Thursday, November 29, 2012


to my strange dream.

What I did not say was the location of the dream. It took place in the post-American Northwest Republic. So I really had to be a straight guy just to exist there. Even my unconscious knew that.

This strange image reminds me of the individual/group, micro/macro structure in my brain and character. I have relationships with all kinds of individuals, the micro world, who belong to macro groups that I have come to see as inimical. Hell, I belong to one of them myself!

Non-Whites, Jews and gays are unwelcome, in terminal and no uncertain terms, on that fictional separatist and secessionist turf. No Obamas and Holders, no Alinskys and Chomskys, no Ex Cathedras.

And I get why. I do. For the same reason that Israel is expelling waves of Africans and has always used its immigration laws to make sure that it remains what it was founded to be, a Jewish homeland. If you are imagining a White homeland, by definition you don't want non-Whites. Simple. As for Jews and gays, both groups --small but disproportionately influential--are massively married to the deconstructive Liberalism which undermines Western --White-- civilization. Not nice. But not a mystery.

The estimable Victor Davis Hanson, despite suffering the direct and dire results of Mexifornia that he chronicles in his columns, refuses to let himself think that one of the most ancient and regularly repeating (and repeating and repeating) themes in human history --conflict between actual tribes, tribes of race and/or faith-- is repeating itself. Literally, in his own backyard.

He cannot bring himself to name this huge issue of race. Well, he can, but only to reject it out of hand because he feels more (micro) affinity with his childhood Mexican friend Steve than (macro) with the White waitress who serves them*. He is too good for that. Or as my grandmother used to say, too good for this world.

For an observant, learned and thinking man whose specialty is history, it is touching but also disappointingly naive. And for such a intelligent man, confused. In this world, micro is one thing. Macro is another.

I wonder if he asked Steve how he voted.


*I am reminded of the Balkans, where, in the midst of ancient group hatreds, Serbian Orthodox, Croatian Catholics, Bosnian Muslims, we heard stories of friendship and intermarriage between them. But when the macro level is activated, such micro realities are swept away. 

Micro and Macro

My rejection of the LGBT model --talk about a social construct-- finally hinges on the T*. I find no grounds on which I would considering myself a part of such a tribe. To use a family analogy, I may (and do) find the attitudes and behavior of gay men largely off-putting, but it's somewhat like a family argument. He might be an idiot, but he's your cousin.

I feel no such affinity with transgenders. And the inclusion of the T with the LGB radically alters the meaning of this "community" from one based on the shape of your eros to to one based on the shape of your plumbing. Actually, that was just a cheap parallel I couldn't resist. What it actually does is base the common identity on gender deviance rather than same-gender attraction. It torques the idea of a man who is a man, loving another man into a human who looks like a man, transcending his gender into...what?

It is bizarre. Who on earth is more sharply aware of the difference between men and women than homosexuals or transgenders? In the first case, your life can be wholly overthrown because you don't respond erotically to the opposite sex, but to your own. And in the second, your desire to escape your sex is so overwhelming that you go through expensive and physically radical surgery and treatment to escape into the opposite one?

As well, latest studies indicate that transgenders are .3%  --that's 3 in 1000-- of the population (and the total G, L and B population itself only about 3.5% or 4%).

Here endeth the ranting.

I called this post Micro and Macro. The above paragraphs were about the Macro, the transgender ideology and politics, for which I have no use at all. But as usual with ExCathedra, I can take a different attitude on the Micro level, individuals.

The first transgender I ever knew was an FTM, a very likeable guy whose gender history was unknown to and unsuspected by me until he told me. I knew him as a man and could not imagine him as a female. I have met and known quite a few trangenders since then and very few of them, if any, have given me the same sense of congruence that he did.

But here's a trans-man who does. As a female, a German pole vaulting champion. I have to admit, the fact that his transition treatment and surgery so successfully transformed his athletic frame and boyish face into a very good looking individual is a part of it. Having watched a video interview with him, he gives me the same sense of calm congruence about his identity.

*Although even without it, I find the compulsive victimism, obligatory leftism and feminist-driven androphobia deeply off-putting.

Now for something completely different

I dreamt I was an older man...maybe 5 or 10 years older than I am...and that I was talking with my wife.


AP plays catch-up with eXC

NLGJA president: ‘The AP is probably correct’ to discourage use of ‘homophobia’ | Poynter.:

Johnny-come-lately (oh, is that sexist?) but a good idea.

Now that they discourage using homophobia, (and its even stupider sibling Islamophobia) let's get on to racism and sexism and all the other PC BS that blinkers the contemporary mind. Discrimination would a good candidate for the ash heap, too.

'via Blog this'

Wednesday, November 28, 2012


I enjoy Black and White movies, even the cheesy scifi flicks of the 50's. One of the pleasures of this past Thanksgiving was watching some of them while the Bird was in the oven.

Watching a contemporary version of a cheesy scifi flick but finding it far less appealing. Both the SyFy channel and The Asylum crank these things out by the dozens each year, but in color, and now with the very ambiguous help of computer graphics.

As a genre, the 21st century cheesy scifi flick adheres to the canons of the PC dreamworld and is a homeland for Phallic Females and Numinous Negroes by the score. In this one, congruently, the worst bad guy was a rifle-toting Redneck.

Fifty years hence, will anyone watch these efforts for pleasure while their Bird is in the oven?

It is common amongst cultural sophisticates to trash things like Leave It To Beaver as not representing the realities of family life in the late 50's. Compared to the torrents of fictional propaganda that now fill our screens, it was a documentary.


If u need a laff

This is not from the Onion...



Churchillian wit

I recently referred to the Brit Prime Minister's famous remark that democracy was the worst form of government, except for all the others. Today I found another quip of his that takes the other side of the argument: The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.



In response to a comment of mine on another blog, someone described me as "a right-wing nutjob".

I am shocked. Shocked and appalled. Oh, yeah, and offended.

Whatever happened to civility?


One man's blasphemy...

Piss Christ
Trangressive and edgy artwork by Andres Serrano: Crucifix in urine

Obama in Pee Pee
Racist and offensive artwork by Glenn Beck: O bobblehead doll in beer, billed as urine.


Ex Cathedra in retrograde

Having seen the havoc wrought in the wake of the various "rights" movements, I have become suspicious of any such talk.

Example, a blogger refers to a section from the autobiography of Bernard Lewis, the noted expert on Islam and the Middle East.

He tells of being invited to a conference on the subject of toleration. When it was his turn at the rostrum, he said — I’m paraphrasing — “Toleration is one thing, but we should be speaking of what men and women are due by rights.” The conference organizer quickly and humbly agreed.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Big huge mistake. No.

When toleration morphs into "rights", in a Western society, the minorities will eventually rule and "tolerance" will morph into "mandatory celebration and embrace". The "rights" of tiny groups have shown themselves, in such polities, to be quite capable of unseating and sidelining, even pathologizing, the culture, values and habits of great majorities. The word itself becomes like a trance-inducing drug and a pious cover for power grabs. And all sorts of new "rights" appear and proliferate, because it is only when some desideratum of some group becomes a "right" that it can be assured of achievement. No "right" can be denied, so in order to assure satisfaction, all desires must become "rights."  And these are not the kind of rights referred to by the 10th amendment, which was designed to limit the Federal government's intrusion into any sphere beyond its constitutional bounds, not to make it a "rights" manufacturing and imposition business.

