals and conservatives, desire power over others to fix the world the way they think it should be. They both have a therapeutic view of existence: the world is to be cured of its ills by man. The only things they argue about are the trivialities of how this should be accomplished.
A true conservative understands that this world is tragic, that man cannot fix the world; salvation is only through Christ. To believe otherwise is Talmudic, Masonic and American. They convict Jesus for not taking the offers of worldly benefit with which Satan tempted Him. It’s few who understand that Jesus could have cured all blindness but chose not to. Instead He told his apostles that the reason man was born blind was to manifest the glory of God. This is what a true Christian understands – our sufferings in this world are to accomplish God’s purposes and when those are achieved He will bring a new, resurrected creation free of this world’s flaws.
We are called to comfort and give aid to those who suffer, but we worship man if we believe that our task is to create a New World.
[From "The George Floyd Murder Story"]
PECULIARITIES have come to light in regard to the alleged murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis policeman Derek Chauvin. The brutal murder caught on cell phone video has touched off race riots and open theft in Minneapolis and elsewhere. Once again it seems that a major news event has been either entirely staged (most likely) or orchestrated and riots have been deliberately provoked as a social control mechanism and mass distraction.
Other evidence of staging includes the following, but please bear in mind that the course of events at this point remains uncertain and this list is inconclusive. Skepticism about the official narrative should not be misconstrued as approval for police brutality, racial hatred or revenge. It is important that black and white people of good will come together and defeat the brutalizing and dehumanizing social revolution from above and the agenda to fan racial hatred and replace true human diversity with the evils of artificially-imposed multiculturalism. I am not suggesting that police brutality does not exist or that rioters are just helpless pawns. Here is my list so far:
• Chauvin (an odd and appropriate name) used a method of restraint that is highly unusual, kneeling on Floyd’s throat in full view of a cell phone camera that must have been obvious to him.
• Chauvin’s neighbors who had lived next to him for many years believed he was a real estate salesman and didn’t know he was a policeman.
• Chauvin and Floyd must have known each other; they both worked as security guards at a Latino club.
• Police Chief Medaria Arradondo said many of the rioters appeared to be from outside Minneapolis.
• Mayor Jacob Frey has a history of inciting racial agitation.
• The Minneapolis police appeared to stand down and allow open looting of stores.
• There are unconfirmed reports that a man who smashed windows in the first building set on fire was an employee of the St. Paul police department.
[From "Anomalies in Shooting Reports"]
In the video below, you can see the completely bloodless victims of the shootings at an El Paso Walmart ludicrously — against all emergency protocols observed by emergency teams around the country — taken out of the store on shopping carts. (Did they deliberately choose heavy victims to poke fun at America? I wonder.)
Carnage is typically messy. The human body carries more than a gallon of blood and it tends to flow profusely. Here we see none of the normal mess. It looks like an emergency drill, not a real event.
Furthermore, the idea that one person could kill 22 people in minutes when even the most expert marksman cannot achieve such kill rates, especially in this age of advanced medicine when even people who are shot in the head can be revived and survive for years, is absurd.
The real victims of these shootings are the children and extremely gullible adults who have been traumatized by these reports which are broadcast everywhere so that you cannot escape them or find barely a corner of the world to achieve a moment’s rest from manufactured hysteria and political grandstanding.
[From "Political Incorrectness"]
"The Goyim Know" poster blaming the Jews for "debt slavery" (credit cards), the Holodomor, Feminism, 9/11, Communism, pornography, "Shut it Down!" (internet censorship), immigration and trans chiildren.
[From "Epstein Was Unapologetic"]
ACCORDING TO The New York Times journalist who had the last extensive interview with Jeffrey Epstein, he did not view his sexual perversion as perversion. He was “unapologetic.”
‘He said criminalising sex with teenage girls was a cultural aberration and at times in history it was perfectly acceptable. He pointed out homosexuality had long been considered a crime and was still punishable by death in some parts of the world.’
This does not seem like the type of guilt-ridden person who would have committed suicide.
Perhaps he also did not view his actions as wrong because most of his victims, it appears, were not Jewish.
There’s an exalted term for this in Jewish parlance. It’s called shtupping the shiksa. What is rarely mentioned in the coverage of this story is that Epstein, whose death is highly suspicious, zeroed in on gentile girls for his own pleasure and for others (including non-Jews). The Hebrew slang for a Gentile woman, shiksa ( שיקסע), comes from the Hebrew term shekets ( שקץ), meaning “abomination.” Gentile women are Niddah, Shifchah, Goyya and Zonah (menstrual filth, slaves, heathen, whores.) [Sanhedrin, 812-82b]
Obviously many Jewish men do not see things that way, but this Talmudic mentality may run through not just the likes of Epstein and Harvey Weinstein, but the huge business in trafficking of gentile Russian and Eastern European women in Israel. Stories of the women brought to Israel under false pretenses sound very similar to the stories of the girls who were lured by Epstein with money and promises of fancy careers:
E. Michael Jones contends there is an element of revenge in the phenomenon of Jewish men taking advantage of Christian girls.(or girls from formerly Christian countries). He discussed the phenomenon while discussing the Russian Revolution:
It’s always the rationalization – whether it’s usury, whether it’s on Wall Street. Goldman Sachs shorting stocks that they just sold to somebody, the Greeks for example. Or whether it’s the Cheka torturing Russians – the Jews in the Cheka torturing Russians. It’s always this rationalization, ‘You people treated my people badly.’ It’s in Philip Roth, where he’s ‘shtupping the shiksa’ because he’s ‘getting back for the way they treated my grandfather in Russia. It’s this type of asocial behavior that creates this animosity. It is something that goes deep, this Jewish hatred of Russia.”
Is Jewish sexual perversion which combines money and power à la Epstein and Weinstein, revenge or envy? Philip Roth described that phenomenon.
[From "One World, One Virus"]
AS THE media and governmental agencies continue to bombard the public with the coronavirus and as the World Health Organization has declared a pandemic despite the very low global death rate (about 4,000 alleged dead out of a world population of 7.7 billion), here are some questions you should be asking as you read the news. Let me also say, I am sincerely sorry for those who are sick. On their behalf, let us ask more:
What percentage of the 31 deaths that have occurred in the U.S. involved people over the age of 80 and those who had other serious health problems? In China?
Why if the virus has not been disastrous in China, with a very small percentage of the population having died, and why if the virus is receding there, do public officials keep suggesting that it will be disastrous in the U.S.?
Why has Angela Merkel said that two-thirds of the German population will be sickened?
Why has Italy been more affected than other countries?
Is the coronavirus more lethal overall than the average flu?
Why are quarantines being imposed now and not during the average flu season?
Why have India, Japan (more than half of the 1,200 confirmed cases there were from a cruise ship), Russia, Australia — all of which are closer to China than the U.S. and have many travelers from China — been less affected than the U.S.? Why has Canada, with much travel back and forth to China, had very few cases?
Why are experts forecasting a recession when so far relatively few people have been affected?
Are the government and the financial industry extending our obligations unnecessarily under the cover of induced panic?
Have you met a single person with confirmed coronavirus? Is that person seriously ill?
Please note the alarmist rhetoric in news reports. One headline declared, “the globe shudders.” This is psychological warfare. Even if the virus becomes a worldwide calamity, this alarmism does not seem justified so far. It is reasonable to suspect that we are being deliberately demoralized and further acclimated to a loss of national sovereignty, world government and intrusive laws restricting movement and individual decision-making.
[From "PewDiePie and the ADL"]
FELIX Kjellberg, the Swedish Youtube sensation who goes by the name PewDiePie (I’ve never heard of him before today), is the subject of a major news story.
Under pressure from his fans, PewDiePie, who reportedly has the largest Youtube audience in the world, rescinded a $50,000 donation to the Anti-Defamation League, which many of his followers claim is the country’s leading instigator of thought control and censorship. This is a big story because no one in popular culture publicly stands up to the ADL. But Kjellberg not only canceled the gift, he also apologized to his followers for even considering it. According to E. Michael Jones, this decision represents a “revolution in consciousness.” That may be an overstatement but it is true more and more people know that the ADL is a vicious organization that spies on Americans and ruins people’s lives when they express opinions the ADL doesn’t like. The ADL is a [I]defamation[/I] league (not an anti-defamation league) deceptively operating under the mask of respectability, militantly supportive of Jewish nationalism while condemning nationalism for Americans, connected with organized crime, supported by political leaders of both parties and reminiscent of the Bolshevik Cheka, the secret police that terrorized Russians. The ADL terrorizes not just its opponents, but ordinary Jews too with scenarios of “hate” that cause paranoia and hysteria. The ADL is a major force behind censorship on the Internet, which is, again, why so many of PewDiePie’s fans were angered by his planned donation. The Internet has been purged in the last year of, among other things the ADL considers unacceptable, thousands of videos that explain and provide evidence for recent false flag mass shootings.
