Thursday, June 30, 2016

Trolling the Papal Defenders

If I were more of a bastard, I'd take to trolling the most knee-jerk and frantic papal defenders out there. Not merely the people who give Francis the benefit of the doubt, but the people who feign innocent shock that anyway could possibly misunderstand the holy father, tut tut, shouldn't you know better than to take what he says at face value.

A good way to do it would be to just demand they explain how this or that quote from the Pope, from some foreign newspaper, could possibly be squared with Church teaching. And once they bend over backwards to reinterpret whatever you provide them in a way that makes it clear the Pope -obviously- meant something totally orthodox by that, you stop and go, 'Oops, hold on. That was actually a quote by Ayn Rand/Joseph Stalin/Anton LeVay. I got things mixed up. Anyway, you were saying?'

I have zero doubt that I'd find people explaining that of -course- this particular tract from Ayn Rand's Playboy interview was like, straight out of the Catechism, goodness gracious don't people even read their own church's documents nowadays?

How did Reason Rally 2016 go?

Wait, what? You didn't realize there WAS a Reason Rally 2016?

Well, there was. So why didn't you hear about it?

Because it was a flop.

Wednesday, June 29, 2016

A year of surprises and even victories

I think the big theme of 2016 has been the abandonment of compromises on a growing part of the cultural right-wing in the US.

It used to be that there was a kind of deal in place: the right-wing was pandered to in word but not deed, and the moderates ruled the show. Every now and then a ritual sacrifice was necessary, and some right winger was declared to have gone too far, and then they were fired, denounced, and everyone got the message that the limits of decency had gotten a bit more strict on the right.

Wash, rinse, repeat. Pander, inaction, sacrifice, adjust. Of course, this relied on a very compliant and meek right. Now? It's the meekness that has receded, temporarily or not. And with the Brexit success and Trump's nomination, that rejection of meekness has chalked up not just one, but two cultural victories.

That's a hell of a thing. And I think the moderates are confused, because while the right has its own new actors, they're still stuck with nothing else but an old, outdated script. No one ever told them what to do when someone grabbed their whip-hand by the wrist.

The SSPX growls in the direction of the Church

Courtesy of Rorate Caeli, here's Bishop Fellay:

The purpose of the Society of Saint Pius X is chiefly the formation of priests, the essential condition for the renewal of the Church and for the restoration of society.

In the great and painful confusion that currently reigns in the Church, the proclamation of Catholic doctrine requires the denunciation of errors that have made their way into it and are unfortunately encouraged by a large number of pastors, including the Pope himself.


The Society of Saint Pius X, in the present state of grave necessity which gives it the right and duty to administer spiritual aid to the souls that turn to it, does not seek primarily a canonical recognition, to which it has a right as a Catholic work. It has only one desire: faithfully to bring the light of the bi-millennial Tradition which shows the only route to follow in this age of darkness in which the cult of man replaces the worship of God, in society as in the Church.

The “restoration of all things in Christ” intended by Saint Pius X, following Saint Paul (cf. Ep.h 1:10), cannot happen without the support of a Pope who concretely favors the return to Sacred Tradition. While waiting for that blessed day, the Society of Saint Pius X intends to redouble its efforts to establish and to spread, with the means that Divine Providence gives to it, the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

The Society of Saint Pius X prays and does penance for the Pope, that he might have the strength to proclaim Catholic faith and morals in their entirety. In this way he will hasten the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary that we earnestly desire as we approach the centennial of the apparitions in Fatima.


Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X
EcĂ´ne, June 29, 2016
The Feast of Saints Peter and Paul

Now, here's the million dollar question.

What, exactly, does the SSPX have wrong here? I don't mean in their history. I mean in this particular statement.

You can say that they're arrogant. They're disobedient lecturing.  'More Catholic than the pope', and I grant you all of that.

But what's the penalty for arrogance in the Church again? What's the penalty for flagrant disobedience? Apologies, apparently.

People can defend those apologies. We are to be merciful! Okay. We should reach out, we should be tolerant, we must not dictate - we must say, come come, however you are, join us as you are and we'll work with you! Take that line.

But when you take it, you can't put the more stern believers aside and use the lash on them when -they- step out of line. Or at least, if you try, the hypocrisy becomes obvious. Which means that if the Pope is going to sob and cry 'Forgive us for offending you!' at the Pride Parade, the SSPX isn't unjustified in wanting a bit of contrition sent its way too.

I'll see your 'faggot' and raise you a 'rad trad'.

Doing what's in your economic best interests

Have you noticed the same people who are screaming bloody murder that the UK referendum will hurt the EU economy are often the first to decry people for putting money over other values?

It's particularly weird to see Christians screaming about this, since nowadays in many places the most economically prudent choice is to hide or ditch your Christianity.

