Wednesday, November 27, 2013

A bit on the goofy extreme side

27 Problems Only Introverts Will Understand:

But in the ballpark.

'via Blog this'

Extravert Feeling Types on Parade

'Evangelii Gaudium' amounts to Francis' 'I Have a Dream' speech | National Catholic Reporter:

Yeah, and look at how swell that turned out.

A commentor elsewhere echoes my sentiments about the Chatterbox Pope

Every time this Pope speaks, I get the impression he is addressing a Kindergarten class at snack time. The discourse is shallow, up-beat, silly, essentially meaningless. Next, we're going to be handed a box of crayons and instructed to draw our feelings about "world peace".

'via Blog this'

Monday, November 25, 2013

States' rights

According to the 2010 Census, the following racial groups in the US are

White 63%
Black  12%
Hispanic 16%
Asian 5%
Indian 1%
Other/Mixed 3%

If we took their numbers and translated them into the populations of the states, this is what the country would look like:

All the Blacks would live in one state: California.
All the Hispanics would live in three: Texas, Colorado and Florida.
All the Asians would live in one: Ohio.
All the Indians would live in one: Connecticut
All the Other/Mixed would live in one:  Michigan

The rest of the States --43 of them--would be White.

(Just for interest, all the Jews would live in Washington and all the LGBTs in Georgia.

Another way to look at it.


Facts, Democrats and the JFK Legend

Facts, Democrats and the JFK Legend | VDH's Private Papers:

Contemporary Liberalism has "declared war on Christianity and Judaism and attempted to drive those faiths from the public square––excluding of course Islam, the faith of most of the terrorist murderers active across the globe. "

Oh, really? Make a list of how the religion of Judaism is to be driven out.

And ask yourself how many of those behind the war on Christianity have been Jews.

'via Blog this'

Religious, not spiritual

One of the many reason I like Mr B so much is this pearl of wisdom he just texted me about my visit to the East Coast:

The Buddha said "It is better to travel well than to arrive," beginning a long tradition of non-sensical buddhist quotes beloved by the ooey-gooey of the west.

My corollary: Get where you are going as soon as possible, and enjoy yourself once you get there. 


Sunday, November 24, 2013

An old refrain

Ever since Mr B encapsulated Ex Cathedra's market niche as "naked men and angry Muslims", I have tried to ensure some regularity in both arenas.

So, to honor sacred tradition, an oldy-but-goody post of naked men. Oh, and angry Muslims...which, now that I think of it, seems a tautology.



Saturday, November 23, 2013

Droll quote

Yes, I like diversity. I also like the idea of a flat earth and a jolly old elf who drops a few hundred dollars worth of goodies under the tree each year. Advocacy does not create reality. 

They say diversity is a strength. They also say Big Foot rambles through the Canadian forests.

Speaking of diversity, the Pakis and the Gypsies, uh, I mean, the Roma people, are fighting with each other. In England.  The local government is responding vigorously. With pamphlets.

Where, of course, they belong, right?

Canuckistan propaganda

You can tell this low budget sci-fi movie is Canadian.

The level of Political Correctness is over the top.

Science, tech and pilots top heavy with women.

All White girls, though. Shameful.

Only one Negro but  he was not Numinous. Harder to come by in Canada. We had a Latino stand-in.

But the townsfolk are more than 50% Third Worlders.

There's a gratuitous swipe at Christianity. (Courtesy of the writer, Reb Jeffrey Schechter).

And the required angry speech by one of the lead women that she don't need no man to take care of her.

Even though David James Elliott saves the world, he can't save this movie.


Friday, November 22, 2013

Tru dis

The outside world of people and events have provided me with moments of suffering in my life. Nothing special there. But the most consistent and finally determinative source of the suffering in my life, and the suffering I cause others, is my own character. 

Nothing special there, either.


Thursday, November 21, 2013


I am against celebrity power on principle, but this older actor agrees with me, so...
When I was the age of a lot of people in this room, we were putting a man on the moon. That was 50 years ago. Now we’re struggling to design websites.”