How was the ADL started? An adjunct of the international Jewish fraternal order and secret society (non-Jews excluded), B’nai B’rith, the ADL was started for the express purpose of defending murderer Leo Frank, who in 1913 molested and brutally killed a 13-year-old girl, Mary Phagan, who worked in his factory. Frank then blamed it on a poor black janitor and cried “anti-semitism.” Ever since that time, the ADL has been doing the same, protecting Jewish criminals and smearing innocent Americans. Good for PewDiePie. Unfortunately, he too can certainly expect retaliation. It may happen now or it may happen later. But Jewish supremacists never forget. And they never forgive.
[From "Buttigieg’s Billionaires"]
PETE BUTTIGIEG has been propelled into national politics by the super wealthy. According to Forbes,
Forty billionaires and their spouses have donated to Pete Buttigieg’s presidential campaign, according to an analysis of federal election filings, making the South Bend, Indiana mayor a favorite among America’s richest people.
See the magazine’s analysis of the fortunes behind the donors.
Usury and sodomy: a perfect match. As E. Michael Jones says, “Homosexuals are proxy warriors for the oligarchs.” In a world a family can’t survive on one income anymore, the homosexual couple represents ideal employees and consumers.
Many Americans will never support Buttigieg, but it doesn’t matter. As Chuck Baldwin says, Buttigieg is one of the “unelectable wackos” running for the Democrats. But it doesn’t matter. The point isn’t for him to win. His campaign is a win/win for the usury class. As a public relations campaign alone, it succeeds.
[From "The Robber Pope"]
MORE AND MORE Catholics are coming to the inescapable realization that Jorge Bergoglio, aka “Pope” Francis, is — to use an old-fashioned, but indispensable word — a heretic.
Very few, however, have drawn the logical conclusions from this fact:
1. By divine law a public heretic cannot be pope.
2. The root of Francis’s heresies lies in the Vatican II Council, which is responsible for the less obvious but no less outrageous heresies of his immediate predecessors, John Paul II and Benedict XVI.
3. Francis’s open contempt for Church teachings on sexual morality has pushed many Catholics over the edge and prompted these latest accusations of heresy, but equally egregious are Vatican II heresies on the nature of the Church, on religious liberty, on ecumenism, on the historical events of the Incarnation and more, of which all the Vatican II claimants to the papacy, not just Francis, are guilty.
Vatican II represented the triumph of the modernist heresy, dominated as it was by theologians who were, as the Louvain professor Jürgen Mettepennigen said, “inheritors of modernism.” The poisoned seeds of theological error were sown during the Council with all its yes/buts, existentialist blathering, equivocations, ambiguities, work-arounds, silences, poisoned neologisms, redefinitions, false equivalences, destroyed distinctions and the rest.
Bergoglio is nothing more than one more poisoned fruit from a thoroughly poisoned garden, and he has merely been applying the principles that Vatican II gave him.
Unfortunately due to slick marketing and the natural desire for peace, harmony and God’s love in a fallen world, quite a few innocently perceive a benevolent message in Bergoglio’s frequent outrages.
All this adds to the feeling that we are living through a bad sitcom. (Here’s his latest.) Francis drags the papacy through the mud. He does what a true pope can never do: He harms souls. Turn the TV off and think about what all this means. Your refusal to recognize him as pope matters.
I seem to recall reading that the Catholic Church fought giving women the “right” to vote in Quebec until the ’40s. But now everything has changed. When California had a ballot referendum to end affirmative action, Cardinal Mahoney opposed it because, in part, it would deny women their opportunity to advance in the work place. Wonder why Mahoney thought children would be better off at secular day care with mommy at work having her self-esteem increased.
I think liberalism is a nightmare from which we are all trying to awake. But I think it’s going to be a long sleep.
That was an interesting, if depressing, post about the bizarre behaviour of Model-Korean Harvard undergraduate Eldo Kim. Not for the first time especially as I know many worthy and fully qualified people whom Harvard rejected (not coincidentally white gentile Americans) and a goodly number of cretins (the overwhelming majority not white gentile Americans, despite Harvard’s being in Massachusetts and founded by and for such Americans) upon whom Harvard bestowed the social Golden Ticket of admission I find a Harvard story illuminates the pathologies of America in the grip of the multicultural Left.
In his post, the commenter Steve mentions what may the biggest single problem about Harvard along, that is, with its diabolical embrace of every lethal social trend Liberalism can conjure up, and its disproportionate role in shoving them all down the collective throat of unenthusiastic Americans:
I believe Asians are probably around 25 percent of the Harvard undergrad student body. For male students (more likely to commit this kind of crime) maybe you have another 30 percent Jewish (there tend to be more Jewish males than females at Harvard for whatever reason) and maybe another 15 percent other minority. This leaves less than a third of the male student body who would be non-Jewish white (despite making up a much larger percentage of the general U.S. population).
As Jewish Harvard alumnus Ron Unz demonstrated in his underappreciated article of last year, The Myth of American Meritocracy, the United States has an elite university system that actively despises and excludes ordinary Americans, and does so with extraordinary brazenness presuming, so far correctly, that white gentile Americans are too cowed to make a fuss about it. In Myth Unz focuses on admissions practices at Harvard, Yale and Princeton (“HYP”), but really concentrates on Harvard. No doubt, as a Harvard alum, of those three moral and intellectual Superfund sites Harvard is the one Unz knows best and where he has the most contacts.
The part of Myth the media briefly noticed was the first half, where Unz addresses discrepancies in admissions of Asians by which he really means Orientals, which makes this relevant to the case of violence-prone peace activist Eldo Kim. Unz concluded that Asian applicants are held to a higher standard than (some) others, and thus HYP are holding their numbers down lest their campuses be transformed into ivy-garlanded Chinatowns.
The second part the media buried instantly: Unz’s two controversial conclusions. The first is that while Asians may be discriminated against to some extent in HYP especially H admissions, they are not discriminated against to anything like the same degree as white gentile Americans, over whom those putatively discriminated-against Asians are still preferred. The second is the radioactive conclusion, one Unz could publicly acknowledge reaching only because he is both Jewish and a Harvard grad: HYP again, especially H discriminate outrageously in favor of Jewish applicants, to a degree not remotely explained by superior Jewish scholastic performance (something Unz demonstrates is by now largely a myth anyway, relative to high-achieving white gentile Americans). This Unz attributes primarily to ethnic nepotism, witting or otherwise, on the part of largely Jewish admissions staffs at HYP. Unz is bracingly frank about the extent to which HYP and several other universities in the United States have effectively become Jewish institutions. In that context, Unz makes two further points: (i) Jewish applicants are not disadvantaged by the “need” to reject qualified applicants in order to admit the “appropriate” quotas of blacks and Latin Americans, and therefore (ii) white gentile Americans pay the Affirmative Action tariff in full. Indeed as Espenshade and Radford noted in their study traditional American extra-curricular activities (4-H, JROTC, etc.) actively harm one’s chances of admission to HYP and their analogues.
In criticising you for drawing what he thinks is an unwarranted conclusion about Asian criminality based on Kim’s misbehaviour at Harvard (which I don’t think you did), Steve misses the big issue even though it is right there in his comment. From the point of view of ordinary Americans by whom I mean white gentile ones, who are still overwhelmingly the largest group in the U.S. population and include the descendants of nation’s settlers and founders the United States’ elite universities, which for better or worse (mostly worse) are primary feeders into the national elite, are enemy territory. They are largely run by and for the benefit of people who often have no or only shallow roots in America, are often viscerally hostile to the traditional America, and exercise their hostility by keeping their schools’ drawbridges firmly up in the face of what one might well call traditional Americans. Those Americans should find that situation intolerable, but most entirely fail to notice it, except to grumble about the obvious discrimination in favor of blacks and Hispanics. Even when someone like Ron Unz who actually knows the score tells the truth about it, his article can only see print in a magazine he owns and publishes himself. And, of course, the rest of the media buried what Unz revealed just as soon as they could.
It may be odd that young Harvard Man Kim thinks sending bomb threats is good way to bolster his GPA. But not nearly as odd as that a 377-year-old American (or used to be) college is full of Eldo Kims in the first place.