The decline, e.g.

The Andromeda Strain 1971

The Andromeda Strain 2008


Tuesday, November 27, 2012

In colonial times

A wise chieftain in Africa explains things to explorer Richard Burton:
There are four things that haunt a man: mosquitoes, a talkative woman,
diarrhea and the thought of dying far from home.



Toronto barber shop won't cut women's hair on religious grounds:

I know Toronto, having lived there for 17 years. Its "LGBT" demographic has a deep strain of grim absolutism in it. I suspect that part of my eventual migration Right comes from the long-term effects of working inside that community and seeing what they can be like. Robespierre's children.

A few years ago, a gay group in Toronto forced a Christian publisher to print material that he found religiously offensive. Took him to court and won. After all, equality is equality, no? The fascinating thing about this Lesbian vs Muslims case is --no surprise to me-- that the comments show little sympathy with her. Some religions are more required to be equal than others.

Back in my Toronto days, I went to one of the many dreary "cultural competence" workshops I have been subjected to in my life. This time, accompanied by a young lesbian on the staff where I was the director, it was about the Caribbean blacks and their culture. The presenter rather off handedly joked about Caribbean men manhandling their wives. I looked toward the "baby dyke", as she was called. No response. So I, the dreaded White Male, explained to the man that this was Canada, not Jamaica, and assaulting your wife was a crime.

After the session, I asked the little blond activist why she had been silent. "Well", she said, "it's a different culture."

In the complex rules of the Church of Liberalism, race trumps everything else. You can force White Christians to toe your line, but a Black Muslim, well...diversity and all that.

'via Blog this'

Monday, November 26, 2012

Natura naturans

Had a brief unpleasant altercation --I guess altercations are unpleasant by definition?-- at the gym today. Bottom line: testosterone and territory. Part of human nature, especially of the male kind.

And never letting any event or thought pass by unmined for a swipe at my betes-noires (OMG, that's raciss), I was thinking of how so many high-minded people who love Nature --organic food, global warming, secular kosher laws for garbage, "living Green" and closing down farmland to save endangered gnats-- have no such similar affection for Human Nature.

Granted, male aggression to defend territory might not be pleasant, but it's the condition for human existence. Without its own territory, no family has a home, no nation a state. Yet Liberals both raise the idea of Humanity to an unreal height and then try to shut down actual humanity whenever possible.

After all, who else gave us Zero Tolerance policies, and "There's no excuse for _____" and "It's never ok to _______."

The Church of Liberalism is so much like the Church it holds in such contempt, and precisely in those areas it feels so much superior: groundless belief and pious priggishness.


The eternal verities

Even though the Donald Strachey movies have veins of the usual gay victimization in them, I am very fond of Chad Allen's portrayal of the PI. But there are the occasional other rewards, like this shot.

Don/Chad, on the left, meets his partner's ex. At night. By a lake. Skinnydipping.

Great literature is ageless.


Post-lapsarian musings

When it comes to political orders, I supposethat the best one is the one that's least worst for the circumstances. Churchill said that democracy was the worst form, except for the others.

Worst for whom? For what kinds of people, in what place and time? Should we have tried parliamentary democracy in 9th century Europe?

And, of course, it all depends what you mean by democracy. For the Founding Fathers --not the gender-neutral "Founders", as if women wrote the Constitution-- democracy was a bad word. It meant rule by the mob via a ballot box. For them, Republic was the opposite of democracy as well as of monarchy. Smart fellas.

If cultures are different, diverse and to be celebrated, why should they all have the same form of government?

I mean, really, who expects that 1 billion Chinese --just on the basis size if nothing else-- would be well-governed by a parliamentary system? One of the reasons for my growing skepticism about the survival capacity of the American republic is size. Now at over 300 million, in 50 years this country is likely to have a population of more than 435 million. And about a third will be Hispanic.

Watching the "transformative" decomposition and dismantling of the US at the hands of the Liberal alliance of aggrieved minorities and their morally disarmed White allies, I have shifted my point of view, my vantage point, about my country and its institutions. As I've come to suspect, IMHO, the Founding Fathers erred by not making explicit who "The People" were, in whose name this Republic was set up. Their assumptions and intentions were pretty clear; the first immigration act in 1790 limited citizenship to free White persons of good moral character. But they did not make it explicit in the Constitution, and so we became a "creedal nation", abstracted from race and culture. Especially abstracted now from the race and culture that created it but which now Dare Not Speak Its Name.

Even with a hugely dominant White Protestant citizenry, the Civil War still happened. The abstraction of Union vs the deep divide between North and South.  (Though one way to look at that war was that it was a battle between Whites about non-Whites. Rather like contemporary politics.) All sorts of bad things happened. No political order changes that. As I say, it's about least worst.

But a hugely dominant --and self-confident-- demographic gives the stability of shared cultural norms, even language...something we can no longer take for granted in the age of Para espanol, oprima dos. Without that, when America becomes a country of competing and antagonistic minorities in mid-century, how does that inherently unstable Balkanized power dynamic support a constitutional republic?

Have a nice day.



Pope debunks Xmas myths

Welcome to the world of journalism. Even the CNN religion blog. The post title was how they described Benedict XVI's new book. Morons.

The Pope's third book on Christ goes back to the beginning and studies the stories of Jesus' infancy. Grounds which have been burned over many times by preceding scholars, Catholics included. While (surprise!) defending the virginal conception* of Christ, he also makes some points which, by this time, are utterly un-controversial. Even in Catholic seminaries, where I learned them.

That the Christian calendar is off by a few years. That December 25th is not the actual date of Christ's birth. And that the ox and the donkey are derived from a line in Isaiah rather than eye-witnesses of the Nativity. Things like that.

One brilliant journalista described his words on the calendar as "unsettling one of the fundamentals of the Christian faith." Mother of God. No one, and I mean no one, thinks that Jesus was born in 1 AD. Or on December 25th. These are as fundamental to Christian theology as whether you read the Bible in Turkish or Dutch. There is Tradition, and there are traditions.

Similar kinds of ignorance thrive in the presence of traditional religion. Foundational narratives of the Liberal religion, like humble Rosa Parks at the back of the bus, go utterly unchallenged as sacred (and unchallengable) fact. We are expected to believe that our choices lie between taking the Bible completely literally or realizing that the whole thing is made up. Ah, Liberal sophistication and nuance.

Well, no need to go on. There's a whole website dedicated to showing the gross ignorance of our journalist class about matters religious. If journalism makes you a "professional", so does prostitution. As I've said before, I don't know which event would be more traumatic for me, if one of my nieces or nephew decided to marry a Muslim, or to go to journalism school.