Tuesday, June 28, 2016

It's 2016 and gay men still can't donate blood

Well, only sexually active men having sex with men, but still. So sayeth the upset headline.

Here's an alternate headline: it's 2016 and men having gay sex are still a humongous AIDS risk.

Not quite as much pep, but honesty sucks like that.

ISIS Strikes in Turkey

Terrorist attacks by ISIS, in Turkey.

News organizations around demand to know: how in the world will they blame this one on Christians?

Monday, June 27, 2016

The Genteel Nature of the SJW

So, in the wake of the UK's leave vote, we've seen some ugliness.

We've seen outrage that old people are able to vote, because - after all - what did they ever do to deserve a say in the future of their country?

We've seen demands that a referendum, previously treated as binding by law and honor (when the left thought victory was certain) be cast aside as useless, a sham, and something that should be overturned by any means necessary.

We've seen the UK's poor mocked as morons and racists who shouldn't even have a say in how their future is shaped, much less how their own nation is run. Same with those who didn't move on to get a literature degree from the Lord's Royal University at Mouthington-Hunterforge.

What's key here isn't that leftists are raging. It's that they're raging against people and ideals that they supposedly cherish more than anyone else. 'Leftists against the poor, the uneducated, the elderly, and popular votes.' It doesn't exactly sound right, does it? Someone's gone off-script.

It almost makes you wonder if a sizable portion of them aren't bullshitting, you know?

A distinct lack of return fire

I notice that when things like the Orlando shooting takes place, every politic group takes to the media to express their views and, frankly, engage in some offense over it all. Nowadays there's not even a bodies-get-cold period - the accusations fly early as everyone tries to control the narrative.

Utterly absent from this, or so it seems, are religious organizations. Particularly ones with an orthodox bend. I get the impression this is a 'we're above it all' kind of thing on their part. More and more, I really wish they'd get over it and speak up more. All of this 'behold our maturity and our unwillingness to so much as defend ourselves when we're accused of the foulest things' stuff isn't holy, or a good example. It's coming close to traitorous at this point.

Rise of the EU Superstate

You just know that Germany was all set on announcing this 'Time to unify the EU into one big crazy super-nation' thing on the eve of a Brexit loss.

It's like backing out of a wedding, only to find out that your fiance told all her friends she couldn't wait to be married because she'd finally be able to stop being thin.

Sunday, June 26, 2016

Strawman Dialogues: Frank the Father edition

A: Wow, you look like hell.
B: Thanks, just what I needed to hear.
A: Seriously though, look at you. Black eye, busted lip, bruises.
B: I know. Can you just patch me up a bit? I'm too out of it.
A: Okay, but...
B: Don't.
A: No, we have to talk about this.
B: Don't.
A: I'm not going to keep patching you up forever you know. Just because Frank's your father doesn't mean you have to put up with this shit.
B: Well, yes it does, so let's just drop it.
A: Here, tell me why he gave you the black eye.
B: He didn't mean to.
A: Oh really?
B: Yeah man, totally.
A: And he told you this?
B: Well, no.
A: Of course not.
B: Look, Lombardo came over afterwards. He said it was all a big misunderstanding and nothing to get worked up about, okay?
A: Lombardo always says that. How come Frank never does?
B: He's busy.
A: Not too busy to give you a busted lip. Did he apologize for that too?
B: Well, no. But I deserved that.
A: Why?
B: Well, I just did.
A: What did you do to deserve your dad splitting your lip open?
B: Well, I said Larry has been stealing money from my wallet.
A: ...Larry HAS been stealing money from your wallet. We have him on tape.
B: Yeah, but Larry's Dad's friend.
A: So?
B: So Dad doesn't like it when I accuse his friends of stealing.
A: But...
B: It just causes trouble, man.
A: Yeah, the trouble being that Frank keeps humiliating you.
B: No he's not, he's just doing what he thinks is best.
A: You can at least speak up for yourself.
B: Frank hates that.
A: Frank takes shit from people all the time, man. It's YOU who he doesn't take shit from, and it seems to be because he thinks you'll just take it.
B: No man, that's not right. His house, his...
A: It's not his house, man. That house is owned by your family. There's rules there, and Frank's barely following them.
B: Technically he's..
A: Technically bullshit. That's one thing Frank can't take away from you. Those rules are whatever they are, and even Frank has to follow those.
B: And those rules say to listen to Frank when..
A: Frank doesn't give a fuck who follows the rules except YOU. And he's afraid of you too. When you actually stand up for yourself, Frank backs off. You just never do it.
B: Frank will be angry.
A: Frank will deal with it. Because I'm sick of you justifying every black nose, busted eye and broken arm he gives you just because he's your dad. Your dad apologizes to fucking everyone. He should apologize to you too.

Francis versus Benedict

With a thank you to Ben Yachov for pointing out this contradiction:

Ratzinger: Avoid criticizing the Church in mass media.