Most women in government and politics are not corrupt. Many work hard and truly sacrifice themselves for their constituencies, especially in local politics, but their influence in general has not made our government or cultural life better. This is not surprising. The entry of women in large numbers into politics was a strike against democracy in the first place, as most women didn’t even want the women’s vote when it was shoved down the throats of the nation’s citizens by extremist suffragettes who were bitter, marriage-hating socialists. The anti-suffragists ignored by mainstream historians organized by the tens of thousands and churned out eloquent arguments in their magazines and newsletters against women’s greater participation in politics. Most women cared about influencing their homes and families and communities through their customary roles, and not through the female vote or political careers. When women were given the vote and encouraged to go into politics in large numbers, they ironically lost some of their political power, which was based on their organized non-partisan influence. It was precisely because their influence was not connected to career, money or self-advancement that their voice and petitions had a special moral power. The whole rise of the female politician has not been a grassroots movement at all. It represents the revolutionary few against the many. Ordinary women fought the rise of the suffragette but they lost because powerful, elite forces were against them. Kathleen Kane’s downfall is merely the latest episode in this story. Given this history and the ideological lies behind it, female politicians at the higher levels, I maintain, are more likely to be arrogant and beholden to no one. The feminist politician represents the reverse of what she is claimed to be. She is the emblem of a loss of feminine influence and power.
Many male politicians have been guilty of corruption, of course, but they never gained power on the ridiculous, liberating idea that their entire sex is saintly. Kane was not qualified to be attorney general in the first place and it was feminist-style affirmative action that was most definitely partly responsible for her success and feminist-style arrogance that contributed to her downfall.
Not only do women not make politics better, they are more likely to make things much worse for themselves, for their constituencies, and, most tragically of all, for their families.
I think the main problem with women having the right to vote is the inherent conflict of interest involved with the dependent (the woman) telling the provider (the man) what to do; having the provided for telling the provider what the provider “owes” the provided for. I have said before that chivalry is a duty of men on behalf of women but that chivalry is something that men impose upon other men; it is not something that is defined by the woman herself. The government overall can be viewed as an expression of men’s chivalry; the government is to provide for the overall protection of society, to set the rules under which society operates, and these activities of the government are designed to allow each individual household headed by a man to operate in safety and flourish. Women “hijacking” the operation of government through the right to vote creates the same conflict of interest problem that women “dictating” to men what chivalry is about creates. When the recipient (the woman) “orders” the benefactor (the man) to provide for the recipient (the woman) in a particular way then the purpose of the man’s behavior is no longer controlled by the man; the purpose of the man’s behavior is then to satisfy the demands of the woman. When the link between the man’s chivalry and the man’s purpose as a man is broken the man is no longer motivated or rewarded for fulfilling his role as a man. The man’s honor gets converted into the woman’s manipulation. Men respond to this abusive dynamic by withdrawing from their role and purpose as men.
Ann Barnhardt is quite amazing. The first time I ever heard of her was when she announced she was shutting down her Barnhardt Capital Management commodity brokerage business in response to the MF Global collapse scandal where money from segregated customer accounts was stolen. In this initial exposure, her views on cultural issues were not discussed at all. Now we hear she is a full bore supporter of patriarchy going as far as condemning women’s suffrage! This does indicate that support for patriarchy within a Christian context is moving closer to the mainstream.
Do you know when things really started to go literally to hell in this country? When women were given the right to vote seperate and apart from their husbands. What a flipping disaster. This is when the war against marriage and the family began in earnest and it has taken less than 100 years for both institutions to be almost completely destroyed. And it all started with the damn suffrage.
Here’s the deal. Up until women’s suffrage, a man was the head of his marriage and his household, and his vote represented not just himself but his entire family, including his wife and his children. When men voted, they were conscious of the fact that they were voting not just for themselves and their own personal interests, but they were also charged with the responsibility of discerning and making the ultimate decision about what was in the best interests of their entire family. Wow. Isn’t that nuts? Men being . . . responsible?
IF most women did not live under self-imposed censorship, 99.99 percent of them would be openly repulsed by the idea of spending years studying physics and engineering, and then years doing all kinds of repetitive exercises in T-38 supersonic jets, underwater tanks and vomit comets,’ in order to be launched into that stultifyingly boring void known as Outer Space. But because most women do not have that freedom of speech and have lost their natural instincts, many will probably be outwardly impressed by NASA’s latest gimmick: a class of astronauts that is 50 percent female, including some mothers. A few of these lucky women, we are told by the liars officials at NASA, may even go to Mars someday, leaving their children behind on Planet Earth for a trip that will be overwhelmingly an adventure in nerdy button-pushing.
"The hardest part of a Mars trip, according to them, would be being separated from their planet and families for so long. But the job does come with some perks, including a unique perspective. 'From space,' says astronaut Anne McClain, 'you can’t see borders. What you see is this lonely planet. Here we all are on it, so angry at one another. I wish more people could step back and see how small Earth is, and how reliant we are on one another.'"
Believe me, folks, these women will never see the surface of Mars, except in the movies. In any event, the things these women could accomplish within the dramatic and exciting Inner Space of their own homes so dwarfs what they could accomplish on Mars (where they won’t be going anyway), that the very suggestion is an outrage. Who would trade insipid, lifeless, finite Mars (Yuck!! Revolting!!) for the chance to create and influence human beings, each one of whom is a fascinating planet, an eternal sphere of consummate adventure, a being that is utterly unique and made in God’s image? If that isn’t power, what is?
God gave men galaxies and distant planets and asteroids to compensate them for the misfortune and unfairness of never being able to become mothers. Outer Space takes their minds off the unfairness of it all, something women have been kind enough to recognize in the past by not denying those who have dreamed of being astronauts since they were little boys of the chance to experience the “vomit comet.”
Women don’t want it anyway. If someone came to my door when my children were young, blossoming creatures and said, “Hey, lady, you have just won a trip to Mars!,” I would have told him to get lost. I would do the same now. Women have made many serious trade-offs to become like men, but this is an especially bad deal.
These women are being used by the Pentagon and NASA for the same purpose that Vanna White was used on The Price is Right. They beautify a sales pitch. Reality is a TV show. This is nothing more than yet another publicity stunt, a pretty ad for the borderless, New World Order where everyone gets along under tyranny, the will of the people banished at last, and pays the banksters and the federal government for the pleasure of enslavement and endless war. The Price is Right. Ninety-eight percent of the world will be debt-ridden and two percent will be filthy rich. Ah, yes, they just want to look down on the earth and see all peoples getting along.
Cute uniforms. The costume division of NASA is top notch. (Aren’t these just your typical physics majors? How many ugly, accomplished women applicants got the boot?) But if you don’t smell a rat here you don’t understand the way of things on this lonely planet.
Women of the world, unite! Shed the shackles of the world controllers. It is men that we love, not Mars.
I must thank you profusely for your insightful posts. The interracial marriage discussions are of particular interest to me as a product of miscegenation. My father is a Jew and my mother Chinese. I am a college-age male living at home and my parents have been fighting recently with the looming threat of divorce. They mostly argue when they think I cannot hear, but their voices carry through the walls.
In one argument my mother accused my father of being a racist who doesn’t care about Chinese culture. He accused her in turn of only marrying him out of rebellion, not love. Both are probably correct to a certain degree.
My grandparents sent my uncle to convince my mother not to marry my father and none of her family attended their wedding. My mother was a careerist, an executive for the telephone company, and my father has told me they would often fight when my sister and I were children because she was neglecting her role as a nurturer. I am not close to my relatives on either side and my sister is a card-carrying feminist. Consequently, I feel my father is the only real family I have. My father has also confided that he wanted more children, but my mother wanted to wait, so they could not.
My sister and I were born when my parents were in their thirties and successive attempts at procreation failed. He has made it my duty to give him enough grandchildren to make up for his failure, especially considering my sister does not want children. He has even told me not to marry someone like my mother, but someone much sweeter.
Miscegenation has resulted in the gift of intelligence for me and I have no self loathing. Still I would not recommend it to anyone. Any future marriage and children I have will be products of miscegenation by default. After experiencing life with my mother and sister, I am greatly considering expatriating to find a wife. I want a family to provide meaning to my work, but more importantly better prospects for a future heir. In Western societies women prefer below average men. If I were to go to China there would be issues of the one-child policy, not for me, but for my progeny. If I were to go to Malaysia my children would be subject to corporal punishment in schools. Vietnam is an option. But the best woman I have known, the one who got away, was a Polish immigrant classmate. She was very intelligent and devoutly Catholic. She wrote poetry and would teach me sign language and the genus/species names of animals. Eastern Europe is a consideration, but Latin America has been my main focus recently. If I am lucky enough to find a compatible country to start a family, I will advise any son to marry a local girl, like his mother.