*About Mary conceiving Christ without a man, he makes the rather obvious point that if God is not master of matter, he is not God. If God can raise Jesus from the dead, a virgin conception should not be difficult, right? But in these matters, people confuse what they think God a. can do, b. did do and c. should do or d. would do.


Making fun of the recent Presidential Turkey Pardon ceremony on Red Eye, a Fox News public affairs comedy show, sorta like Meet The Press. PETA wanted Obama to free all the turkeys in America, reminding him of Black slavery. One wag asked the other conservative banterers what a President Palin might have done...A brief silence.

"There she'd be, flying over the White House lawn, nailing them from a copter."

Laughing all around.


Sunday, November 25, 2012

Mémoires du temps perdu

I watched a French film from the 90's. L'homme que j'aime. Really. No francophile is ExC, so this is rare. One scene had a guy with AIDS take his mother and his sorta future boyfriend to a couple of cemeteries to pick out a gravesite. Love and death.

Reminded me of the day my AIDS buddy, the fella I volunteered to be a support to back in the 80's, took me with him to go shopping for his coffin. He was thirty-five. He died that summer. August 15th, to be exact. I performed his funeral Mass. I had to preach to the two different sides of the church at the same moment: his family, from whom his disease had to be hidden, and his friends, who needed to hear the truth. I don't remember what I said.

I only knew him for maybe a year, but his death made a crack in my world that has never healed.


Episcopacy and females

One of the cries of the Desert Fathers, the first Christian monks who fled the cities to set up shop in the 4th century Egyptian deserts, was, "Flee women, and bishops!"  The first group was a threat to chastity, while the second, who liked to ordain monks to serve them as priests, was a threat to solitude.

Reverend Obadiah Slope, no hero he, meets a final and fatal combination of women and bishops in this scene from The Barchester Chronicles. The ineffectual Bishop Proudie's decision to sack Slope as his chaplain is explained --literally unblinkingly-- by Slope's equally unappealing foe, Mrs. Proudie, known by all to be the unconsecrated but actual Bishop of Barchester. A study in dueling shadows.

And an image that the Church of England, which just saved itself, momentarily, from female bishops, might take to its cold and dusty heart. (To say nothing of advocates of clerical marriage.)




Un dessin vaut mieux qu'un long discours.
Quand même,
 voici un long discours qui vaut la peine.


Well, duh!

But he acts as if that's a bad thing.

Liberalism as victimocracy

At the heart of liberalism is a passion for righting wrongs. In fact, it is an endless passion for searching out "suffering situations" and righting them, primarily by the power of the State and, hand in hand, by cultural control. There can be, in principle, no end to this search. Certain groups will always have victim status, regardless of their actual condition --and certain groups, regardless of their actual condition, will always be oppressors. And there will always also be New Worlds of victimhood to be discovered, celebrated --yes, celebrated-- and righted by State regulation and cultural control.

It can never stop.

Liberals are, at first, usually members of the majoritarian oppressor groups, either actual or honorary, who achieve superior moral rectitude --what St Paul calls "justification"-- by selflessly taking on this emancipatory religion. And a religion it is, a faith as much based on non-rational bases as any of the traditional world religions. Liberalism is a religion of political redemption, a toxic decomposition of Christianity given a disproportionate amount of help from secularized Jews and apostate Euros (including the increasingly bloodless American post-Protestant mandarin classes).

Its real difference is that it lies about this, aping hyper-rationality to cover its  fideism. And that its bases are more astoundingly foolish, since traditional faiths locate Utopia in the next world --the only place it could ever be--rather than in the next salvific government program.

When enough members of traditional majorities --aka, oppressors-- are converted to the Enlightened Heart and Mind of the new faith, what becomes inevitable is victimocracy: rule by victims.* Since Liberalism is a faith...I think I will always capitalize it from now on-- its victims are sacred. O salutaris hostia. To paraphrase Mr Burnham, in the presence of the Victim, the Liberal believer is morally disarmed, drops to his (or her) knees and offers worship: petition, adoration, thanksgiving and, above all, reparation.** As such, Victims cannot be spoken of except in terms of respect; anything else --indifference, criticism, much less blame or insult-- is the functional equivalent of blasphemy. It is no accident that Liberal societies repeal blasphemy laws and then institute hate speech laws.

One of the sites I have started reading this year uses an acronym, BRA. It means Black-Run America. I thought it was odd at first. After all, they're only 40 out of 315 million. But after a while I began to see the point. Not only was it a shorthand for the cities where Blacks gained enough demographics actually to put in power --always with the help of believing White Liberals-- a Black government (the outcome of which is always the same), but it noted the role of Blacks as American's primal Sacred Victims, who must placated, appeased, and celebrated. Just as any gods must. It was not only a matter of numbers, but of mind and heart, of The Faith. As The*** Victims of America, they rule the agenda of the Church of Liberalism.

Because in the religion of Liberalism, to paraphrase the kids, Victims Rule! And they will eventually rule the country.

*I looked for a Greek word to match the cracy part, but it was too complicated and confusing, so I lapsed into the easy hybrid of a Latinate-rooted English word with the Greek. Like meritocracy or homosexual. Plus, it makes for easier comprehension.

**The four kinds of prayer, from the Catechism. Bluntly put: Please. Wow. Thanks. Sorry.

***Archetypal White Liberal believer Professor Robert Jensen wants to locate our national Original Sin as the genocide of the natives. No liberal would deny that. But there are so few Indians left and they are so rural, that while they may have Honorary First Place in the Victimocracy, it's the Blacks that drive the agenda and serve to bring down the Old Order.


Where the boys are

The Glades. Cop show about the Everglades. Lead is an actual guy, head to toe, inside and out. Talks like a guy, moves like a guy. Even stands still like a guy.

And....he's not American. Aussie.

3.10 to Yuma. Great American cowboy story. Starring...two other Australians. Upcoming Superman...a Brit (although after the comic's owners had the Man of Steel renounce his American citizenship, why should I care?). Spartacus...a Brit. Thor...Aussie. King Leonidas in 300...Gerard Butler. It goes on.

Who follows in the bootsteps of Lee Marvin, Steve McQueen, Charles Bronson, Clint Eastwood, Bruce Willis, even Harrison Ford?

Where are the rugged American actors under 50?


Saturday, November 24, 2012

Sticks and stones and words

Avuncular and apocalyptic American Nazi* Harold Covington has posted a section from his just-completed fifth and final volume of the NorthWest novels. He describes a North American future where Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Western Montana have, after a bloody war of secession, formed into an independent "Racist Entity" populated only by Whites. California and the West and Southwest have become the mestizo republic of Aztlan, while the remnant of the USA stumbles along on its well-deserved road to oblivion.

While Mr Covington's podcast persona is indeed avuncular, his books --by the nature of the apocalyptic genre-- are steeped in graphic violence, both of deed and word. Even for someone like Ex Cathedra, who recognizes PC lingo for the mind-control scheme that it is, the novels' intentionally regular, ordinary and casual use of very offensive words for non-Whites, Jews and gays remains, well, shall we say "noticeable."