Even if you're a feckless fraud, an Affirmative Akshun Prezident,
even as you fail,
you can still wreak tremendous destruction on
 the Foolish People who gave you the power.


Wednesday, November 20, 2013

I wonder

if good equality-loving Liberals have given any thought to the scandalous class divisions in our transportation system.

Airlines --and even the public railway system, Amtrak-- continue to divide our nation into classes, based on money. If you are wealthier, you can fly business class (with your own private lounge at the airport, and you get on the plane first) or on the train, purchase roomier accommodations and better food.

The teeming masses and the privileged money-elites

Clearly minorities are at a disadvantage (unless they're Asian or Jewish). Isn't there some civil rights legislation that covers this?

It would be unthinkable to separate men from women on planes, or even worse, Whites from Les Peuples de Couleur. So why is this rank classism unchallenged? Even celebrated and encouraged? It's just an economic form of Jim Crow.

I thought we were going to "fundamentally transform" the Evil Amurrican Empire.

If the Feds can enforce "diversity" in our housing, our neighborhoods, our workplaces, our schools, the military...why not on a plane or a train?

What is this? The British Raj?

It's a scandal.

Why they are blind to this evil is beyond me...


Tuesday, November 19, 2013

Am I a misogynist?

Because I think that the mouthy, entitled, stupid, gyrlpower, mouthy, pouty, blonde little princess-bitch in this awful movie --totally owning her ball-less dad-- needs to be smacked hard across the mouth?

By someone? Anyone?

PS A reader's question made me realize that the real problem is Daddy. She is the symptom; he is the illness.



Blog: Obama Omits 'God' from the Gettysburg Address:

Part of the regular routine of re-writing history to fit the present moment.

As to the address itself and Mr Lincoln, I now admit to having a far less admiring attitude. This past year it was pointed out that while he was piously praising government "of the people, by the people and for the people" and the dedicatory proposition that "all men are created equal", he was doing something quite at variance with his words.

The people of the Southern states had chosen, by their democratic process and institutions, to withdraw from the Union. Lincoln forced them back into it in a river of blood and slaughter and maiming.

As for equality, it is clear that while he abhorred slavery, he considered Blacks inferior and his plan after the war was to deport as many of them as possible to Africa or South America.

'via Blog this'

Unconditional surrender

Dick Cheney 'Pained' by Public Flap, Sides With Daughter Liz:

The conservative daughter expresses her opinion politely and separates love and agreement. The lesbian daughter basically shoots back, Agree with me or you're out.

Typical LGBT tolerance and inclusivity.

Eventually, all the issues become non-negotiable and personal.

The progressive manta, The personal is political, reveals the dark totalitarian heart of "liberation and equality." There is no private life; the State owns all.

Reminds me of a spat back in my AIDS non-profit days. The lesbians were worked up because we were using polystyrofoam cups and destroying the earth. Their leader, in a moment of conspiratorial eye-rolling, said to me, You know how they get. From "I disagree" to "You Have No Right To Live" in a nanosecond.

Amen, sister.

'via Blog this'

Oprah was right

Another blatantly raciss attack on Our Prezident.

“The truth is I do not like the Obamas, what they represent, their ideology, and I certainly do not like his policies and legislation. I’ve made no secret of my contempt for the Obamas. As I responded to the person who asked me the aforementioned question, I don’t like them because they are committed to the fundamental change of my/our country into what can only be regarded as a Communist state.”

“I do not like them, because they both display bigotry overtly, as in the case of Harvard Professor Louis Gates, when he accused the Cambridge Police of acting stupidly, and her code speak pursuant to not being able to be proud of America. I view that statement and that mindset as an insult to those who died to provide a country where a Kenyan, his illegal alien relatives, and his alleged progeny, could come and not only live freely, but rise to the highest, most powerful, position in the world.”