Francis: Announces in mass media that the Church owes an apology to LGBT people for 'offending them'.

Granted, Ben's original thought was that this blog counted as 'mass media' and he didn't think this through. I can't help but notice that the chiding to not criticize the Church in the mass media seems to have become utterly irrelevant once the realization of Francis' act has sunk in.

Now we'll here that that was something Ratzinger said before he was pope, and also it's his personal opinion not binding advice, and so on and so on.

Pope doesn't just want an apology from gays - he wants forgiveness

Hey look. Yet more betrayal.

I'm sure this is okay. After all, the sins of particular religious are the sins of the entire Church. The sins of individual LGBT people - even organizations representing 'LGBT interests' - are not sins at all, but cries for help, and do not reflect upon the 'LGBT community' in any way.

So, while the Church is being attacked, savaged, and legislated out of not just the public life, but its own private institutions throughout the West, the Pope's leadership is to say: "Apologize to the people who are savaging you."

Oh, and to top it off, "Some priests were concerned with what I've done and turned to Benedict to help, but he told them off. Hahaha!"

I'd ask for pardon for my saying 'Fuck this pope', but I don't need any pardon for saying it.

Edit: Just to put this in perspective.


They're owed an apology, because the Church has offended them.

More good papal news

“The secularization of large sectors of society, its alienation from the spiritual and divine, leads inevitably to a desacralized and materialistic vision of man and the human family,” the June 26 declaration said. “In this respect we are concerned about the crisis of the family in many countries.” 
“The Armenian Apostolic Church and the Catholic Church share the same vision of the family, based on marriage, an act of freely given and faithful love between man and woman.”
 As I always say - I give credit where it's due.

You can check out the full text here.

Rather flies in the face of Marxism, so to speak, but there you go.

Saturday, June 25, 2016

Demonizing the Brexit Leave supporters

The sense I got throughout the Brexit ordeal was that 'Leave' supporters were regarded as not just wrong, but monstrous. Racists, basically, with their hatred of anyone non-white being a driving force behind their vote. That sounds like a great way to demonize your opposition, and it is... but it runs two risks.

First, you have the nightmare scenario where you go all-in on calling your opponents (and anyone who supports him) a horrible, wicked racist - and then the bastard goes on and wins anyway. The only conclusion one can draw from that is that racists are actually pretty powerful and numerous, capable of winning elections. Nothing de-stigmatizes like a loss, and the result is that 'racism' loses power as a term. The one thing worse than having an accused racist win in the political arena is having an admitted racist win. Thankfully, that hasn't happened yet - but if the former keeps happening, the risk that the latter will take place starts to grow.

Second, and arguably worse in some ways, is that it actually cripples your ability to get much of anything done. Here's a funny thought re: the whole Brexit thing. I imagine many of the people who voted to leave could have been mollified with some concessions. Sure, they would have been sacrifices, but at this point who in the Remain team wouldn't have made some sacrifices to keep the EU? But... who makes concessions to evil, wicked racists? People would sooner make concessions to ISIS (and judging by the number of times ransom money has been paid to them, this isn't exactly news anyway.)

Notice that during the post-vote freakout seeking what largely seem like illusory ways to avoid the UK leaving the EU, no one's talking about making concessions in order to stay. It's all fantasies about forcing a revote with reworked rules, or overruling the referendum, etc. Literally the majority of voters are viewed as monsters who can't be reasoned with and whose desires don't count. (I notice the 'You robbed our youth of their desires!' schtick has started to die down upon realizing the youngest eligible voters were also the ones least likely to vote, by the by.)

I'd say people should learn from this, but I don't believe most are capable of it anyway, so I won't bother.


Brexit Remainers: Let's invalidate the previous vote! Let's vote again but change the rules!

Globalists and leftists do not suffer defeat. They do not believe it is possible, in a way. Any vote they do not win is an invalid vote.

So now we're seeing petitions demanding a revote. Or declaring the brexit results null because it should require a supermajority. Or...

Etc, etc.

Please understand: if it was within their power to simply stage a coup and FORCE the UK to remain in the EU, these people would do it. Gladly. They'd do it even if the vote went 60-40 against them.

Take a good look at what you're facing, ladies and gentlemen.

What a week!

This is just an amazing week.

* Brexit succeeds, complete with Nigel Farage unwittingly turbo-trolling the entire world by conceding then unconceding multiple times live and on the air. I'm sure this was just a bit of pessimism on his part, but this is a moment where pessimism accidentally turns into a hilarious kind of cruelty. He may as well have been playing the part of Bugs Bunny during a poker game. 'I've got a full house! What do you have?' "Gosh, I just have two pair... see? A pair of ones... and another pair of ones!"