For more insight on the reasons for interracial marriage I will present my own hypothesis for my father. His favorite artist is Paul Gauguin. He has a poor relationship with his own mother, so he saw women of his own race in a negative light. Instead he longed for a woman like Gauguin’s Polynesian muses and found a suitable Oriental substitute. My mother has retained her beauty in age, but my parents nevertheless have an existential incompatibility of values. My father fell in love with an image and failed to see that it merely masked the type of woman he wished to avoid.
[Formatting and hyperlinks from original]
BROTHER NATHANAEL, a Jewish convert to “Orthodox” Christianity, writes about the interior world of Jews in a three-part series called “How Jews Think.” Obviously, these are generalizations, and generalizations, if one accepts them, are what they are, they don’t apply to everyone:
HAVING GROWN UP AS A JEW and having gone to an upper middle class synagogue throughout my childhood up through my young adult years, I am uniquely qualified to do an expose on the inner workings of the Jewish mind. Now that I am an Orthodox Christian, having converted in 1971 to Christianity, I can see very clearly how the Jew thinks:
1. The Jew is a perpetual outsider. The Jew is a ceaseless “observer” and consequent “actor” & “reactor” upon the world’s stage. The Jew seeks to impose his will upon the Gentile whom he looks down upon as being inferior in intelligence and activism to him.
2. The Jew is always on a “mission.” The Jew always has a “cause” he must fight for. The mission and the cause of the Jew is hostile to the mission and cause of Jesus Christ and Christianity.
3. The Jew wishes to remain aloof and separate from the nations. That is why Winston Churchill initially used the term, “The International Jew.”
4. The Jew holds himself separate from the nations, not primarily for ideological reasons as prescribed in the Old Testament. Rather, the Jew remains aloof from all others because he sees himself as belonging to an elite.
5. The Jew may proclaim and propagandize though his monopoly of the Media the slogan, “Diversity Is Our Strength!” Yet the Jew will never live in a neighborhood where poor Blacks, Asians, and Hispanics live. Why not? Because the Jew despises working class folk as being culturally inferior to him and socially impotent.
6. The Jew at heart despises the ideal of the “Brotherhood of Man.” For it is only through acceptance of Jesus Christ, the Christian Church, and the Christian Universal vision of the “new man in Christ” that the Brotherhood of Man can be realized.
7. The Jew wants nothing to do with Jesus Christ, the Church, and the Christian Universal vision of the new man in Christ. Why not? First because Jesus Christ calls all men to repent which the Jew finds repulsive; Second because the Church with its eyes set on the kingdom to come is disagreeable to the Jew who seeks a kingdom of this world; Third because the new man in Christ whereby all elitist distinctions are dissolved, is an identity the Jew finds repugnant to his love of ’separateness’ and control over others.
6. The Jew, in order to attain financial power, views Christianity, with its attendant moral influence, as a threat. For profligacy, dissolute manners, and perversion of sexual mores, places the Gentile, the “Goy” under his dominion.
7. The Jew in the academic realm strives to educate according to his Jewish World View. The Jewish World View is the unspoken perception that the Gentiles, the “Goyim,” are ultimately his enemies.
8. The Jew, therefore, who operates in the academic realm, will educate the “Goyim” to believe that the Jew has been an innocent victim of Gentile enmity throughout the centuries. Thus a certain level of obligation is inculcated into the “Goyim” toward the Jew that he is deserving of deferential treatment.
9. The Jew who operates in the journalistic realm, which today is his total control of the Press, presents current events in favour of the Jew.
10. The Jew, who operates in the journalistic realm, which today is total control of all Media, presents Christianity in a bad light. This works to his benefit. For Christianity confers strength and moral fiber to the Gentile population, which the Jew wants under his dominion.
What he is describing here is NOT a conspiracy of Jews. It is Jews acting upon their own thinking. Brother Nathanael does have a solution to the Jewish Problem he describes: conversion of the Jews.
Your site is an awakening.
If we don’t discriminate we negate and conscientiously ignore the foundations of natural law. Natural law being the ability to comprehend the difference between right and wrong. If freedom of association is still a stalwart pillar of a free people, then discrimination is a operational mandate of our existence. We must discriminate against things we know to be morally wrong to maintain a moral basis of operation.
As an old man banging on 50 like the room behind me is on fire, I accept that my wife is better by birth at many tasks then I could have ever imagined, absent her example. She is a better educator then I could ever hope to be. She draws a level of affection and bond to our children, having given birth to them, that is impossible for me to reproduce. She provides a kind of stability to our family that I cannot put a finger on. And in general most women put up with levels of crap from their husbands I am not certain God could have forecasted.
On the other side of the coin are man’s inherent abilities. Give me a minute .. Just kidding. When I say men, I mean old world men, not modern metrosexual or liberal effeminates. I would assume that most men can look at a collection of parts and logically deduce what, if assembled, they would produce; in many cases men are able to perform the assembly without instructions (all parts used and operation are not guaranteed). Or in short, we are mechanical beings. We welcome the opportunity to lay down our lives should the safety and security of our family be at risk, albeit hoping said outcome is not required. Our lessons to our children are cherished after they leave home, where a mothers influence is more directly tied to their time at home. If dad fixes a bike the kids thank mom today, but years later they thank him for all he did. We do not generally hold onto corrupt or corrosive family history, largely because we have the attention span of gnats, and the memory of goldfish, but more accurately because they are not that important.
This grand and holy religion, whose whole action is healthful, whose restraints are all blessingsthis gracious religion, whose chief precepts are the love of God and the love of manthis same Christianity confirms the subordinate position of woman, by allotting to man the headship in plain language and by positive precept. No system of philosophy has ever yet worked out in behalf of woman the practical results for good which Christianity has conferred on her. Christianity has raised woman from slavery and made her the thoughtful companion of man; finds her the mere toy, or the victim of his passions, and it places her by his side, his truest friend, his most faithful counselor, his helpmeet in every worthy and honorable task. It protects her far more effectually than any other system. It cultivates, strengthens, elevates, purifies all her highest endowments, and holds out to her aspirations the most sublime for that future state of existence, where precious rewards are promised to every faithful discharge of duty, even the most humble. But, while conferring on her these priceless blessings, it also enjoins the submission of the wife to the husband, and allots a subordinate position to the whole sex while here on earth. No woman calling herself a Christian, acknowledging her duties as such, can, therefore, consistently deny the obligation of a limited subordination laid upon her by her Lord and His Church.
So there is tremendous chatter about this guy from Liberia, and we now have enough of the backstory to see just how maliciously negligent the so-called protection agencies really are. But what I want to focus on is Thomas Eric Duncan the Liberian who after hauling his sister’s still living yet rapidly disintegrating body to and from the hospital thought it would be a great idea to take a three-legged flight to Dallas, and then just casually forget to mention at the Dallas emergency room the whole “I hauled my sister, dying of Ebola, to and from the hospital a couple of weeks ago.”
There is speculation that Duncan is a psychopathic arch criminal, or that he was recruited by musloids to make the trip. Nope. I doubt this very, very seriously. Then how in the world, you may ask, could he possibly DO THIS? I’ll tell you the likely answer if you really want to know, but I warn you, our culture has conditioned even the “strongest” of you to reject the truth I am about to lay out. Are you sure you want it? Fair warning has been given. Complaints will not be fielded.
The AVERAGE I.Q. amongst Liberians is 67. Anything below 69 is considered severe impairment. Only people who are profoundly mentally retarded, such as with severe Down Syndrome, have lower I.Q. scores, and many folks with milder Down Syndrome actually have I.Q. scores in the 70s and 80s. What we are talking about in Liberia is the AVERAGE IQ of non-impaired human beings. AVERAGE. Which means, by definition, that half the populace is above 67, and half the population is below 67.
CITATION HERE. A ranking of nations by average IQ. Fascinating.
Mr. Duncan, in all likelihood, got on a plane bound for Dallas because all was [sic] was thinking was “the Americans will save me”. He gave NO THOUGHT whatsoever to the consequences of his actions or to other human beings, nor did any of his family members, because people who are dim-witted think only about themselves and the immediate gratification of their immediate needs and wants. We see this manifested in our own western cultures, wherein people who OBVIOUSLY have lower I.Q.s are far, far more prone to crime such as theft and sexual promiscuity, as well as drug use, because they lack the powers of impulse control and consideration for other human beings that is an undeniable characteristic that goes along with an IQ that is several standard deviations “left” on the bell curve. When all you are capable of pondering is yourself and your own physical pleasure, or the maintenance of your own life, when a person or people is so collectively impaired that thinking through the consequences of actions three or four steps ahead, or of thinking of how one’s actions will affect other people, is almost impossible, then Thomas Eric Duncans happen.