In a liberal world, using such words comes off as basically ignorant, a sign of low intelligence and loser status. After all, who else uses them?**

Well, whatever you think of Covington's politics, he is clearly no dope. As I said, the offensive language is intentional. As intentional and purposeful as the hyper-polite and euphemistic words required by the multicultural regime. The words you use do have an influence on how you think...even on how you allow yourself to think.

A major purpose of the mind-forged manacles of the racial language code now in force is to require Whites to see other groups as not only equal to themselves (or better), but to disallow the very notion that these other groups can even be criticized, much less insulted. And what constitutes an insult has become a quite rarefied business. Liberals regularly discover hidden racist code words in any speech they dislike. Which is why Ex Cathedra won't use the code anymore. It's a rigged game.

In the wartime world of Covington's novels --and thereafter in the survivalist culture he imagines-- the purpose of normalizing what we now consider unsayable, even un-thinkable, is to require Whites to see these other groups only as inferior or inimical to them, and to disallow the very notion that these other groups can even be tolerated, much less humanized.

As uncomfortable as this makes for reading, isn't it just another Clausewitzian extension of war and politics by linguistic means? And after all, aren't liberals the great fans of the saying, One man's insurgent is another man's freedom fighter? To paraphrase Voltaire, if you wish know who your true masters are, find out who who are not allowed to criticize...or insult.

*Covington is a National Socialist, inspired by but not a replica of the German version. His model constitution is currently unique, I would guess, in combining race-based communitarian and republican governance --head of government with a six year non renewable term--with non-capitalist (usury's banned) free enterprise and an otherwise pretty local and libertarian style: low taxes, few laws, and no limit on an armed citizenry.

**Since the prohibited terms insult non-Whites, gays and Jews, primarily, the group most likely to use them would be White, straight and Gentile/Christian. Add to that the implication of low intellect and loser status and who do you have? The Redneck. Who now serves as the last permissibly contemptuous object of America's self-loathing. And yet, who is more uniquely American than the Redneck? The linkage is not an accident. Rednecks are an easy stand-in for White/Christian America, the object of all Liberal loathing.


Friday, November 23, 2012


Selective "hate" laws

Arthur Topham of Radical Press charged with promoting hatred of Jews | Canada | News | National Post:

While Muslims in Canada regularly pour out all sorts of bile against Jews and Israel, the Canuck cops decide to take down one little White guy with a website.

Thank God for the First Amendment, one that "progressive" Canada lacks.

'via Blog this'

Always a good question

Regretting Ourselves To Death

Thanksgiving Celebrates Our 'Original Sin,' Journalism Prof Preaches:

The Austin Professor, whose bio makes it clear that he is a Conscious White Male of The Most Enlightened Sort, asks

“How does a country deal with the fact that some of its most revered historical figures had certain moral values and political views virtually identical to Nazis?”
It makes Ex Cathedra think, "Wow, maybe the Nazis weren't all bad!"

'via Blog this'

Men in passing

Dropping by the local market to pick up some last minute Thanksgiving items, I found myself proximate to one of my favorite porn actors. (Yes, shock, I know.) Last time I actually saw him was in the same store, but several years ago. He no longer works on screen, --he's interning as a psychotherapist!--but he looks great. He not only had the looks and the physique, but a voice and an attitude to go with it. Very hot stuff.

And although the idea of Elementary, an English Sherlock Holmes in NY with an Asian female Watson, does not meet with my approval, if I forget that it's Sherlock and just take it as a crime-solver series, it's pretty good and I like it. The handsome lead was, unfortunately, once married to trans-racial global child-abductor Angelina Jolie. But he and Lucy Liu make a good team.

Johnny Lee Miller


Thursday, November 22, 2012

A review I wish I'd written

On Netflix, for (1953) Phantom From Space.
I was awake through the whole thing and yet I remember nothing. If you tied me up and threatened to inject me with carbolic acid, I honestly couldn't tell you what happened in this film. A very curious sensation. I mean, it couldn't have been that bad, because I remember bad, I like bad. Bad movies are my thing, really. And it certainly couldn't have been good. Oh no. Clearly there was a Phantom, and the Phantom was from space. That much is in the title. Beyond that, you're on your own.

I'm still laughing.

And, of course, Ex Cathedra notices star Ted Cooper, typical post-war American guy. (Great voice, btw.)

AND, how "Barbara", the only female in the movie, the scientist's lab assistant, bosses her Clark Kentish husband around, first sending him to do the groceries while she works with the Doc, and then forbidding him to break down the door where she's trapped with the Phantom, sending him off to get more help. Even in 1953.

Thanksgiving 2012

A very different mood from some previous posts, when Ex Cathedra was not so "wearied by the changes and chances of this fleeting world."

Nevertheless, via GayPatriot, a quote from George Eliot, appropriate to the day:

...that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been, is half owing to the number who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited tombs.


Wednesday, November 21, 2012


A flick I watched reminds me of one of the things I hate about women in films --I have no personal experience of this-- is that they marry a man who has a consuming kind of work and then spend the rest of the time nagging him about spending "too much time" at it.

To say nothing of how much I hate kids who treat their parents disrespectfully and the parents --only ever White parents, btw-- put up with it.


At the corner of Naked and Dancing

Somewhat cheered on this gorgeous San Francisco afternoon by the news that the City has decided to make the local nudies cover their "junk", as the very odd recent lingo goes, I walked home from the gym, arrived at my corner and discovered two healthy young naked males, one wearing only shoes and an accordion, the other sneakers and a large tambour, dancing for money to music that sounded somewhere between Klezmer and Inca.

Speaking of nudies, I am saddened that no one in the press has challenged the local Men Without Clothes for their racism. They are an un-diverse Whites-only group, like the Tea Party without nickers. White privilege shows itself in the oddest places.

The struggle continues.


Burnham's Law again

As James Burnham himself wrote, the sentence that I have called Burnham's Law really does explain everything about liberalism; his book is mostly an elaboration:

"The liberal, and the group, nation, or civilization infected by liberal doctrine and values, are morally disarmed before those whom the liberal regards as less well off than himself."
Once infected, --and infection is the correct term*--the liberal mind is morally disarmed.

It cannot defend itself, on ethical grounds, the grounds that liberals most revere, in theory. The liberal person or group then becomes wholly and entirely controlled by the Victimized Other. Once morally disarmed, you cannot even think, much less ever say: "It's your own fault." or "It's not my problem." The liberal is yoked to the chosen sufferer in complete servility. Any refusal to accommodate immediately returns the privileged liberal to the camp of the Oppressors.

The people who provoke this paralysis are those whom 1) the liberal regards as 2) less well off than himself. It is the liberal's perception which determines this. And the only perception which matters is advantage vs the liberal's own terms. And advantage and disadvantage must be seen either as arbitrary (in which case the advantaged liberal cannot merit what he has) or as criminal (in which case the liberal, or his ancestors or culture, has gained the advantage by immoral, unjust and unfair means and must give it up in reparation).

That's really all you need to know.

It is, as advertised by Mr Burnham, way back in 1964, the ideology of Western suicide.