* Once upon a time I called Richard Carrier a handjob with poor impulse control, and that evaluation continues to prove apt. I'd say one should wait to hear his side of the story in a matter like this, but let me be honest: I think at this point Richard Carrier is the Michael Jackson of atheism. Not because he's talented (please), or even because he's super well-known (he is not), but because you only need a minute of observation to realize you're dealing with a creepy, fucked up individual. You think I'm talking about his hair, but no: just read him describe his polyamory. Tell me if he doesn't sound like the sort of guy who women absolutely, positively do not want to be left alone in a room with.

* Trump slammed out a speech about Hillary Clinton that left even her supporters nervous. I think, at this point, the fear isn't just that Trump can win. It's that he can make her into a failure even if she manages to stumble her way across the finish line.

Of course, there's been more than that. Annoying statements by the Pope, and alt-tabbing shows me that Cardinal Marx is calling on the Church to apologize to gays and respect relationships where anal sex is center stage. But those three happenings are, taken together, either great (The speech, Brexit) or sufficiently hilarious for me to call this week a win.

Richard Carrier accused of sexual misconduct - an analysis of the situation

First, Mike's blog entry about this. Have a read.

Second, a picture of Richard Carrier, for reference.


And third, the best quote from Mike's entry:

 The most charitable thing I can find to say about Carrier’s behavior is that he is oblivious to sexual disinterest in him and unwilling to stop initiating sexual contact despite that. 

Alright. With all the most pertinent evidence on display, my analysis.

Frankly, I think thisahahahahahaahahAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Friday, June 24, 2016

So apparently no one should outvote people aged 18-30?

The latest reaction to the Brexit results are 'How dare anyone vote against the young's wishes! They have more time left, they should be the ones to determine their future!' This is the sort of thing that makes me wonder if all those people who hate millenials aren't actually on to something.

For one thing, considering the UK joined the EU in 1973, it's clear that a lot of these old UK fogeys are the ones who initially guided the UK into the entanglement to begin with, and then spent the better part of their lives working under and with it. It seems to me that alone would at least give this class of people some license to decide whether or not it deserves their continued esteem.

For another, really - if someone is that enamored with the EU? They are free to go become part of it. As many a burqa demonstrates, and as they've announced to the world repeatedly - they take refugees. In fact they take anyone. Want to be part of the EU? Get on a ferry or a plane or start swimming. You're young, remember? Pick up and move. The old people are more chained to where they are.

Really, though, the whole line of argument is absurd, and the fact that it's being touted as a legitimate criticism just tells me that the world is just about done with this 'democracy' thing. Though there is some kind of grim humor in watching the Social Justice Warrior demographic bitching like crazy because the elderly, the poor and the uneducated all get the same vote that they do, which is like, totally unfair. And people wonder why I reject the idea that SJWs are well-meaning but naive people as opposed to, by and large, a bunch of shits.

It's Papal Praise Friday!

When the Pope does good things, I give credit where it's due.

First up is his statement that Brexit is the will of the people, generally encouraging them to continue to get along with their European neighbors. Are UKers Europeans anymore? I suppose not. I'll have to call them something else. Suggestions? 'Ex-overlords'? 'New Revolutionaries'? We shall see.

On the flipside, the Pope also clearly and prominently condemned euthanasia, though I don't think he quite zeroed in on the problem. It isn't just a way to deal with the sick, it's a way people are increasingly dealing with their problems. Mark my words, in 100 years, there won't be many 'secular' people anymore, and those who exist will consider secularism to be a kind of mental disease which one must struggle mightily against, lest it threaten the existence of the world once more.

Thursday, June 23, 2016

They did it. The UK actually did it.


CONGRATULATIONS 
UNITED KINGDOM



DECUCKENING IS POSSIBLE

I don't think I have a single person from the UK who comes around here, but to hell with it. Good job, gents. I didn't think you would do it. I didn't think you COULD do it. But good God, you did. And for that, you have my admiration as well as my gratitude.

Why do I express open contempt for some of the Pope's actions lately?

The answer actually has less to do with the Pope and more to do with everyone else.

It's one thing for the Pope to mistake mistakes, or to undermine the Church's teaching role, or play politics, or various other things. Shit happens, and so do shitty popes.

But it's another thing when every criticism of the Pope - including, in my view, entirely fair ones - is answered by would-be papal defenders with a guffaw, an insult, a lecture, and more than a little gaslighting. My response to that kind of thing is to generally make my points louder, more often, and usually with greater insult. Not necessarily the best response, but I'm aware of my habits.

I do not like the thought of long-suffering Catholics not only finding themselves having to deal with the insult of a worldly Pope, but also of having no recourse for discussing their worries, lest some shitheel of a Mark Shea wannabe nag them to death for -daring- to suggest that there may be a problem with the Pope heaping praise on atheistic communists who give him kitschy hammer-and-sickle crucifix art. If they won't receive better from their own bishops and the Pope, at least they should find a good will gesture on the part of people who should be more intellectually sympathetic.