I suggest that there is something else to this glamorization and exaltation of the “masculine” FEMALE and that is sheer cover-up for the overwhelming failure of radical liberation. My generation of females (Gen X) are disproportionately “worn out” spiritually, intellectually and most obviously, physically. Ten to twenty years of going at it “like a man” will tend to do this to a female as you explicitly covered in your post about the female “Marine.” Females of my generation are hitting the wall in droves and they are wearing the degradation quite unconsciously. This in turn requires of the activist liberationists an amplification of the propaganda to insure that such females stay in this unconscious, but increasingly painful, state. The vitality they see is not the vitality they feel, but both sets of female are doing the same thing? So why the dis-ease between what should be and what actually is? None of my sisters told me about this wall I would crash into at 30-35 years of age. I still have 50-60 years to go. OMG!!!
Kind greetings! I was an avid reader of View from the Right and appreciated the many insightful posts and essays by the late Lawrence Auster regarding Western civilization, Christianity, and race. However, the racial issues bothered me so that I occasionally inquired him concerning his ability to reconcile Christianity with race realism (or human biodiversity, as I like to call it). To his credit, Mr. Auster posted some of my questions on VFR and thoughtfully responded to them. Please see the email below for an example of my inquiries.
My regret is that I never identified my race to him as I wanted to keep our exchanges as objective and impersonal as possible. In truth, I am a black man who has avidly studied race realism for at least ten years. The topic daily occupies my mind from the moment I awake until night falls.
Every day for over a decade. No exaggeration.
For instance, in your post entitled “What Destroyed Detroit?,” a reader mentioned that “ blacks are not self-conscious at all about the notion of white intellectual superiority. They acknowledge it readily and it doesn’t bother them at all.”
Would that it were so with me! I deem it mightily harrowing and nightmarish that a particular race can be inherently so far behind others in civilizational, organizational, and intellectual matters, especially a race of which I am a member. With the black race, regarding important matters that form functioning societies, the issue cannot be reduced to terms such as “less functioning” and “less capable.” Rather, blacks as a group are largely incapable of the markers of normal civilization and healthy societies, as exemplified by the likes of Haiti, Detroit, East St. Louis, south-side Chicago, and much of the African sub-continent (unless one deems wretched villages and slums teeming with bastardy, absentee fathers, polyandry, crime at peerlessly high levels, disease, and ignorance as functioning). In other words, the black race does not seem to fall within a clear behavioral continuum with the rest of humanity, but inhabit its own unique area that has little overlap with those of other races. For instance, does any other place on Earth, during peacetimes, fall to such ruination and seeming hopelessness as black-occupied lands? One might proffer the Muslim world as an example. Indeed, Islam has corrupted Middle Eastern peoples to staggering obscenities, but their problems are mostly religious. The problems of blacks chiefly lie with themselves. Ask Paul Kersey.
I struggle with the juxtaposition of a just, loving God who holds all men by the same moral standards and the stark reality of a group that, when left to its own devices, appears so dispossessed of (or heavily disinclined towards) normal social conduct. Is not my race generally doomed to failure, immorality, and ignorance? Notice that black areas, especially in America, are replete with steepled and storefront Christian churches, yet to a large degree, exhibit similar dysfunctions as voodoo-believing or animistic West Indians and Africans. Such realizations even make me question the very purpose of my race (and therefore myself). I am haunted by and almost obsessed with these dark, uncomfortable queries. They predominate my daily thoughts.
I write these things not to impute any wrongdoing on God or to question the veracity of Christianity. I am a believer of Jesus Christ, regardless of the general inabilities of my race. As Job declared, “Though He slay me, yet will I trust in Him.” Believing in God is the easier part. Believing that He would have allowed such a benighted race to be created (or to evolve) and expect it to overcome its entrenched incapacities and live as morally and competently as others (and divinely judge them accordingly) is the more difficult part. I see, God forbid, no bright light at the end of their tunnel. Given this race’s intellectual and behavioral deficiencies, how can I?
Why do you think most Westerners, even Christians, deny or ignore race realism? The acceptance of this reality is simply too hard to swallow and leads to endlessly more perplexing questions.
In summary, I cannot find peace in this area by pretending to make race un-important like today’s liberals, multiculturalists, and globalists. Nor can Ia student of Thomas Sowell, Steve Sailer, and Lawrence Austerexplain away my race’s glaring deficits by deflecting them upon the long exorcised specters of white racism, slavery, and colonialism (like most blacks). My knowledge of history is too deep for me to fall for the sloppy, blatant lies of scholastic Afrocentrism (e.g., that Negroes built ancient Egypt and Carthage and derived geometric equations). I most definitely cannot and shall not become angry with or accusatory towards God.
Therefore, no outlet exists at present that will defuse my deep angst and enable me to cope with the pitiable lot of my race.
I trust, from your writings, that you are a God-fearing, charitable, and highly intelligent lady. Can you please offer me some advice regarding how I, as a black American, can better deal with the aforesaid issues and have peace? Were you black, how would you feel about the situation and what would your coping mechanisms be?
Am I the only one who happened to notice that a number of the Russian lady ice skaters, three that I saw, blessed themselves with the sign of the cross as they left the ice after their performance? Those Godless Communists at it again. As our neo-cons love to say Putin is a phony and does not care one wit about Christianity, [but] I have to say those girls looked serious to me! Naturally, no American would attempt such a thing as they would be ridiculed by our press and hounded by interviewers. I will say I can’t remember seeing the sign of the cross made in public outside of a cemetery service. Watch the remainder of the competition to see if it continues. Shocking.
Organized cheating on academic tests takes place all the time in Asian countries; accounts of wholesale cheating in China have received mainstream press attention, but it’s common throughout the region. The most common methodology involves students using mobile phones or small radio transceivers with earpieces to get test answers from someone located nearby who has copies of the tests, stolen or obtained through bribery from teachers and school administrators.
In the few instances in which teachers try to stop students from cheating (probably because the parents in question hadn’t paid the requisite bribes, or because the local government feels the need to make an example due to press mentions of rampant cheating in their areas), there’s generally a bad reaction from parents.
Note that parents are saying, “We want fairness. There is no fairness if you do not let us cheat.” In Asian societies, where parents routinely are expected to pay bribes to school administrators and teachers in order to ensure that their children are admitted to schools, and that they receive passing grades, this sort of perverse logic is actually valid, within that context.
My guess is that a substantial number of the children involved in this cheating scandal are Asian, and that their families knew or suspected that the tutor’ they hired planned on employing the same kind of espionage-like methods to ensure that their children received passing grades. Cheating amongst Asian students in the United States is widespread, and is a reflection of their cultural values. (See here, here and here.)
The fact that the parents of a child implicated in the scandal above lawyered up, instead of shaming their child into coming clean, suggests to me that this family is Asian. My parents would have forced me to confess and to take the consequences of my actions, had I done such a thing; when I explain that to Asians, at first they don’t believe me, and then when I persist, they think my parents must have been crazy, as they themselves would do anything and everything to protect a family member from the consequences of his actions for any crime up to and including murder.
That was an interesting, if depressing, post about the bizarre behaviour of Model-Korean Harvard undergraduate Eldo Kim. Not for the first time especially as I know many worthy and fully qualified people whom Harvard rejected (not coincidentally white gentile Americans) and a goodly number of cretins (the overwhelming majority not white gentile Americans, despite Harvard’s being in Massachusetts and founded by and for such Americans) upon whom Harvard bestowed the social Golden Ticket of admission."
Obviously those "cretins" didn't get into Harvard because of hard work and perseverance. No, they got in because they were not white Gentiles.
"From the point of view of ordinary Americans by whom I mean white gentile ones, who are still overwhelmingly the largest group in the U.S. population and include the descendants of nation’s settlers and founders the United States’ elite universities, which for better or worse (mostly worse) are primary feeders into the national elite, are enemy territory. They are largely run by and for the benefit of people who often have no or only shallow roots in America, are often viscerally hostile to the traditional America, and exercise their hostility by keeping their schools’ drawbridges firmly up in the face of what one might well call traditional Americans. Those Americans should find that situation intolerable, but most entirely fail to notice it, except to grumble about the obvious discrimination in favor of blacks and Hispanics. Even when someone like Ron Unz who actually knows the score tells the truth about it, his article can only see print in a magazine he owns and publishes himself. And, of course, the rest of the media buried what Unz revealed just as soon as they could.
Because while race is not everything, it is fundamentally important, and racial differences are very real. Miscegenation represents an active denial of one’s own race and culture. A white woman who marries a black man will produce black children, and has therefore directly contributed to the ongoing displacement of white people in their own lands. By making that choice she has shattered the bonds that tied her to her own people.