“Michelle Obama is free to hate and disparage whites because Americans of every description paid with their blood to ensure her right to do same. I have a saying, that “the only reason a person hides things, is because they have something to hide.” No president in history has spent millions of dollars to keep his records and his past sealed.”

“Dislike for them has nothing to do with the color of their skin; it has everything to do with their behavior, attitudes, and policies. And I have open scorn for their constantly playing the race card.”

“I could go on, but let me conclude with this. I condemn in the strongest possible terms the media for refusing to investigate them, as they did President Bush and President Clinton, and for refusing to label them for what they truly are. There is no scenario known to man, whereby a white president and his wife could ignore laws, flaunt their position, and lord over the people, as these two are permitted out of fear for their color.”

The raciss devil here.

Monday, November 18, 2013

Ouch! :)

A noted conservative man of color --not Black-- has written that  "the problem with Africa is not that it was colonized, but rather that it was not colonized long enough."



Black Intifada update Recent black-on-white crimes:

Stuff that Pravda USA won't tell you.

100 more reasons not to give a damn about Trayvon Martin.

'via Blog this'

Oprah says we're raciss. Must be Tuesday.

The Moral Decline of Oprah | VDH's Private Papers

Shows the brilliant analysis of the race game that Shelby Steele did in the 90's.

In exchange for a writ of racial innocence, Whites must extend both license and deference to Blacks.

But make one criticism, fail to go along with the plan or, God forbid, make a demand, and the Getta Outta Racist Jail card is revoked.

Back to square one.


'via Blog this'

Sunday, November 17, 2013


Saw two documentaries tonight on Netflix.

One about primitive hunter-gatherer peoples in the interior of New Guinea and the other about several Indian boys who make their meager living burning corpses at the ghats in Varanasi on the Ganges.

The oldest form of human society followed by an ancient high civilization. Both thousands of years old. Both recognizable.

It was easy to see the archetypal commonalities in the males of both these radically different groups. In their own settings, one sparse and pristinely Stone-aged, the other massive and rigidly stratified, a high value was placed on their capacity for skill and for perseverance, pluck and sticking to the group's code.

Many commentors after the New Guinea film were outraged about the desecration of these Noble Savages merely by contact with the evil modern world. Others after the India film were horrified at the tough lives these kids live.

What makes these people think that the lives of New Guinea tribesmen or Ganges ghat kids have anything to do with them that requires them to have an ethical opinion? The typical Western combo of self-centeredness and self-hatred at play underneath the moralist veneer.


Are you a White Supremacist?

Of course not. That's awful. How can you even ask that?

So let me ask another question.

If you had to choose between living in a place (country, city, neighborhood, whatever) that was 85% White or one that was 85% Black, which one would you choose?

I thought so.

But no, you're not a White Supremacist.

Of course not.


Typical Hollywood Lefty Matt Damon

Defending Explaining...if you can get the drift through the nervous talk-- why Mr Liberal sends his own special children to private schools rather than with the hoi polloi...
Well, because I, you know, because I want the public schools to, if they were, if they went back to, if I could find my, the private school that I send my kids to is the thing closest to the public school that I went to that I could find. And that’s why I send my kids to private school. I wish I didn't have to, it’s expensive, and I also want my kids to be part of a, you know, their local community, you know, and not have to commute to somewhere else to go to school.

'via Blog this'

Saturday, November 16, 2013


In the Ender's Game movie, the second in command of the combat school, Major Anderson, is a Black female. In the book, Major Anderson was a White man.

Other characters are Africanized, too.

White men are replaceable when it serves the multicultural and feminist fraud.




Been cutting down on the carbs the last while. Mostly it's fine. But in the morning, no pastry with my coffee...that's asceticism.


Friday, November 15, 2013

After the Fall, part 2

I got a little side-tracked in my previous post about post-America.

What sparked the original impetus was remarking to myself (I often remark to myself, and try not to do it out loud in front of other people) that if Canadians and Americans --both historically White Anglospheric countries--have been historically different enough from each other to require separate nations, what about the differences among the current denizens of the Balkan States of America?