Alas, for many, it is not to be. Why? Who knows, and I won't speculate. Suffice to say I find it rotten, and I do so as someone who tried mightily to give this Pope the benefit of the doubt. Even now, I try to give his actions and words a fair hearing. It is not my fault that he and his allies are too blatant in their actions.

Wednesday, June 22, 2016

Donald Trump on the stakes of the election

Right here, ladies and gentlemen.

I live in a world where a philandering billionaire businessman and a gay near-expat Catholic brit are more capable of understanding - and addressing the problems of - the world I live in than tenured conservatives and long-established clergy.

I'd complain, but frankly, I prefer this state of affairs vastly to what I had as recently as two years ago.

Does anyone else get an image of the Dilbert weasel when Father Lombardi talks?

The only context I see this guy speaking in is 'The Pope said something that's pissing people off, here comes Lombardi to smooth it over.'

Next time he's in an article, just read his lines and imagine Jon Lovitz's voice, and add 'Yeah, that's the ticket!' at the end of his quotes.

Monday, June 20, 2016

Lessons from the culture war

One mentally disturbed kid opens fire in a black church. He was photographed with a confederate flag.

Result: Republicans and Democrats alike declare that each and every confederate flag everywhere and anywhere is a hateful symbol of an evil past and must be eradicated completely from society, lest it continue to cause shootings.

Yet another muslim goes on a shooting spree.

Result: Republicans and Democrats alike refuse to regard this as at all related to Islam. The result is Democrats trying to blame it all on guns and Christians, and Republicans denying the links while not being completely forthright about what the cause may be. Lack of overseas military engagements, perhaps?

Go figure.

The unspoken cost of a colorblind society

I support a colorblind society - a society where race is an utter non-issue in everyone's minds. Once upon a time, I think most people wanted this, at least in America. Some brief flicker of time where almost everyone was idealistic and on the great Martin Luther King Jr bandwagon of judging 'not by the color of one's skin, but the content of their character'.

It turned out to be not just unattainable, but undesirable for many. That fall from the ideal - if I even have it right - hasn't really been remarked on. I suspect the costs, as well as the results, of a colorblind society turned out to be greater than anyone really anticipated.

On the one hand, I think the assumption behind a colorblind society - and part of the desire for it - was that, once race was a non-factor, everyone would have equal outcomes, because race was ultimately and exclusively about melanin content and nothing else. Once it started to become clear that melanin content wasn't the only racial difference - that, in fact, there were apparently average genetic differences that cashed out to performance differences in the aggregate, and which could be reasonably grouped around ancestry - the idea of a colorblind society was quietly shelved for many. Or maybe it just revealed that the desire for a colorblind society was never sincere to begin with; it was always a front for advancement of one's preferred race, or at least preferred culture, and the moment it no longer promised to lead to that - in fact, the moment a colorblind society seemed destined to negatively impact certain races and cultures, on average - was the moment it was jettisoned, and no one's looked back since.

On the other hand, a society where race is meaningless - and an attitude where race is meaningless - is paradoxically hard to tout, precisely because the people who best encapsulate the desired attitude are the people least likely to promote it at all, at least in word as opposed to deed. The ones who are most likely to promote it tend to be people who aren't sincerely behind it, hence the David French sorts who on the one hand talk about their glorious visions of a colorblind society, and who then follow it up with gleefully touting their white-on-black adoptions and how much of a diversity rainbow the act has turned their previously white neighborhoods and churches into. Colorblind people don't notice 'rainbows', and they certainly don't celebrate them. Rainbows, if they happen at all, simply happen and are unremarkable. Colorblind people don't have a rainbow fetish, or a monochrome allergy. It's all the same shit to them.

What makes it all hilarious is that the advent of the internet represented an in-principle breakthrough for colorblind and 'genderblind' desires. Finally, a place where we all could identify by anonymous tags and hide our real identities. We could always be lying, always be fibbing. Race and gender would be irrelevant, once and for all. Surprise: everyone - especially the traditionally disadvantaged victim groups - despised that. At this point, making your race and gender crystal clear is of paramount importance, because blindness means a lack of special treatment. Good God, you'll be judged by the content of your character then, and for certain people - on average - that's a recipe for failure.

Attempt on Trump's Life

Because remember, it's totally okay to try and kill and assault people who are fascists or who support what you consider to be fascists.

Here's a little prediction: if something like this happens, the fallout will be ferocious. We're talking 'No president coming afterward will ever be legitimate in the eyes of half the country' level fallout. 'People start getting killed at college protests' fallout.