And I wonder, of late, in the wake of Nov 6th's re-election of the Obamanation of desolation, if only a radically unliberal stance, one which violates fundamental canons of liberal culture, can resist it.

*I interpret liberalism as a toxic secularized degeneration of the suicidal energies in Christianity, where atonement for sin finally requires God to kill himself in the person of his Son.

And given the hugely disproportionate role of Jews --most especially non-religious Jews-- in creating, maintaining and enacting the liberal agenda, a toxic secularized degeneration of the suicidal/masochistic energies in Judaism, the Deuteronomic theology which interprets all Jewish suffering as earned retribution for sinful unfaithfulness to the Jewish God: if bad things happen to me, I deserve them for being unethical. And if I feel unethical, then I deserve bad things to happen to me.


A dissenting voice

The Church of England Still Won't Allow Female Bishops: Good for Them!

If you plan not to read the article, here's a picture of the gyno-episcopacy crowd:

Really, can any argument overcome this image? Welcome to contemporary England.

There are still rear-guard traditionalists in the CofE, but they don't usually get published in
The Atlantic. And a woman, no less. What was once a fine magazine --it's where I learned about Camp of the Saints and first read Robert Kaplan-- is now just one more bien-pensant mouthpiece of The Established Church of Liberalism.
The argument from these leading cultural figures seems to be "get with the times." Indeed, the authority of the times could not be clearer: Gender doesn't matter, all people are equally capable of performing all duties and sexism is a cardinal sin.

Wanting to overturn a 2000 year old tradition
on the basis of a 10-minute old slogan:
reveals the theological depth of the combatants

The comments after the article reveal the impossibility of discussion between sides.

One common conservative mistake Ms. Hemingway makes is to dichotomize the feminist desire for power and the Christian doctrine of ordination as service. No one buys this. In traditional Christology, Jesus is Priest, King and Prophet, a three-fold office by which he, and his successors in the Apostolate and the priesthood, sanctify, govern and teach. Ordination in churches is absolutely about power. As it should be. (Otherwise feminists would be absolutely uninterested in it.) And traditionalists should stop apologizing for it.

As I pointed out in a reflection on Christ's footwashing at the Last Supper, in St John's Gospel, the only reason why his humble gesture was worth noting is because he was The Boss. Or in his words "your Lord and Master."
He did perform a task for his disciples that was beneath him. But it was only because it was beneath him that it was noteworthy. And it was not an act of submission to them; on the contrary, it only strengthened his position as Lord and Master. 
When a scandalized Peter refused to accept this confusing gesture, Jesus did not sympathize, empathize, identify with or enter into dialogue with him; He made it authoritatively and magisterially clear to him: Take part or get out. (Jn 13.8)

Whoever was cooking and serving and cleaning up at that meal is never mentioned in the Gospels, because that is just their job. Nothing unusual at all. It's only because someone with power enacts a humbler role that this kind of service is un-banal. And so the "service" of bishops, priests and deacons --and of The Servant of the Servants of God, the Roman Pope-- is utterly dependent on their hierarchical status and sacral power. Stop making believe. Feminists are honest about being power-hungry. Traditionalists ought be equally honest in wanting to keep them from it.

Perhaps the notions of feminism have so utterly infected the Western mind that even traditionalists cannot get themselves to say that female power structures are inherently destructive of hierarchy*. Advocates for women's ordination are, individual women aside, nothing but bearers and carriers of feminism. They make this a slight against "women", but it is a rejection of the ideology that these women have melded themselves with. And in the Christian case, are always concomitant with or prelude to other significant dismantlings of orthodox belief and practice.

This is a very rear-guard action, by the way. It only postpones the inevitable. Once you ordain a woman priest there is no theological ground for refusing the episcopacy. It is only because a segment of the CofE rejects women priests as well that they reject women bishops. The ante is upped with bishops because they transmit Apostolic Succession. (Neither Catholicism nor Orthodoxy recognizes Anglican ordination as Apostolic, but of course, in house, it's a big deal.)

What I also note in media reports is that while it was the House of the Laity which resisted this move, against the Bishops and Priests, no one is pitching this as The Voice of the People against the Corrupt Hierarchy. Amazing, eh? Cause this time, The People are on the wrong side of liberal orthodoxy. They're probably the Brit equivalent of those xenophobic White folks Obama told us about, clinging to guns and God.

*This does not mean that they actually lead to egalitarian structures based on affiliation, but that they use hierarchies to break down and destroy any centers of male power, or indeed, any kind of traditional power that resists their Enlightenment. Ask the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina about how much "service" they get from Katherine Jefferts-Shori. Feminism is no more egalitarian than Communism. Instead of the dictatorship of the proletariat, you get the dictatorship of the gynocrats.

'via Blog this'

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

Who shall steer the Titanic?

Thus saith The Guardian, about the Church of England's decision not to ordain woman as bishops:

Women bishops debate was a long and boring suicide note:

Ex Cathedra opines that the suicide began with the first ordination of a woman.

'via Blog this'

Universal suffrage democracy

is just mob rule in slow motion.




Since May 2008, when Blogger started counting, Ex Cathedra now has over 300,000 hits. And this past month, we went over the 18,000 mark for a 30 day period, a new high.

There are more than 3000 posts in this blog since I began it in November 2006. So it's a pretty long train. Blogger counts every time someone gets on, even if it's a post from years back.

Although my latest posts can get anywhere from 5 to 500 hits, usually around a dozen or so, at least initially, the favorites are clearly not my political or religious ruminations, but the pictures. This set especially, which has clocked about 7000 views.

Although I think of these views of men as appreciative rather than prurient, there remains a lot of truth in what the singers sang in Avenue Q:


Alas, Dr Hanson

Victor Davis Hanson, for whom I have very great admiration, can't bring himself, however, to face the racially tribal realities of Obama's Transformed America. Even though he describes them accurately:
Yet the new emphasis on tribe is not necessarily a liberal vision. It ignores all human individuality and assumes that friendships, marriages, and alliances will not dare trump racial and ethic solidarity. Ours is now instead a Galadriel’s mirror of the Balkans, of India’s castes, of Rwanda, but no longer of a multiracial melting-pot America,

He can see what's happening but he doesn't like it. So he makes believe it's an illusion, or temporary. He's still a good White person.

When I eat lunch with a Mexican-American childhood friend, I feel no greater affinity with the white waitress by reason of our shared appearance; in the new America am I to high-five the white stranger in the Selma Wal-Mart, by virtue that, out of hundreds there, we two alone look more alike?  I am sorry; I just cannot accept that. I have far more in common with Steve Lara, my friend of 50 years, than a David Gergen or Chris Matthews.

I have to say, despite my admiration for him, that he is being naive. Where is the author of Mexifornia, who has described his own inland California farming area as reminding him of the Vandal-invaded North Africa in the 5th century? Who is doing the invading, Swedes? Because his feelings of connection with a few individuals had no effect whatever on the race-based coalitions that have kept The Catastrophe in power. Sorry, Dr. Hanson, but I am afraid you need to recognize the difference between individuals and groups. Romeo and Juliet were a touching couple, but the Capulets and the Montagus are the faces and bearers of history.