The founding colonists of the Original Thirteen were, as John Jay noted in The Federalist Papers, quite homogeneous; almost all descended from England. Yet they morphed from Englishmen into Americans, a new native identity. And only 80+ years later, the mitosis into Yankees and Southerners erupted in a bloody slaughter. As archetypal psychologist James Hillman pointed out, any group that names itself as "United" anything is trying hard to resist a deeper drive to fracture.

I have begun to think of the fractious groups in the increasingly unUnited States as incubating new native identities as well. Taking every group now resident within our borders --such as they are-- and calling them "Americans" really stretches the meaning of the term to the breaking point.

Nancy Pelosi recently pronounced that with the arrival of every new foreigner (my term, not hers) we actually become "more American." The logic of that mindset is that when there are no more actual Americans and the territory is occupied by foreigners entirely, America will have fulfilled its destiny as a Blank Slate "creedal nation" by being Nowhere and Everywhere.

There are certainly far more differences between Blacks and Whites in the US than there are between White Canadians and White Americans. Or than there were between Yankees and Southerners. The Latino Nation now invading us even speaks another language. And both Blacks and Latinos, as groups, define themselves historically by opposition to the Whites, whom both groups see as oppressive tyrants. Not a recipe for success. But, IMHO, a recipe for future separate countries. And that is how I have begun to see "us."


After the Fall

As a good Western declinist, I have given some thought to how I think things should be set up after the Empire, instead of striking back, falls apart.

Of course what I think in my speculations bears no relation whatever to may happen. If anything. I follow the wise yogi, Berra, who warned against making predictions, especially about the future. What follows could be far worse than what we have now. Mad Max, anyone?

The Law of Unintended Consequences spares not even those who believe in it.

One place where I part company with the otherwise outstandingly acute thinker and articulate writer Jack Donovan is his almost uncritical admiration for the paleo-masculine gang and his hope for an apocalyptic breakdown of the current order, so that men, actual men in tribes, can once again, in his phrase, "Start The World."

In his no-nonsense The Way of Men, his opening quote on Rome --ironic and funny if you know Jack-- is from the 5th century Father of Western Christianity himself, St. Augustine, who died while gangs who've given us our word vandal were breaking down his city gates.. On the issue of gangs and governments, Jack and Augustine are largely in accord:
“Remove justice, and what are kingdoms but gangs of criminals on a large scale? What are criminal gangs but petty kingdoms? A gang is a group of men under command of a leader, bound by a compact of association, in which the plunder is divided according to an agreed convention. If this villainy wins so many recruits from the ranks of the demoralized that it acquires territory , establishes a base, captures cities and subdues people, it then openly arrogates itself the title of kingdom, which is conferred on it in the eyes of the world, not by the renouncing of aggression but by the attainment of impunity” —St. Augustine, City of God 
It's the removal of justice that is a bit worrying.

There are lots of places on the planet where governmental order has broken down and gangs have naturally emerged in their wake (or even, as in Mexico, in parallel or shadow form with the official State). Aside from Mexico, we have Somalia, for example. Or Liberia. And inside both strong and weak States we have all the various forms of Mafia-dom. Hardly appealing to me.

Jack shows an appreciation of many of the elements of Italian fascism, where both the masculine and the tribal were honored by incorporation into the State's basic values and structure. Central to that project was the genetic and cultural unity of the Italian people. It was no multicultural welcome-wagon.*

But if you ban genetic and ethno-cultural identity as a basis for a State and embrace the ideology of multiculturalism, then anyone and everyone can own the "nationality" of such a country. It ceases to be a country in the traditional sense and becomes merely a territory where anyone can live. Any resistance by the historical people who created the country prior to its liberation from genetic/cultural commonality is deemed rank and vile racism. Borders become a flimsy convention, useful only for shaping the tax system.

But in a post-implosion America, what kind of gang-State(s) would emerge? I'll leave that for another post. This one is already too long.

