Monday, March 04, 2013

Post #3400

Since late 2006 I have been ranting here, courtesy of Blogger, and this is my 3,400th post. That's a lot of bloviating. My initial fear was that, like a lot of would-be bloggers, I'd give up. Turns out that this has become compulsive and addicting.

I checked out my February stats and found that on average, about two dozen people read each one, ranging from only 9 readers to 63 for the most popular one. The top fourth ranged from 24-63 hits, the next fourth 19-24, the next fourth 15-19, the final fourth 9-15.

All told, my number of hits last month was just under 2,100. How many separate readers that is, I do not know. And who knows how many do more than glance for a second and move on?

Comments remain pretty rare, but since I am less interested, ie hardly interested at all, in engaging with a readership than just blowing off rhetorical steam, that's not so surprising. After all, describing your blog as a place of infallible truth is hardly a summons to dialogue. And I have long known that "dialogue" --one of the idols of the contemporary tribe-- is vastly overrated. To paraphrase Clausewitz, dialogue is just polemic carried on by other means.

I was already well established on the Rightish side of things re "politics, sex & religion" back in 2006. I have only gotten worse since then. Have I transcended conservatism into being a reactionary? My logo pic says a lot of it:

Religiously, I remain a non-practicing, marginal and very likely excommunicate Catholic with Gnostic sympathies. (Though still more Catholic than Garry Wills or the nunnies of the LCWR.) My dislike of liberal Catholicism matches my dislike of liberal everything, in that it tries to de-nature something while making believe it is really improving it. For all its post-Vatican II vacuity and enchantment with Euro-stupidity, the Church has been a pillar of the West for a thousand years. Undoing it in order to please a bunch of Boomers? No thanks. And my reading of Islam as an invasive alien enemy religion remains unchanged.

Sexually, I have increasingly differentiated between my own homoeros and the package deal that is gay (or worse now, LGBT) culture, which is just a sub-department of feminism, victimism and leftism. Insofar as those three things are separate anyway.

Politically, I don't know if it's worth much to be an American conservative anymore. After the electorate chose the death of the Republic twice, and the Supreme Court decided that buying a mandatory health plan was a tax, what is there to conserve for the future?  The drift of the country --as with the whole of the West-- seem irrevocably leftward, toward the tyranny of the Victim Minorities. The only group at all interested supporting even as pussyish a semi-conservative as Mitt Romney was Whites; just sixty percent of them, and they formed ninety percent of his voters.  Straight Gentile Christian male and married-female Whites to be exact.

And that brings me to the touchiest subject that has come to find a place at Ex Cathedra: race.  I remember being kinda horrified back around the turn of the century to find myself agreeing with people I had long considered simply evil and inimical: conservatives. All of whom, by the, way bent over backwards to toe the egalitarian line on this matter. It took me a few years or more to describe myself as conservative without a voice in my head saying, "Really? Are you serious?" Running up against what I now believe to be the realities of race is likewise uncomfortable for me. And I suspect for my readers, too.

I know of no other subject more taboo-laden. (Any therapist worth his salt can tell you that where taboos accrue, you're likely to have a lot of repressed lies in the basement.) But, as with most of the Liberal ideology, what I am asked to believe, no, absolutely required to believe, seems less and less believable all the time. When I look at the actual behaviors of groups, as groups, over time, it becomes impossible to maintain the official line anymore. Jefferson was wrong. And multiculturalism is a lie, designed to dispossess Whites, the only group that "racism" is a moral issue for.

As one honest man put it:

"All people are 'racists,' to the extent the term has any meaning at all, but only white people are excoriated for it. The charge of 'racism,' therefore, functions merely as a club to intimidate whites into not looking out for our own ethnic interests."

None of this is a recipe for optimism. But my character has never made me famous for that. Even when I left the Church, I never gave up believing in Original Sin.



Anonymous said...

"Comments remain pretty rare, but since I am less interested, ie hardly interested at all, in engaging with a readership than just blowing off rhetorical steam, that's not so surprising."

You may not be interested in your readership, but your readership is interested in you. While ever respectful of your clear declination to publish your words as a book, the faithful would not be disappointed to learn you had changed your mind.

- The Bishop of Portland

DrAndroSF said...

Thanks, Your Grace.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...