You've been deeply conditioned to believe the 60's dreams of Rainbow Freedom. But it has turned out very differently from the ads and the blatant propaganda (that still fills the airways with its lies and half-truths).

You are a White man, Victor, and your America is fading away. You'd better get used to it.

Works and Days » Too Few Oppressors, Too Many Victims:

PS. Update in late Dec 2012. He's letting himself see it bit by bit.

'via Blog this'

Liberal shibboleths

Media freaks out over Rubio’s remarks on age of the Earth | The Daily Caller:

Marco Rubio declined to say how old the earth is. Panic ensues.

When BO was asked when human life began, he opted for that being "above my pay grade."
No fainting with the vapors from the Left at that one.

But now NYT Krugman declares that Republicans don't want to repeal the New Deal,
but the Enlightenment, too.

Not a bad idea, in some ways. If the Enlightenment eventually gave us a Krugman, it couldn't
be all good.

And as Ex Cathedra has noted, the same dogmatic liberals who demand adherence to the religion of Darwin when it comes to geology blithely ignore him when it comes to humanity.

PS If you're curious about shibboleth, here's the story.

'via Blog this'

Monday, November 19, 2012


Got a laugh out of the category description of this flick on its bootleg website.

Genres: Disaster / Drama / Gay and lesbian


Actually, I really liked this 2010 movie. It surprised me. Four and a half encounters in a run-down labyrinthine apartment building on a rainy night. I was touched, moved even. And the lead actor, theatre-trained Ben Bonenfant, well he can act. And he's not alone. Turns out The Older Man is a guy I've seen at my gym. It's gritty, sometimes disturbing, sometimes sweet, sad, funny. Different, and recognizably true, aspects of what man-with-man sex can mean. As gay films go, it's one of those rarities (like Redwoods, the Donald Strachey mysteries, and Save Me) that I would watch again. And recommend.


Moral insanity

That's the name of an old diagnostic category that shrinks no longer use. It was meant to describe people whose emotional life or behavior was bizarre but whose intellectual and cognitive faculties seemed normal. Not psychotic, but still mentally ill. They knew what day it was, did not think they were Napoleon or Jesus, and could do the multiplication tables, but acted nuts.

A cultural diagnosis for us?

Suppose that Mitt Romney had won the election this month. What are the odds that this would become a regular theme in the press:
since A. more than 90% of his support had come from Whites and  B. racial minorities had decisively rejected him and his Party by percentages ranging from 70%+ (for Hispanics and Asians) to (for Blacks) 95%, C. he had a huge moral obligation to reach out to them and prove that he was their President, too.

But when less than 4 in 10 American White voters pulled the lever for Barack Hussein Obama, who is asking him to prove to the majority of the American majority race that he gives a damn about them? Instead, has the question not been to ask what is their problem?

See diagnosis above.



is a word liberals use to describe something that is factually false but that nevertheless exhibits a deeper and truer truth.

Hey, I didn't make it up.

Rigoberta Menchu is a classic example: falsehoods in the service of a truer truth.

Obama’s America: The View from Prague (UPDATED) | Power Line:

The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency.  [Twice!]
It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president.  The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America.   
Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince.  The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool.  It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools, such as those who made him their president.

I saw the piece above and thought it was mostly right on...since it echoed my own viewpoint. (Funny how that happens). Mostly because BO is a huge danger. But the larger point is right.

Turns out that the piece is made-up.

Nevertheless, regardless of source or authorship, it's truthy.

And to the multitude of fools who re-elected him: you will get what you deserve.

(A similar, but factual story with opinion, from Canada. If the people change, no form of government can save the country.)


'via Blog this'

Sunday, November 18, 2012

The Fourth Reich on film

Iron Sky.

A Finnish-German-Australian flick. So be forewarned.

SciFi, with a typical Black guy astronaut....uh,yeah; tons of those in real life...whose speech consisted in 75% catch phrases, encountering Nazis on the dark side of the moon. A festival of cartoons and stereotypes.

He was such an irritating stereotype, that I was rooting for the Nazis...before I switched off.


SF is like Italy

in some ways. The color of the sky. The lemon trees. And the deceptive house fronts.

To discover why such an apparently pedestrian dwelling is listing for $1.5 million, click here.

Goebbels From the Grave

Great line from a ghostly new letter that the old Gauleiter has sent to Barry Hussein O from the Other World:
You made an entire nation love you merely because you were black while claiming you were hated for precisely that reason. You are the most brilliant Negro I have ever seen.


Montezuma's Revenge

From a piece on the destruction of Europe:
But he puts most of the blame on the spirit of surrender that grips Western man. He compares it to the Aztec myths that led to their conquest by Hernando Cortez. The Emperor Montezuma was so convinced that the end of his empire was preordained that he was psychologically beaten before the final battle began. He argues that liberal democracy is similarly infected with submissiveness and calls for its total rejection.

Not to repeat myself, God forbid...but see Burnham's Law at the top of the right column.

Saturday, November 17, 2012

Bless me, Father,

for I have sinned.

I watched an online bootlegged version of The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn, 2.

The end of the line. No more Bella and Edward and Jacob. And now, Renesmee. (Renesmee?*)
And the Volturi.

Although the werewolves were pretty cool.

The benefit of using an online version is that you can skip over the boring or stupid parts, just as if it were on YouTube.

I skipped a lot.

Mick LaSalle's review is far more entertaining than the flick.

*In one of the many funny but offputting moments in the film, newly vamped Bella --whose new talents allow her to show her emotional vapidity at high speed--lashes out at hopeless but hunky also-ran lover Jacob for imprinting on her daughter and for referring to the child as Nessy. "Nessy?! Nessy?! You nicknamed my daughter after the Lochness Monster?!!"


Do I really need

to say anything?

Well, of course I do. "Shaima"  --wonderful how we become first-name buds with these precious victims?-- was apparently killed by her Iraqi Muslim immigrant husband, who left a fake hate crime note on her body after he had slaughtered her. As for "Trayvon", lead actor in the Soap Opera cum Passion Play, and one of the very few Blacks not killed by other Blacks (in his case, a Latino) I have already registered my yawn.

British fiction?

I've noted this before, but after watching a lot of Foyle's War, I continue to be impressed by
A. the quick-to-anger, general blunt rudeness of the Brits to one another
B. the dismissive, hostile attitude toward the police.

I have no idea at all if this is or was accurate. Anyone have any experience of the Brits?


Amateur political science

Minorities --ethnic or religious-- in a State ought be protected. But never encouraged to grow. Nor should the majorities ever discomfit or accommodate themselves for the sake of minorities.

It seems to me, looking back, that one of the great mistakes, perhaps the greatest, of the Founding Fathers --arrogant as that may be of me to say-- is that they took for granted who "the People" were and did not try to name them, ethnically or religiously.

Now we have an outcome that they, of course, could never have imagined* and absolutely never intended: coalitions of aggrieved minorities running the country. At the very least, it offends common sense.