*The Jewish author of this article implies that any State based on an identifiable common ancestry (what he calls nationalist)  will eventually transform into a genocidally anti-Jewish regime. This sense is widespread among Jews and accounts for their dominantly left-liberal political bias. Israel, of course, is a predicament for that way of thinking: how do you justify a frankly Jewish national State and still handle your large indigenous Arab population so that a) you can maintain your self-concept as a Western liberal democracy without b) being swamped by people who every reason to resent and hate you?

Bizarro world

It always amazes me how it is the most liberal people and groups who stand up loudest and most reactively in defense of the most ill-liberal religion and people in the world, Islam.

The obvious reason is that Muslims are a Third-World religion, very unWhite, and therefore Mohammedans are coded not as adherents of a religion but as People of Color, granted license and deference, and with all the rights and privileges appertaining thereunto. Both Muslims and Muslim-enablers cry out "Racist!" any time a Paleface dares to criticize The Religion of Peace.

The less obvious reason --one that many cultural liberals are unaware of and would deny-- is that both Liberalism and Islam are enemies of the West. Islam has been making war, literally, against Christendom and its secular successor, since 634 AD, following the example of its warlord-prophet, to set up a perfect theocratic kingdom on earth.  Liberalism, the toxic parricidal spawn of the West itself, seeks to dismantle its own culture and civilization --as did its prototype, Marxism-- likewise aims at an egalitarian utopia to replace the evils of the Dead White European Males.

How else could self-respecting Progressives become allies of a religion and culture that is galactically patriarchal, institutionally sexist, environmentally oblivious, happily martial and violent in the extreme, and imperialist and theocratic to its core?

You only get away with these things if you are UnWhite.

Imagine for a moment, a new religion. Founded just after World War II. By an Afrikaaner prophet, middle-aged merchant Hendrik van Kruger, in the city of Pretoria. Incorporating a lot of material from the Old Testament as well as its own version of the New, this additional new revelation sees itself as correcting their corrupted interpretation with a new and ultimate religious truth for the whole earth. This new faith frankly and boldly:

•celebrates male dominance,
•requires its women to dress in antique clothing
and participate in polygamous marriages
•maintains a para-military wing to defend itself by sanctified violence
and to stake out new territory it captures, believe that its prophet has called them
to establish his new order everywhere on earth.
•reduces any non-members in its sphere who refuse conversion
either to vulnerable second-class semi-apartheid status or even death*,
•reinstitutes slavery
•seeks to replace the secular government of South Africa
with one directed entirely by the successors of the prophet and his teachings,
•considers Afrikaans to be a divinely sacred and superior language,
restricting real understanding of the prophet's infallible words
only to Afrikaans speakers,
•develops a complex legal code of behavior controlling the clean and unclean in sex, food, clothing, prayer, relations with outsiders, money and inheritance, with its own law courts,
•makes sex outside marriage a crime
•instates capital punishment for homosexuality and for attempting to leave the van Kruger religion or even speaking about him without deference, much less criticism.

*Christians, Jews and Muslims, regardless of their color, are reduced to second-class status on payment of protection money and a promise to submit to the superior status of their new masters, while practitioners of traditional African religions and Western atheists are required to convert or be shot or sold off as slaves.

Can you guess what the Western progressive (or UN) response might be to this Mormon-Nazi nightmare cult? Any inkling?

What if hundreds of thousands of Hendrik van Krug's devotees wanted to emigrate to Europe and America, places their prophet has judged decadent and ripe for conversion? Would Pope Francis be weeping if they died in shipwrecks off the coast of Lampedusa? If nineteen of them blew up the Empire State building and killed thousands of New Yorkers, would the country respond by doubling their rate of immigration and declaring any criticism of them as evil phobic paranoid un-American H8?

But how, I ask, is this imaginary new 70 year old spiritual movement that different from the 1400 year old religion of Islam?

What color do you think the answer might be?

Bizarro World doesn't even begin to cover it.


Thursday, November 14, 2013

On "sending the wrong message"

What makes you think anyone is paying attention to you?