America is not and was never intended to be a Proposition Nation, where all the peoples of the world are welcome and equally American. America was created by European people who were fleeing from what they perceived to be tyranny. Only Europeans were capable of creating and maintaining such a nation. It is no coincidence that the more diverse we get, the less free we are. Loyalty to the Proposition Nation is anti-American.
Some people may consider what I’ve written above to be harsh, blunt or mean-spirited. In any honest discussion on sensitive issues, that’s the risk you take by speaking your mind. But I think it’s a natural and justified reaction to half a century of white-bashing. The truth is that whites are being held to a higher standard. A phony conservative would cite George Bush’s ’soft bigotry of low expectations’ because these cretins never miss an opportunity to pander to minorities. In truth, whites are the victims here. We are the only people who are being prevented from sticking to our own kind and freely associating with our kin to the exclusion of others. The point is no less valid just because self-loathing whites instigated this and wish to exterminate their own people. They and the minorities they manipulate are both driven by envy. And we will deal with the white traitors in due course.
For my part I don’t need any token minorities like Michael Steele to speak on my behalf. And my race and civilization certainly doesn’t need to justify its right to exist to anyone. We WILL survive whether you like it or not. The smart minorities know where their bread is buttered, and are grateful to live in our societies. As someone pointed out, the minorities’ opinions don’t count for squat when it comes to our survival. We refuse to be dispossessed, physically exterminated or absorbed through intermarriage. We won’t go away to make failed societies or ethnic groups feel better about themselves.
(On an African American toddler adopted by a gay white couple)
This boy was probably in foster care and from a non-functioning home. Liberals would say, well, isn’t this great? This child had no one and would have lived in poverty. Now, not only does he have one father, he has two, as if living in poverty or foster homes is worse than profound sexual and racial confusion.
If the boy were to grow up in foster homes, there would be no pretense that he was living in a normal family. His situation would be acknowledged as abnormal. He probably would be with other black children and adults. But with an adoption like this there is a pretense that he has been given a family. He is being used, and obviously he will know that someday.
Part of a larger essay on Philp Chism, a black student accused of murdering his high school math teacher:
I have not seen any news reports which include information about Chism’s grades in the class. It seems such an obvious issue. I’m not even sure what kind of math Ritzer was teaching. Was it algebra? Probably. Algebra is typically introduced in ninth grade and it usually separates those who have higher math skills from those who do not. I do not know anything about Chism’s abilities, but the average black is not capable of learning algebra. It involves a level of abstraction that he cannot grasp, through no fault of his own. A major problem with high schools today is that they force blacks to try to learn algebra when they have not yet mastered basic computational skills. This only alienates them and does them absolutely no good. It’s a form of educational malpractice. You can see why black students become angry and drop out in large numbers in ninth grade. The world disregards who they are.
If it was possible to admit this reality, to acknowledge black limitations, Chism might never have been in that class to begin with and never have been enraged by being publicly humiliated by a sweet, conscientious and naive teacher who had no sense of the egotism, pride and aggression lurking in a failing black student in a mostly white school.
In the last fifty years, there has been a prolific industry promoting the O-Movement, my working term for the widespread worship of the female sexual climax. This industry takes the form of popular literature exalting masturbatory sex either alone or with others. Make no mistake about it. This movement is an enemy to genuine sexual fulfillment for women
This is an interesting article, but I disagree with the beginning: “Over the last 50 years, America has witnessed the cultural ruin of its women. When women fall, an entire way of life and civilization itself are not far behind.” The reality is that the cultural ruin of America was caused by women. Specifically, women’s political, sexual and financial freedom is largely responsible for the decline of the West and not some abstract “culture.”
We harp a lot on liberalism, but what is liberalism but female thinking unbounded? I finally understand what that famous author meant when he said that civilizations die by suicide. Every civilization at the peak of its power, prosperity and wealth, and in a moment of decadence, emancipates women and, in a few short decades or centuries, it collapses. Babylon did it. Sparta did it. Rome did it. Now America will do it.
The basic problem with cultural discrimination is that it requires a theory or theories about how the world works. To have theories about how the world works requires making generalizations that are tested by, and adjusted to, reality. Women are diametrically opposed to generalizations. Why? To avoid having the analytical power of the generalization applied to womens’ physical appearance or other characteristics.
What all women implicitly understand, but are loathe to admit, is that 90% of a woman’s value is embedded in her physical appearance. Men choose women largely on looks based on a sliding scale of what men want and what they can get. The problem for women is that physical appearance is not only determined at birth, but it has a limited shelf-life. Whatever advantages women derive from looks do not last.
Now, when women were married at 20 and, a short time later, busy with their own children and families, the impact of this knowledge was limited. Family life occupies its own sphere and kids suck the narcissism out of women. With women competing in the world with men, this worry about appearances blooms to a neurotic high. Women are never certain if their success is the result of “who they are” or how they look. Consequently, this neurosis permeates every sphere of life within which women operate.
This is how you get a female police officer telling an investigator in the Berkowitz case that “Jews and Italians date, too.” Or, Maureen Dowd’s permanent screams on why society no longer finds her attractive. Or, the articles about the new standards of (chocolate) beauty established by Michelle Obama.
Women are at war with themselves and their short-term, pragmatic, narcissistic neuroses have swallowed the Western world.
I would call him a heretical Pope. (That is not to imply that Evangelical leaders of various stripe do not merit the same charge.)
“I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but through me.” John 14:6.
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.” Matthew 28:19-20.
“And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” Acts 4:12.
Any Pope or Church leader who asserts that all “religious” roads lead to heaven is sure to suffer the sentence set forth in Matthew 18:6, following:
”But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” Matthew 18:6.
And the greatest sin is the sin of unbelief: in denying that Jesus is God and that Jesus alone is the atoning sacrifice for our sins.
Essentially, the Pope is insinuating as did President George W. Bush who said so explicitly in a video-taped interview with Charles Gibson that Islam’s Allah is the same “God” that Christians worship.
May the Pope, the theologically liberal Evangelical “leaders,” and all other heretics of the true Church be brought to their knees in repentance and contrition for their blasphemy against the Holy Spirit; Lord have mercy on them.
On the topic of swimwear, I used to go to the public pool on a near daily basis as a child, and I always noticed that it was the girls in bikinis who were uncomfortable with themselves, as Mary noted. The girls in the one-pieces were the ones usually having fun in the water, while the boys always stared at the bikini girls and seemed to harass them. I didn’t understand why boys would stare at girls so much at the time, but something in me became determined never to put myself on display to be stared at or harassed in such a manner.
Later on, I became aware of the effects of nearly naked flesh on boys, and I always thought it manipulative and unfair that girls and women would take advantage of men and boys like that, and then complain about it. Additionally, I had an arrogant attitude that no one was going to look at me unless they earned the right to, so I kept myself covered; my “uniform” until my mid-20s was always loosely-fitting jeans and t-shirt. I even swam in such a getup! Yes, it was heavy! Now that I acknowledge my femininity, I wear prettier things such as blouses and skirts, but swimwear stumped me for quite a while. My search was made more difficult by the fact that I am a little bit on the heavier side, and most of the modest options I found just didn’t go up to my size. I thought I would end up having to buy a rash guard and long surf shorts, which is what my husband wears.
You say, “So their bitchy attitude was defensive.” Perhaps, but over-confidence, an awareness of one’s primal power over others, is probably at work in many cases. A bikini is an act of aggression in its own way. I realize many girls don’t mean it that way.
"Persistent behavior becomes habit or second nature. The emotional hardening that began on the beach in scanty followed many girls whom I knew into their twenties and beyond into their adult lives."
True. Immodesty makes women mean and callous.
Many people are drawn to atheism not because of the philosophical arguments for it but because they are egalitarians suspicious of any form of hierarchy. They are not just suspicious of hierarchy, they are downright uncomfortable with it. This suspicion and discomfort make prayer almost impossible. After all, prayer is the act of addressing an infinitely higher being.
The egalitarian who attempts to pray is similar to a man dressed in a T-shirt, jeans and baseball cap appearing in the court of a king. To the man in the baseball cap, the regalia of the court is absurd and embarrassing. He may approach it with the interest of an antiquarian visiting a museum, but not as something real. The trappings and ceremony are so unnecessary. But more than that, the authority of the king makes the egalitarian intensely uncomfortable. He can either ridicule the ceremony that surrounds him or feel how primitive his own position is, which would be a shattering discovery.