Saturday, June 18, 2016

Quick Thoughts for Saturday

* It's supposed to be some tremendous faux pas that someone asked the Dali Lama if they ever saw Caddyshack, but honestly, I think it's just fine. For one thing, Caddyshack has a pretty memorable line about him. For another, why this decorum? I thought we were supposed to be in an era where religion was no longer an off-limit topic, but we have to walk on pins and needles for this guy? Screw that. I would have asked him if they ever saw Penn and Teller's 'Bullshit' episode about him.

* In a sane world, Lt Governor Cox would be mocked and ridiculed out of office for being such a grandstanding pussy. He feels the need to apologize for 'perpetrating homophobia' because he made gay jokes in the past, and the Orlando shooting made him feel terrible? Then get out of office, because someone who's so lacking in a proper sense of proportion has no business in government. Trust me, the only people who make more gay jokes than Republicans are gay people themselves, and if they really care about this thing days after getting explicitly targeted by a muslim assassin, they've got some serious problems. You can write your own joke about his last name.

* Also, has anyone noticed that absolutely everything BUT Islam is getting blamed for an explicitly ISIS-connected, Islam-conducted mass shooting at a gay bar? Let's put this in perspective. The various death-penalty-or-thereabouts bans on homosexual activity in various Islamic countries, and the support for it throughout their cultures, isn't being discussed. But this:


This is considered to be contributing to an atmosphere of homophobia which ultimately culminates in mass murder.

Yeah, I'll buy that the moment Jesus' presence in Family Guy or South Park is considered a root cause of Christians being slaughtered throughout the middle east. Actually, no, I won't, but at least then it'll be consistent.

* Regarding the Pope's off the cuff remarks - I don't mind that the Pope's speaking frankly, even crudely. The addiction to decorum is something Catholics have to get over. That said, while refusing to baptize the children of unwed mothers is one thing, I suspect the real issue is that these priests refuse to allow a nice big shindig to be made out of it, whereupon respectability is conferred upon the mother who, more often than not, fucked up in a culture-rotting way. You can baptize a kid in seconds - let the priests do that. No big ceremony without the mother having confessed and atoned. And if she can't do that because she doesn't think she did anything wrong, well - again. You can do it in seconds.

* The Pope's comment about not putting their noses in people's moral lives is a joke. It says more about his politics and his weaknesses than anything, and I go back to what I've said: this is a pope who the Holy Spirit does not work with, but in spite of. Being more frank: this is a Pope who feels awkward as all hell having to even pretend to regard same-sex marriage and abortion and other sins as, you know, sins. It's a pain in the ass for him, because he really wants to champion the trendiest social justice issues of the moment. But he also apparently feels that if he doesn't at least pay lip service to those things, the Holy Spirit is going to move a worker at the Vatican to hurl his ass off a balcony. In the meantime, I really hope that the Pope someday starts lecturing to a president (hopefully a President Trump) about economic policy, only to be cut off mid-sentence, bluntly informed that he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about, and to stick to what he knows. It will be a moment of grand divine hilarity if the lack of respect for holy office happens just around the time where liberal clergy finally feel in a position to speak from the pulpit as opposed to the shadows. God's got a sense of humor.

* Regarding the papal transcripts being edited after the fact, I really wish a reporter would just ask Father Lombardi "Hey, do you think it does any damage to the church to have a press office that is so transparently full of shit?" Maybe someone from Breitbart will do it.

Friday, June 17, 2016

Puzzling out the papacy

How do you both criticize Catholic clergy for doing things which demean and discourage their own attempted faithful, while not being discouraging yourself?

It is a dilemma, but one that must be faced.

Trusting the government is getting harder and harder

Given that the government didn't prevent the Orlando shooting, apparently took hours to even show up and intervene, and has thus far failed to even accept that islamic culture is a major influence on these attacks to begin with... what exactly is the argument for gun control again?

'You need to give up all your guns and trust us to protect you! You know, the tremendously incompetent and corrupt organization?'

Thursday, June 16, 2016

Most marriages are invalid? Yeah, could be.

So sayeth the Pope.

I actually buy this to a point. I assume that 'sacramental marriage' just means 'a priest did it' and yeah, people - even Catholics - don't exactly take that seriously in the main. Show me the man or woman who says that divorce is not an option if things go south. And without that understanding and commitment, is it valid after all?

Of course, the clergy's part to blame for that, as I suspect an awful lot hedge on that talk - much less the requirement - lest the party find another place to have their expensive wedding. It's a bit like the priest shortage. People bitch, but there's no lack of people - even Catholics - who cringe at the thought of a child, especially an only child, joining the clergy.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't cry foul on the Pope here.

Diverging from the papal criticism

I'm laying into the Pope lately. Not exactly a good practice for a Catholic, but being annoyed by a goof can make me focus.

I'll make a simple point to cap this off on (assuming his holiness doesn't do something shit-tier in the next few days). It's a point most people already understand, but it bears repeating.