PS. I notice how "sending the wrong message" has replaced "setting a bad example." Must mean something.

UPDATE. "Must mean something."  What it means is that people who use this phrase --liberals, especially, since I suspect they invented it-- see themselves as teachers (aka propagandists) of the masses. As the recently late Kenneth Minogue wrote, we are constantly bombarded by our liberal masters with "a stream of improving messages".

The repugnant Mama Michelle Antoinette Obama's hectoring about childhood obesity is just one example of the Secular Church of the Liberal State and Culture, obsessing about our attitudes and our private behaviors, "health and safety" Nazis, even requiring us to keep our "H8"-ful thoughts in line. Cause after all, hateful thoughts lead to hate speech and hate crimes, don't they? Every time you refuse to embrace gay marriage, gay kittens commit suicide!

I am no fan of Jimmy Carter, to put it mildly, but I remember how he was condescendingly mocked  by the elites for piously confessing that he had "committed adultery in his heart" by his un-enacted sexual desires. This was not Jimmy's invention, btw, it was Jesus'. Matthew 5.27-28. Very puritanical and restrictive, no?

But for the Secular Church, "committing racism in your heart", well, that's a different matter altogether. That's serious. It is as avidly and relentlessly policed as any Victorian vicar on the lookout for a naked ankle.* The PC Vice Squad.

God, I hate these people (in my heart...)

If you say "set a bad example", on the other hand,  you assume that people will choose, of their own free will, to imitate something that they may or may not see. Leaving them to their own devices like that, untaught, well that would be...irresponsible.


*On The Big Bang Theory, the two smarty White women correct fellow-White bartender/waitress Penny just for describing Rajesh Koothrapali as her "Indian friend." Racist!

Wednesday, November 13, 2013

The Prophet of Baltimore

A fine mind

Remembering Kenneth Minogue | National Review Online:

His 1963 (!) The Liberal Mind laid out the origins of our current madness. A more recent comment on the liberal State as pseudo-Church:

 "Democratic citizenship in the twenty-first century means receiving a stream of improving “messages” from politicians. Some may forgive these intrusions because they are so well intentioned. Who would defend prejudice, debt, or excessive drinking? The point, however, is that our rulers have no business telling us how to live. They are tiresome enough in their exercise of authority — they are intolerable when they mount the pulpit."


Changing my mind

Trevor Blake, of OVO, has done me the honor of including me in his series on people who have changed their minds. His brief summary of Ex Cathedra's politico-religious trajectory, composed of quotes from my own blog, is concise and accurate.

If you stick to a single point of view for your whole life, are you a man of principle or a rigid dogmatist? If you change your mind about important things, are you a fearless seeker or a rudderless dilettante?

Depends on how you look at it.



Victimist propaganda, Black edition, continued

New Movie, Same Old Skin Game - Taki's Magazine:
 "The message behind the ongoing enshrinement of the rather amateurish 12 Years a Slave is that the cultural whippings of white folk for the sins of their great-great-great-great-grandfathers will continue until morale improves."

Keep the Whities feeling bad so they'll continue to make themselves blind to and shut up about how the Blacks continue to squander what they won since the "Civil Rights Movement." And continue to blame us.

Black Privilege: completely unearned moral standing based on what happened to someone else.

'via Blog this'

Tuesday, November 12, 2013


Saw a smart comment elsewhere this morning: "Liberalism, unopposed, creates socialism." Made me think what would happen if (or when!) the Democrats were not resisted by the Republicans. Now it is a feckless and pussified resistance, to be sure, and eventually gives up, but it slows the process down a bit. What if even that were not there? The result would be distinguishable from (regulatory and wealth-transfer*) socialism how?

The only groups that can provide financial support for the out of control fiscal spasms of the Federal government are Whites, (and tiny minorities like Jews and Asians). Blacks, forget it. Latinos, not much help at all. The gap both in annual income and in net worth between us and them makes that very clear. (I am, lamentably and laughably, an exception to that rule!) Whites will continue to be restricted and sacked to finance their own destruction, while their unproductive enemies profit from it. That, my friends, is the truth about "social justice."