The egalitarian finds it difficult, if not impossible, to pray. (I am referring to serious praying of course, not the squishy, self-centered emoting, in which God is a guy in a baseball cap too, that often substitutes for it today.) The problem with this is that God often does not communicate with a person until the person communicates with him first. This puts the egalitarian in a bind. He cannot discover God because he cannot speak to him.
For the egalitarian who truly wants to pray but feels that to do so is alien and foreign to him, there is a solution.
He must present himself in the court and say nothing. Even with his baseball cap on.
He should, as St. Francis de Sales once wisely advised, stand in this magnificent court like a statue and simply offer his presence. That is the first step for the person steeped all his life in equality to learn how to pray.
They definitely can’t do it on their own now. For one, they have those tests and pass rates imposed by No Child Left Behind (or No Child Left Alone); these hold blacks to similar standards as whites and are a virtual mandate for cheating by principals and teachers. Standardized tests do have value for largely black schools, even more so than for white schools, but the standards should be changed, with basic skills reinforced throughout elementary and secondary school.
Secondly, black political groups aren’t motivated, and will probably never be motivated, to start a revolution in education not founded on racial grievances. There is also widespread parental indifference.
You ask, “Why must someone or some institution (government, e.g.) set something up for them?” Because it’s the right thing to do and blacks are unlikely to do it entirely on their own. I’m not a supporter of our public education system, but paternalistic education of some kind, education not founded on white guilt and not indulgent of lawlessness or misbehavior, makes sense for blacks. A libertarian approach isn’t reasonable for all groups. That’s a vague answer, but until we let the idea that racial differences matter, in education especially, we can’t work on the details.
I should add that all education is not worthy of the name unless it takes into consideration the totality of the person. That is as true for blacks as for whites. Modern state-run education denies the spiritual dimension and the immortality of the soul.
THREE extraordinary developments in women’s fashions have occurred over the past 100 years. They are so widely accepted that most people barely notice them anymore. They are:
1) The gradual acceptance of pants. Once exclusively reserved for men, pants were completely embraced by the 1960s and are so universal now that a first violinist in a major orchestra in my area sits with her legs spread-eagle during the performance. She is wearing pants and is considered free to sit in any position.
2) The rise of informality. Everyday clothes worn 100 years ago would be considered special occasion dress today. Even nuns wear T-shirts and jeans.
3) The striking increase in revealing clothing. Unisex pants lead to camisoles and other forms of public lingerie, clothes that are unambiguously feminine. College presidents and congresswomen even wear low-cut blouses.
These changes have not liberated women. Far from it. They have confined them. They have encouraged women to ape men. They have caused them to lower themselves, especially in the eyes of their children, as a pseudo-man is necessarily inferior to a real man. They have created a world that is less beautiful and less ceremonious. Sixteenth-century peasants dressed with more dignity than wealthy Western women today.
All of this is by way of introducing a remarkable document on this subject. No one has expressed the consequences of these changes better than one particular man writing 52 years ago. Giuseppe Cardinal Siri, the Archbishop of Genoa, wrote a prophetic letter to local clergy in 1960 on the subject of the increasing appearance of women in “trousers.” Archbishop Siri maintained that the adoption of masculine dress by women would ultimately spell disaster:
When we see a woman in trousers, we should think not so much of her as of all mankind, of what it will be when women will have masculinized themselves for good. Nobody stands to gain by helping to bring about a future age of vagueness, ambiguity, imperfection and, in a word, monstrosities.
When a sense of the eternal feminine is lost, there is a flattening of society. He wrote:
The consequences of such violations are not a new outline of man, but disorders, hurtful instability of all kinds, the frightening dryness of human souls, the shattering increase in the number of human castaways, driven long since out of people’s sight and mind to live out their decline in boredom, sadness and rejection. Aligned on the wrecking of the eternal norms are to be found the broken families, lives cut short before their time, hearths and homes gone cold, old people cast to one side, youngsters willfully degenerate and at the end of the line souls in despair and taking their own lives.
His letter, posted at Catholicmodesty.com, is well worth reading in its entirety. These are extreme words, but all of it has come true.
I disagree. Pizza as we know it represents the death of civilization. Fast food is spiritual starvation.
In modern times, the end of civilization is not chaotic, but orderly and convenient. On the surface, it is smoothly functioning and even appealing. But the sky might as well be falling and barbarians might as well be rushing into our homes. So serious is the loss of civility, beauty, courtesy, wonder, and love - all the things that distinguish human beings from animals and civilization from mere survival.
Pizza is just bread with tomatoes and cheese, and I agree with you that there is nothing objectionable about that in itself. As an occasional treat, especially when it is homemade, it is not bad at all. But in its pervasive, modern, industrial foamboard incarnation, pizza is animal feed. It is so radically inferior to the simple boiled cabbage and potatoes of your parents’ childhood that it’s impossible to consider them in the same category. One is denatured factory fare. The other is field and sun. One is a cash transaction. The other is mutual aid. One is sloth. The other is labor. One is commerce. The other is love.
Your grandmothers took cabbage and potatoes, cut them up and then made them into food for their families. They might even have grown these foods in their own gardens. (Regardless, the cabbage and potatoes they used would have been much higher in nutrients than the cabbage and potatoes found in most stores today.) Your grandmothers were not paid workers when they did this work. They were not making food for strangers. Even if they made these things poorly, there was something personal about their neglect. Your parents sat around family tables to consume their cabbage and potatoes. Their small portion of beef on Sunday was part of a time-honored ritual, part of a day devoted to leisure even for the poorest man. And when people feuded at the table or disagreed with one another, even when children misbehaved, there was something personal about their interactions. They talked and cooperated. They did more than grab slices from a greasy box and eat them with their hands. They didn’t sit in a communal dining hall sipping soda with strangers. They didn’t watch television with the cardboard boxes splayed before them. The shared cabbage was more than food. It was the rhythm of nature, the struggle for existence and human order. It was a meal with form and structure. Food has an ethical dimension and simple food is not necessarily coarse when part of a shared ritual.
At the end of the meal, that greasy box sits on the table. Does anyone think fondly of it? Will anyone wistfully recall the greasy pizza boxes of their childhood the way they might recall their grandmother’s simple noodles or the roast beef that infused the house with its smell? I remember once showing up at my grandmother’s house when I was a child and she made me a simple ham sandwich with ham she had roasted the day before. It was one of the best meals I have ever had in my whole life. There was something mysteriously good about it.
Fast food and convenience wraps, paninis, nachos and McMeals have dumbed down food preparation so much that many people have no cultural memory of dishes like cabbage and potatoes, meals that are cheap, satisfying and extremely easy to make. It takes about 20 minutes and $5 to make a meal of cabbage and potatoes, not counting the time spent shopping. It’s an excellent meal, as long as the cabbage is not overcooked. I could easily eat it five nights a week.
The English-speaking world does indeed have a history of good food and fast food is a radical break with this history, as different from the food of the past as Soviet architecture is from a gabled and turreted Victorian building or a small thatched cottage. The French and Italians are more sensual and intelligent with food, but the English-speaking world historically fed itself well, with the different ethnic groups expressing their ties to the past and their connection to land and sea in their own ways. Meat pies, biscuits, fresh cheeses, simple vegetables, homemade breads with fresh butter, broiled fish, roast potatoes - these are all traditional British and American soul food. In Victorian times, even a humble, middle class family might put a white tablecloth on the table for a weeknight dinner of any of these simple things.
One in three Americans is now obese and the country’s disastrous weight gain parallels the growth in convenience foods. I disagree with those who think large numbers of people can stay in good health on fast food that is lower in carbohydrates or healthier in other ways. There can be better fast food and it doesn’t need to be as devastating as it is, but fast food will always be incapacitating. People forget how to fend for themselves and lose a sense of their own physical environment, even their own bodies.
“Animals eat; only man dines,” said the cooknook author Isabella Beeton. What we eat makes us who we are:
The nation which knows how to dine has learnt the leading lesson of progress. It implies both the will and the skill to reduce to order, and surround with idealisms and graces, the more material conditions of human existence; and wherever that will and skill exist, life cannot be wholly ignoble.
A GROUP of Catholic nuns began a well-funded bus tour yesterday to campaign for more federal monies for the poor. While the most vulnerable members of society suffer the ravages of the sexual revolution and the loss of the sacred, these leftist sisters of mercy insist what people need most is government charity. Confirming the image of America’s religious sisters as political hucksters, these nuns are committed to a desacralized society. Pray for these foolish revolutionaries. They know not what they do. Their minds have been steeped in Kumbaya.
Bring back tea parties, please. Girls getting together to celebrate the girl bond with over-the-top partying and pampering seems so much forced fun and desperate escape. I recently met a middle-aged woman who was going on a cruise with dozen or so other women her age. Mind you, they didn’t represent an organization that was gathering around a cause. I could understand that. They were just having a girl vacation and leaving their families behind. It sounded dreadful. Women aren’t meant to travel in packs.