A little Shakespeare:
Mark Antony:Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears; 
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him; 
The evil that men do lives after them,The good is oft interred with their bones, 
So let it be with Caesar … 
The noble Brutus Hath told you Caesar was ambitious: 
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,And grievously hath Caesar answered it 
Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest, 
(For Brutus is an honourable man;So are they all; all honourable men) 
Come I to speak in Caesar’s funeral 
He was my friend, faithful and just to me: 
But Brutus says he was ambitious; 
And Brutus is an honourable man…. 
He hath brought many captives home to Rome, 
Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill: 
Did this in Caesar seem ambitious? 
When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept: 
Ambition should be made of sterner stuff: 
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious; 
And Brutus is an honourable man. 
You all did see that on the Lupercal 
I thrice presented him a kingly crown, 
Which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition? 
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious; 
And, sure, he is an honourable man. 
I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke, 
But here I am to speak what I do know. 
You all did love him once, not without cause: 
What cause withholds you then to mourn for him? 
O judgement! thou art fled to brutish beasts, 
And men have lost their reason…. 
Bear with me; My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar, 
And I must pause till it come back to me.
I quote this for a simple reason.

Let's say I quote this passage as evidence that Mark Antony wasn't exactly kind towards Caesar's killers.

Let's also say that you replied, 'Mark Antony is clearly praising Brutus here and he is criticizing Caesar!!!! ARE YOU BLIND CRUDE!? He said that Brutus is an honourable man MULTIPLE TIMES. He AGREED with Brutus that Caesar was too ambitious oh my God what do you want out of him. Quote me Antony's ACTUAL WORDS not your weird diabolical interpretation to prove your point!!!! YEAH I just SMACKED DOWN your claim! Mark Antony is awesome he knows right from wrong this wasn't a political speech it was a eulogy crazy conspiracy minded people like you think that and no one else!'

To that I'd be forced to admit something...

You have caught me in a grievous wrong, it's true.

Me, I look at that passage and I think to myself 'This is a textbook literary example, dramatized though it may be, of insinuation, of criticizing in fact while trying to seem above it all literally, of two-faced bullshit. It's passive aggression, it is malicious towards Brutus. But! That's my stupidity, and my predisposition towards conspiratorial thinking. No one can come away from reading that passage - no intelligent, sane person anyway - and think that Brutus was being criticized, or Caesar praised. I have been corrected, and my critics in this case would be brilliant men, and most certainly NOT bullshitters or feebs.

And, to those of you out there who would object that my words are clearly sarcasm, and that I'm actually insulting both the temperament and mental capabilities of my critics on this point, let me just say - how dare you, sirs. How dare you suggest I would insult people in such a roundabout way. Are Shakespeare's words not plain, as well as his meaning? I have been corrected, so please do not mimic my faults.

To suggest that I am actually insulting my critics here? Beyond reproach, gentlemen. Beyond reproach.

Wednesday, June 15, 2016

Pope, ever above playing politics, refuses charitable donation because of 666


A chunk of summary here:
The frosty relationship between two of the world’s most prominent Argentinians appears to have taken a turn for the worse after it emerged that Pope Francisrejected a charitable donation from the government of President Mauricio Macri – at least partly – because the sum included the figure 666. 
Earlier this month, the centre-right president made a donation that totaled 16,666,000 pesos (slightly under $1.2m) from the Argentinian government to the Scholas Occurentes educational foundation, which is backed by the pope and is based on a similar organization founded by Francis when he was cardinal of Buenos Aires.
I'll spare the contrast, but remember - this Pope happily accepted a big ol' commie-cross donation from an irreligious communist. But a 1.2 million dollar donation from someone who is 'center-right' gets turned down because 16,666,000 pesos is a satanic sum. And also, say his surrogates, he doesn't like austerity measures.

It's not just political. It's petty.

By the way, want to know what Scholas Occurentes is? Let me give you their 'about' page, describing its mission.
It connects technology with arts and sports in order to promote social integration and the culture of encounter for peace. It is present in 190 countries through its web made up of over 430.000 schools and educational networks in 5 continents. With headquarters in the Vatican City, Argentine, Spain, Paraguay and Mozambique. Its mission is to achieve the integration of communities, with special focus on the poorer ones, by committing all social actors and incorporating schools and educational networks worldwide to technological, sports and artistic proposals. It works with all kinds of schools, both public and private, and of all religious affiliations.
Technology, arts and sports in order to promote social integration and the culture of encounter for peace. Wow. How to sum up my reply...

Wait, I know.

Do as Christ does. But treat the charitable as pharisees.

People are exhorted, ad nauseum, to treat the poor, the (shamelessly) sinful and more with feckless love, care, compassion and generosity, with angry reminders that this is what it means to be Christ-like. That advice is often oversimplified, but at a glance, it's reasonable.