I can't see how that is not going to happen.

Unless the whole house of cards --with a $20 trillion debt at the end of O's regime-- collapses entirely.

*Socialism comes in two types: the upfront and honest confiscatory Marxist type, where the State takes actual ownership of everything, and the regulatory/wealth-transfer type, where the State leaves you to earn your way and own your stuff, but so enmeshes you in regulations and taxes that it has effective, if not legal, ownership. You own, but it controls. That's how the Euro and now American versions work. National Socialism, by the way, was a regulatory type.


PS, my house-guest and buddy D, a gay Mormon who has amazingly integrated both his active gayness and his very sincere LDSness, horrified me this past week. I know he shares with many others a completely irrational love of Obama, but his idea on death taxes really threw me. This is a very nice man, a truly decent and generous guy. And no dope. But he finds the ability of people to pass on their property and wealth to their children morally offensive. Why should adult children benefit from someone else's effort? Were D in charge, the State would become the sole heir of everyone's estate and it would all be "put into a big pot and distributed to people who really need it."

Imagine for a minute that the Mormon church's current Prophet got a revelation that the LDS church was henceforth to be made the sole beneficiary of every Mormon's estate. Everyone who's ever called that religion an evil cult of greedy swindlers would be instantly vindicated. It would be headlines all over the country.

But for some reason, when it's the Government --whose corruption, arrogance and jaw-dropping talent for mis-spending galactic amounts of money on ludicrously inept projects, the Obamacare rollout being only the latest of many-- taking your money to redistribute it to "our country's most vulnerable", this sounds like some noble moral accomplishment that only a mean-spirited, racist and greedy Republican would resist.

Has he never been to the DMV?

Mother of God.

But, really, isn't his idea the natural progression of the Liberal vision?


Monday, November 11, 2013

Wouldn't ya know

I have expressed my assessment of the "Civil Rights Movement" on this blog by juxtaposing some pictures. The sentimental Norman Rockwell White-Guilt vision vs What We Actually Got Instead.

Turns out that Barry Hussein has the Rockwell hanging outside his office in the White House.

This is contemporary Black Privilege: unearned moral standing. Barry's color is the only reason he is where he is.


Tuesday, November 05, 2013

Masculine Masses

Even with lace in the albs and surplices, there is much truth in this comment: he loves the traditional Latin rites because it is masculine religion. There is a hierarchical dignity in the old Mass and that is distinctly masculine. Men are openly hierarchical by nature. Find me a gang that is run by consensus(1).

Women shrink from such frank and structural displays of rank, preferring their own dishonest subtler modes of creating pecking orders by degrees of affiliation.(2) How men and women value and navigate the cross-currents of structure and connection are both opposite and complementary. But certainly opposite.(3)

Either stripped down to essentials on a battlefield

Or at High Mass in a church:

codified gestures of recognition and submission 
within solemn and restrained ritual and a male hierarchical structure
combining royalty with sacrifice.


So not.

Christianity once played the role of softening the rougher edges of men, to allow civilized life to grow beyond barbarism, a task in continuity with the classical Greco-Roman world, which, at its best, trained the male passions because it respected them as a primal gift of nature. It promoted the strength, the courage and the skill that makes males thrive and gave men codes of honor to complete the archetype.

The Christian Knight
(The only kind of knight, in fact, there's ever been.
The knight is a unique creation of European Christendom.)

Now in collusion with feminism and liberalism, it joins them in deriding and pathologizing men and all things masculine, a danger inherent in its mythic and moral structure but once held in check by orthodoxy and by the cultural self-confidence --part of which derived from a Christian sense of theological superiority to others(4)--of Europeans and Americans.

There are now only two ways in which Catholicism acts as a bulwark of the masculine: limiting the priesthood to males and maintaining marriage as a male-female institution. The unspeakable principle that prevents women from being ordained is not essentially different from the one that makes egalitarian marriage un-Christian: that male headship, aka patriarchy, is as normative to the human species as heterosexuality.