Yes, it is important for women to socialize with each other and it is good for them to get away from their families if they do it in the right spirit. I wasn’t referring to things like lunches out or baby showers. I’m talking about hedonistic girl gatherings.
My mother never expressed a desire to vacation without her husband or her children. I’m sure she wouldn’t have chosen a trip with twelve friends when we were young. A few friends maybe.
WHEN Sally Ride was set to fly on the space shuttle Challenger in 1983 and thus become the first woman in space, Gloria Steinem said, “Millions of little girls are going to sit by their television sets and see they can be astronauts, heroes, explorers and scientists.”
This was of course a ridiculous statement. How many little girls had ever wanted to be astronauts? About as many who longed to be soldiers or fighter pilots. In other words, very few. Steinem’s real point, in keeping with her intense dislike of women, was that women should want to be astronauts and there was something wrong with them if they didn’t.
Ride, who had a warm, radiant smile and is said to have served ably in her two missions in space, died Monday at the age of 61. For all the fanfare that once surrounded it, Ride’s story will likely fade into history and her life ultimately inspire very few girls. This will be so not only because women do not excel at space science or the physical demands of space travel as men do but also because, as Ride’s obituary proved, she did not lead a full life. Ride was in a lesbian relationship with a childhood friend for 27 years.
To her credit, Ride did not make her lesbianism public and was private about her personal life in general. Her sister and the woman with whom she had a relationship, Tam O’Shaughnessy, have released the information to the world and now Ride has the double distinction of being both the first woman and the first lesbian in space. O’Shaughnessy was Ride’s friend since the age of 12. Ride was briefly married to another astronaut, but they were divorced. So while Ride accomplished much in her career, thanks in part to the spirit of affirmative action, she seems to have never fully emerged from childhood.
The only good reason for a normal woman to go through the grueling rigors of becoming an astronaut is that NASA is a great place to meet men. Ride’s life, however, does not even offer that slim hope to little girls, that wonderful compensation for dreary days in a control cabin. Ride flew into space but never experienced other thrills that are as great or far greater. She never gave a man such necessary and life-sustaining love that he was able to do great things, such as fly into space. She never looked up at the stars with her own children and encouraged their wonder. She did not pass on her love of space to a son or daughter or grandchild.
Though she performed capably in her public position as a Role Model of the Century, Sally Ride’s example will likely be the exact opposite of what NASA and Gloria Steinem predicted. She will serve as a reminder of at least some of the very good reasons why women don’t want to be astronauts. The vast majority of women would sooner love an astronaut than be one. And given that most men are destined to perform inglorious jobs for most of their lives, women will come to see that the dream of conquering space rightly belongs to men.
The movies that Hollywood puts out today are often decadent and evil. They glorify sadism, depravity, and nihilistic violence. They are modern-day versions of the Roman games.
Hollywood isn’t just making crap; it is degrading characters that used to be good and decent. Batman used to be a worthy superhero instead of a sick freak. The 1960's Batman was clean and wholesome. The show was campy and juvenile, too, but it wasn’t a study in abnormal psychology. Batman was an honest and true hero, not an angry recluse fighting his “inner demons.”
Hollywood is tearing the fabric of our civilization. Pop culture is an important and powerful thing, it isn’t just “entertainment.” For a lot of people, it’s really important. Their families have been destroyed, they don’t go to church, the community institutions that used to bind people to one another have faded away or been forcibly broken up to these people, pop culture isn’t just light amusement; it has real meaning. In many cases they have little else.
It kills me that a mainstream movie like Dark Knight Rising is a horror show of sadism and decadence. The release of a new blockbuster movie used to be a fun, and largely positive, thing. Whether it was the new Star Wars movie, Rocky III, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, etc., these movies were festive and fun.
But the Boomers changed all that. Starting in the early 1990’s, with The Terminator, the movies became “dark” and started to feature orgies of sadistic violence and killing. In my opinion, the Batman movies are the worst of the lot. I have always been repelled by them.
I am sorry for the kids who went to see this trash, and of course I am deeply sorry for those killed. They didn’t know any better they are victims of our decadent and depraved popular culture. They were raised in a moral wasteland and don’t know any better than to celebrate movies like this. It is terrible that they were killed, they were just innocent kids. But Hollywood is doing an evil thing by putting out movies like this.
The sick freak who did this was incited by the movie. It spoke to him because it is sick and twisted, just like he is. He wouldn’t have done this at a showing of Raiders of the Lost Ark. Maybe he still would have become a murderer, but he would not have identified so strongly with the movie. I believe that movies like this create guys like that. There will always be troubled people, but school shootings and massacres by lone gunmen are a relatively new phenomenon. If the culture was healthier, guys like this would probably not fall so far. If their home lives were messed up, they’d find solace in something else. They certainly wouldn’t have their sick fantasies excited by “mainstream” entertainment like the new Batman movie.
But in our atomized and decadent culture of today, no one stops them from sinking into depravity and insanity; on the contrary, they are bombarded with images of torture and cruelty and death everywhere they go. So yes, I do blame the movie for the deaths of those kids.
Female writers have done so much in the last two hundred years to destroy the things that are most important to ordinary women that a case is to be made for a period of prolonged female silence similar to the days when the best women authors wrote with male pseudonyms. As a female writer, I would happily oblige if it meant that the vast majority of feminist harpies would retire or perhaps start a writers’ colony on a deserted island.
IF WOMEN knew the truth about the causes of breast cancer, would they behave with such silliness and immodesty at breast cancer fundraising events such as the recent Moonwalk in London? Would they be so enthusiastic about supporting the organizations that are, if not lying to them, at least consistently downplaying the truth?
The truth is, feminism causes breast cancer.
Abortion, delayed childbearing, childlessness, lack of breastfeeding, the birth control pill many medical experts agree these phenomena, all abundantly supported by feminists, are connected to the striking increase in breast cancer in Western women.
If all this is true, what are these women protesting? As I said, they are frightened. There is such a thing as rape, and they cannot process that reality. They have no way of understanding or making sense of it and so they protest against it, hoping that outrage alone will make it go away. They want a world in which rape does not occur. Such a thing is not possible. However, there is a way to gain safety. A woman can protect herself against rape not by staging protests, especially protests defending sluttiness, but by earning the protection of good men. Men protect women against men. The sensible woman’s path in a dangerous world is to earn the protection of good men.
There will always be a minority of women who dislike being mothers. They are freaks of nature. They are not necessarily to be blamed for their lack of maternal feelings. But they are to be blamed for celebrating abnormality. Rizzuto, like her feminist sisters, complains that society has standards for mothers at all.
Sex and the City star Cynthia Nixon poses here with the newborn baby of her lover, Christine Marinoni. The Daily Mail refers to the baby, who was born last week, as the couple’s son, expecting readers to swallow nonsense whole and slide down the rabbit hole of artificially-created insanity without raising the slightest objection or cry for help.
Nixon, who plays an emotionally sterile wife in the Sex and the City movie, says, “I’m just a woman in love with another woman.”
Despite her madonna-like pose in this photograph, Nixon is a typical anti-mother of our times, a person who has violated the most basic terms of motherhood.
Homosexual “parents” are similar to the Baba Yagas of ancient fairy tales who stalked children in the woods. They may not have pointy noses or broomsticks. They may not live in tiny cabins surrounded by fences made of human bones. But they are just as hostile to the young, snatching away their innocence and security, stealing them from their tiny cradles. Deliberately to deprive a child of a father, to arrange his conception the way one might arrange a major purchase, to raise him in a home without a man, cut off from half his kin and exposed to the shame of having two “mothers,” is nothing less than child abuse.
What has happened to the hearts of lesbians? They are shriveled and turned to stone.
EVERY YEAR, since 1957, Queen Elizabeth II has delivered a televised Christmas message. A comparison of her first address from Sandringham with this year’s message is a study in contrasts and the downward slide of the British monarchy. In the first message, a sober 31-year-old queen reflects on the unsettling pace of technological change and warns of grave moral peril. The habits and principles of the British people, upon which the commonwealth relies, are in danger.
In last month’s message, the Queen makes no mention of moral decline, though 1957 seems innocent and virtous by comparison. She praises team sports, which she equates with the King James Bible as a vehicle for bringing about world harmony. The speech includes video clips which suggest the most talented and promising people in Britain and the commonwealth are black. Soccer, not a moral and upright people, is the answer for multicultural Britain. Well, what else can the Queen say? Everything she feared might happen in 1957 has come true.