I am aware that my current thought brings me into line with the position of Islam on the dhimmis, and with the various regimes of England that once excluded Catholics and Jews from education, the profession and politics. Oh, well. In both cases, as unpleasant as it was/is for the excluded groups, the policy works.

Traditional Asian countries like China, Japan, etc. are not susceptible to moral suasion on abstract grounds apart from the realities of blood and soil. And the State of Israel is quite clear that it is a state for Jews. Try emigrating there if you are a Gentile, much less an Arab. Or an illegal alien from Africa.

I suppose my current feeling is just the logical outcome of my rejection of multiculturalism as nothing less --nothing less-- than a program of depotentiation, pathologization, marginalization, dispossession, domination and erasure of Whites. Multiculturalism is to Whites as Marxism-Leninism is to the middle and upper classes.

*Jefferson is an exception. As everyone knows, he rejected slavery in principle on moral grounds but not in practice. He still believed Blacks to be inferior to Whites and could do this without contradiction. (You can reject child labor without favoring child suffrage).  With his image of holding the wolf by the ears, he felt that some kind of win/lose endgame would evolve, that the two races could never live together without one of them destroying the other.


Friday, November 16, 2012

Writing books on the Titanic

Enjoyed very much an Uncommon Knowledge video with Antonin Scalia.

He's pretty clear that if a constitution is always evolving, it's not a constitution, just whatever judges and society thinks is a good idea this afternoon. For that, he says, we have legislature and ballot boxes.

A very amusing man. Clear, and smart.

Liked it so much I watched this, too.

But just because you have better arguments does not at all mean that you will win the game. He seems to know that.

PS. Reminds me of a date I had several years ago, with a mid's 6o's aged "civil rights" lawyer, and a Buddhist...who had just had plastic surgery to make himself look younger. Ok, great start. When the issue of constitutional interpretation came up --doesn't that come up during all dates?-- and I expressed a legal layman's preference for original meaning, he gestured toward me in a strangling motion. And then was somewhat surprised when I declined to go out with him again.

California in a nutshell.


Benedict XVI is a liberal

Listen to this, from his speech to Interpol, about our "global village"
Benedict XVI then went on to reaffirm the fact that "violence in all its forms, whether crime or terrorism, is always unacceptable, because it profoundly wounds human dignity and is an offence against the whole of humanity. It is therefore necessary to combat criminal activities within the limits of moral and juridical norms, since action against crime should always be carried out with respect for the rights of each person and of the principles of the rule of law. The struggle against violence must aim to stem crime and defend society, but it must also aim at the reform and the correction of the criminal, who remains always a human person, a subject of inalienable rights, and as such is not to be excluded from society, but rather rehabilitated".
Ignoring the fundamental Christian doctrine of the fallen nature of man, he then continues to sound like Enlightenment Man and rings the bell of the utopian assumption of The Ever Brighter Future:
 Everyone has his or her particular responsibility in building a future of justice and peace.
Maybe when he retires he can get a job speechwriting for the Unitarian Church or the European Union. Such drivel. He'd learn a lot more by reading The Camp of the Saints.

Thursday, November 15, 2012

No shame

You may not be old enough, or theological enough, to remember Harvey Cox. A big deal in the 60's.

His final book:
He views the religion’s first three centuries as the Age of Faith, when followers simply embraced the teachings of Jesus*. Then came the Age of Belief, in which church leaders increasingly took control and set acceptable limits on doctrine and orthodoxy. But the last 50 years, Cox contends, welcome in the Age of the Spirit, in which Christians have begun to ignore dogma and embrace spirituality, while finding common threads with other religions.

Narcissistic and upchuckingly moronic. It is the perennial, perhaps foundational, Protestant delusion: the simplicity and purity of the original.

*No one who knows anything about Church history could possible write anything so stupidly inaccurate. 

Pontifices maximi, old and new

Year of Faith could see beatification of John Paul I, Paul VI:

The Roman emperors got into the habit of being deified and then of deifying themselves.
The Roman pontiffs, it seems, are following suit.

There is no necessary connection at all between being Bishop of Rome and being a saint. Lots of them have not been even close, to put it mildly.

Not a good trend, all this canonizing of dead Popes, one after the other. Too imperial. To say nothing of giving the appearance of being grossly self-serving.

'via Blog this'

PS. Pontifex maximus was a traditional title of the head of the college of pagan priests in Rome and eveventually the Emperors took it over. Bishops (as in pontifical) followed, especially the Roman Bishops since the 5th/6th centuries.

Becoming un-civil

I had to turn off Gods and Generals because it was too painful to watch.
American men killing each other on American soil.

Feels like now we have an undeclared but

Second Civil War.

And in both cases it's a question of Whites attacking each other
over the question of what to do about Blacks,
America's eternal problem children.

What was considered a comedy film in 1997 feels like prediction only 15 years later.
Can you imagine 15 years from now?

'via Blog this'


A White Liberal is constitutionally incapable of seeing any non-White group as his enemy. The only group of people he truly allows himself to hate is that section of his own, White Non-Liberals.

Empty hands

One of the traditional RC blogs I check has a posting on "tackling-the-problem-of-teaching-convincingly-what-the-church-offers-about-homosexuality."

Well, the problem is that the church has nothing to offer.

As I have said I understand the inner logic of Catholic sexual morality and do not fault it for being true to itself. I do get the whole male/female marriage thing. To say "OK, cool" to homosexuality would unravel the whole thread of a bimillennial organism. So it can't say that. For reasons similar to why it cannot say the same even about masturbation or contraception or shacking up outside marriage. At the end of that series of OK cools lies dissolution into liberal Protestantism. Which offers you nothing you can't get elsewhere.

But in terms of "having something to offer" besides "Don't Do It"? Nada.

Or worse, the thrill of sitting around in some Courage meeting acting as if your deepest desire for human connection is an addiction to a really bad drug.

My advice to Catholic homos is that you either have to ignore this and say to yourself that it does not really apply to you because the Church cannot really see you as the existing being you are,
or get out.


Wednesday, November 14, 2012

Sealing your fate

Australian priests could be forced to breach seal of the confessional - Telegraph:

Break the seal for one reason today,
now deemed to be a morally inviolable issue by the liberal state and its current ethical fashions,
--why not rape? murder?---
and you have no grounds for resisting another tomorrow.

The State can say or do what it likes but this will not happen. As if the Prime Minister of Australia were some kind of special moral authority...

And in any case, how would it be enforced?

Just to clarify, in Roman Catholicism, no reason exists which justifies revealing what a penitent tells a confessor, unless the penitent gives permission. This only covers sacramental confession, not counseling.

The Code of Canon Law:
Can. 983 §1 The sacramental seal is inviolable. Accordingly, it is absolutely wrong for a confessor in any way to betray the penitent, for any reason whatsoever, whether by word or in any other fashion.
Can. 984 §1 The confessor is wholly forbidden to use knowledge acquired in confession to the detriment of the penitent, even when all danger of disclosure is excluded.