Fear of the rage of their Cultured Despisers --which includes a huge number of people of both sexes inside the Church-- makes them avoid that connection. They're pretty up front about male-female marriage because they can make the argument about children.

But when it comes to the masculine priesthood, they just sorta throw up their hands and say, Well, Jesus didn't give us the authority to change it. No mention of the unique virtues of the masculine that suit men for priesthood, but exclude women. The unspoken implication of the official line is that either they can give no respectable reason to resist the priestesses and that, given their druthers they would go along, but their anointed hands are tied. We don't know why, but Jesus made a different choice. Don't blame us, we're just following orders. Sorry.

It seems to me that in every other way, the Church has succumbed to the egalitarian idolatry of the degraded children of the Enlightenment and to placating their new center of gravity in the Third World.


(1) There is much wisdom in the saying, "Men are dogs." Dogs without a pack become neurotic; canines need to know their place in the group or neither they nor the group can function. Left to their own devices, informally and formally, human males create gangs and teams just as naturally. Male-exclusive gangs and teams. The feline and the feminine, on the other hand, are not associated by accident.

(2)The "Roman Catholic WomenPriests" are a laughingly apposite example. Condemning male hierarchy in favor of the feminist "discipleship of equals", what is their obsession and raison d'etre? Possession of the power of male priests!

The logic of a "discipleship of equals" is either a) no priests or b) all priests. But these silly and deluded women --living up to millennia of the stereotypical irrational and self-contradictory female-- not only seek elite power (to use, of course, only to promote equality and inclusion...) but assert themselves as Roman Catholic priests when the very act of being "ordained" excommunicates them.

(3) My thoughts on that here.

(4) This is a sense of superiority which is now only allowed to Muslims.


More evilthinking

Short Canadian blogress Kathy Shaidle --aka Five Feet of Fury--is part of my daily reads, both for keeping me up to date with Canuckistan and for her ability to write thoughts which I generally keep to myself. She has a flair. And liberals loathe her. Must be up to something good.

Post title: The world still has too many foreigners.*

This yet-one-more-of-seemingly-endless example of Third World "migrants" and "asylum seekers" in Europe attacking and/or killing a Native Person (aka an actual White Norwegian) reminds me that Generation Identity, the French-inspired anti-immigrant and anti-Boomer movement among young Euros has taken to using the word "la racaille" to describe foreigners, especially those who attack the natives. In French, the word means "scum."

Their "declaration of war" with translation here, and my post on the book, here.

Hard to argue.

She also is an advocate of depriving women of the vote, as in her charmingly titled post: Clueless Liberal White Bitch of the Week. 

So un-Canadianly rude.

*Her gift for the one-liner is clear. Her basic response to the Nanny Staters who control her country: You're Not Smart Enough To Tell Me How To Live. To badly behaved Blacks: We Should Have Picked Our Own Cotton. To any Muslim: Stop All Muslim Immigration Now! And most rudely, to anything that the inhabitants of  the Land of the Rising Sun do to displease her: Japan: Nuked Too Much Or Not Enough?

An unintentionally apt comparison

Obama's Catastrophic Victory - Peggy Noonan's Blog - WSJ:

In her long lament at the "disastrous victory" of enacting Obamacare, this occasionally insightful rightish writer makes this comparison:

 "You know where we are? It’s as if it’s 1964 and the administration has just passed landmark civil rights legislation and the bill goes into effect, and everyone looks—only immediately it is apparent that it makes everyone’s life worse! It doesn’t help minority groups – it makes their lives harder and less free! And it does real, present and intimate damage to the majority."

Not her intention, but the truth is --take it from Ex Cathedra-- that the difference between Obamacare and all the"liberating anti-discrimination" laws of the 60's and following is that one's destructive effect is immediate and the others' took a little longer to show it.

'via Blog this'
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...