'via Blog this'

Gods and generals

share the same wound.

When it comes to sex, I don't think I could be accused of being a prude or a puritan, but I certainly am not hippy-ishly naive about the almost unparalleled power of Eros to destroy. DH Lawrence may have been a talented writer, but when it came to Eros, he was a fool.


Tuesday, November 13, 2012

Quality control

In order to reduce spam, I have decided to introduce the Captcha program so that I can verify the commentor is human.

Canterburian irony

Rowan Williams, recently retired Archbishop of Canterbury, of The Church of England, had this to say about quarrels in the American branch of his church:

 I should feel a great deal happier, I must say, if those who are most eloquent for a traditionalist view in the United States showed a fuller understanding of the need to regard the bishop and the diocese as the primary locus of ecclesial identity rather than the abstract reality of the ‘national church.’”

This from a man appointed by the government of the UK to head the first 'national church' in Western Christendom.


Race in the race

A map is worth a thousand stats.

One man's elegy.

Episcopal Pontifications

The Episcopal Church's current headlong tranformation into Unitarianism in drag is not new. In a way, it decided its fate a half century ago, right here in San Francisco.


Monday, November 12, 2012


Watched a bootleg online version of Skyfall. Mea culpa. Not bad at all. The romance here was not with the Black girl or the Asian girl, but really with Judi Dench, M. A pretty dark story.

Daniel Craig's Bond is maturely craggy, and with his impressive build, his voice and how he moves...well, testosterone all over. He is, IMHO, the first believably dangerous Alpha Male in the role since Sean Connery*. Moore, Dalton and Brosnan had all the class, but no credible lethality. With the mien and carriage of a well-seasoned boxer, Mr. Craig does.

Bleached blond bad guy Javier Bardem provides the first hint of homoeroticism in the Bond film corpus. When he's tied 007 to a chair, he conducts a rather close interrogation, trying to unnerve our hero by having fingertips and hands go where, we have been led to believe, no man has gone before.

First time for everything
, Bardem whispers. Bond's unruffled and smirking response: What makes you think this is my first time?

And when he forces James to a pistol contest, he whispers closely in his ear, Let's see who winds up on top.

Ok. Welcome to the 21st century.

PS. A another rightwing sight, the above incident was cause for grief and ranting, that 007's masculinity had been cast into doubt. I pointed out that 1. had James ever had a role in the hay with another guy, he'd undoubtedly be the top, so no harm done, 2 and his masculinity had already been compromised in the first two Craig films by having M be a woman...something far more epochal. At the end of Skyfall, btw, --spoiler alert-- Moneypenny is Black. Farewell to the White American chick....(Why was the M's secretary a Yank, btw?)

The actress who plays her ruminated on how it would be cool with her were Bond gay, and who would be the best Black man to play the First Black 007, and which Woman...

Here's the message to you few remaining Whites and Males out there: All your everything are belong to us.

*I confess that although I found Connery impressive, he always struck me as pathologically sleazy. Craig's masculinity is more complex.


Clever, these Chinese

A commentor elsewhere points out that the Republican candidate could not even make a dent in the Asian vote. If these smart, hardworking, family-centered and hypersuccessful people cannot see beyond anti-White racism and vote for Republicans, how in hell can the GOP/RIP imagine they could hook the Hispanics, who are collectivist under-achievers to the core?

The country is in the worst shape since the Depression of the 30s and Romney couldn't even carry the Cubans in Florida.

Republicans could --as they seem inclined to do, even Sean Hannity!-- cave on "a path to citizenship" for the 12 million Hispanic invaders. What on God's earth make them think that these Brownies will suddenly turn to them with their votes? And of course, once we have "comprehensive immigration reform", the flood of UnWhites into American will stop, right?


The only groups in America that consistently split their votes in anything less than the 70/30 style of  the POC bloc --Blacks (93/7!), Hispanics (71/29), Asians 73!/27)-- and the tribals --Jews (70/30), gays (75/25)-- are Whites (40/60) and women (55/45 as a whole, singles strongly for Dems, marrieds strongly for Republicans).*

Whites elected Barack Obama. We are still more than 70% of the voting population. Were we not so uniquely split, but voted --like everyone else!!!-- as a race block, we could dominate Federal politics.

Consequently, we remain The Most Foolish People On Earth.


A comment from FB friend Nathan reminded me of an apt malapropism I came across not too long ago. Someone conflated the two phrases, "white elephant"...a property costing more than its worth...and "the elephant in the room"...a dominant but taboo subject everyone is aware of but is not suppose to speak about..into "the white elephant in the room". Good description of the Republican Party: The White Elephant In The Room.

*I am leaving out other demographics: age groups, city vs rural, etc. Although not unimportant --the dominance of big cities especially-- these don't fit my point.

Sunday, November 11, 2012

Such crapola

The Black Students at Hogwarts:

Are they "adequately represented"?

These people will never stop whining.

'via Blog this'

Like most all media

the BBC treats traditional religion with patronization, contempt, sloppiness or outright hatred.

The opening scene of an episode of Foyle's War shows a man praying the rosary in what is, despite attempts at devotional clutter, an Anglican church. Then he goes to confession and confesses that has broken the Sixth Commandment, to which the priest replies, "You have killed someone?"

Unless this is a Super High CofE establishment, in the Catholic numbering the Sixth is adultery.

In a previous episode, the reaction of a hospital nun to news of a mother who attempted suicide is nothing more than shock at her mortal sinfulness.

Liberals think religious people are predictable cartoons.

You know who are predictable cartoons?

One guess.


Suicide without bombers

For several years I have been wondering if there is any precedent in history for the current state of the West. America in particular.

If historians like Toynbee are to be believed, we would not be the first civilization to commit suicide. But I cannot find one that did it out of guilt.

Guilt at its own success.

And even more oddly, one whose sense of guilt only increased as it abandoned the religion which had taught it to feel so.

But of course, IMHO, the liberalism which supplanted it, which validates and accelerates the decay is a false but extremely powerful and effective faith, masquerading as rational and self-evident "human values."

Liberalism enshrines a selective, deracinated and decontextualized hyperChristian morality. It unmans its victims and disarms them of their capacity for natural self-interest and self-defense. In a cruelly distorted way, it teaches them to love their enemies so much that they are unable even to tell who their real enemies are.

When they die at their hands, they will blame someone else, probably themselves, and find peace as they cheer their murderers on.

After all, they just elected one of them.


Reupholstering the deck chairs on the Titanic

San Francisco Approves Taxpayer-Funded Transgender Surgeries:

'via Blog this'

Saturday, November 10, 2012

Old smarts vs New stupids

Looking for a film to watch, I found The Invisible War, "an investigative documentary into the epidemic of rape in the US Army." Gee, open up the military to women and then be shocked that this happens...

I am more and more convinced that the world would be a better place if people heeded the old catechism doctrine of the occasions of sin: avoiding situations which raise the likelihood that you will be involved in bad behavior.

If there were no women soldiers, the "epidemic" of rape in the Army would disappear. Simple.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...