But when's the last time you saw the call for the recipients of such charity to recognize those same giving people as being Christ-like in their actions?

That was a major failing too, you know.

Christ's lesson wasn't just that he was showing mercy to the poor, or being kind to sinners. It was also that for all His good deeds and even miracles, people ultimately hated Christ. Most people nowadays try to hedge and say 'It was the pharisees who hated Him', but no, that's plainly an incomplete list. There were crowds of people demanding Barrabas be released and calling for Christ to be crucified. That wasn't a group of pharisees, ladies and gentlemen. And for all those good works, when Christ went up on the cross, His allies scattered. The poor who were helped, the hungry who were fed and all the rest - they headed for the hills, if they weren't actively stabbing Christ in the back.

But even though it's a key lesson in the Bible, no one talks about it. Few ever talk about the Biblical lesson to be grateful for being helped. Calling everyone to give, give, give just as Christ did is popular, but recognizing those who give as Christ-like comes across as a non-issue, or mighty selective at best.

Go figure, right?

Interrupting the SJW payout after a spree shooting

Have you noticed that this spree shooting has a somewhat different, more feral tone than the previous ones? That the usual voices on the left seem a bit more panicked, more insistent, more scared and more angry? There's a reason for that.

Look, whenever there's a prominent gun-related crime, SJWs tend to salivate. This isn't a horrible tragedy for most of them, or for most people in general. For SJWs, news reports of 'multiple dead as a spree shooter runs amok' is to their ears like a can opener is to a dog's. It's a prime opportunity to condemn their enemies and make demands for concessions. Sure, it doesn't always work out for them - they are used to walking away empty handed at times. But it's generally regarded as a kind of lottery ticket occasion, where at the very least they may have won a prize.

Lately, things are different. Once upon a time you could more reliably count on any given spree shooter to be the accursed white male. But nowadays, there's fairly decent odds - especially if the body count is unusually high - that it's instead a gent of vibrant ethnicity with a fondness for Allah. Even this has been more of a bummer than anything else, since the GOP's response has often been to use the diversity moment to try and make the whole issue go away so they don't have to talk about it at all.

Having a major political candidate screaming - to cheers - that it's time to start deporting illegals, blocking immigration from hostile nations and cultures, and more? That's new. Having said spree killer target a prized left-wing demographic, and having said candidate target that demographic with "Why are you putting up with this, join my team" talk? That's also new. And it's frightening, since it changes events like these from 'Oh please oh please I hope this lottery ticket wins big' to 'Oh please oh please I hope this is a lottery ticket and NOT a free steel-toe-booted kick in my balls', in terms of what to expect.

The LGBT thing is driving people bonkers, hence Anderson Cooper growling at a representative to the tune of 'You're saying you want to protect gays from being gunned down and killed but you opposed gay marriage, that doesn't compute!' It's a bit like talking to the guy who beats the shit out of his girlfriend and having him say, 'What do you mean I don't treat her well? So she's got a black eye and a broken nose, I bought her that fucking car she's driving.' Not the healthiest relationship in the world.

Anyway, why people should get used to the death - barring, you know, some actual barriers to mass immigration - the response to it does seem to be changing. There are some new voices that threaten to flip the script, and I'm not sure they're going to go away no matter how this election goes.

Interesting times.

Have you figured out the secret of massive tragedies yet?

Spoiler alert: no one gives a shit about them unless they know the people involved personally. Otherwise the primary concern most people have is figuring out how to frame them, and what narrative to go with them. It's practically by necessity, since by the time we hear about the tragedy, the actual event is typically over. But everyone pretends that it's a really moving experience for them. Some people really are emotional and get worked up about the tragedy, but you'll notice most of those people tend to sob at sad movies too.

Tuesday, June 14, 2016

Orlando slaughter is Church's fault too, says local bishop

Such encouraging leadership Catholics can look to in their clergy.

Sure, we're talking about a muslim who pledged loyalty to ISIS and who was, to top it all off, apparently gay himself. But blaming Islam goes against the left-wing narrative and political zeitgest of the moment - and thus, it cannot be done. In the process, we get to see exactly what altars some Catholic clergy really kneel to and pray at when the chips are down.

Of course, the real effect of all this - the real purpose of it - is to try and turn yet another radical muslim spawned massacre into a topic switch, and in particular, a cudgel to beat Christianity with. If Islam can't be shielded from the fallout, then the next best thing is to blame 'religion', full stop - with a mighty eye on Christians.

Which will be celebrated by many Christians, who see their role as Christians to be either A) helping undermine the faith, or B) perpetually apologizing for everything, real and imagined, all while glaring angrily at anyone who doesn't engage in near-constant self-mortification, and doing their part to make sure every remaining Catholic out there is hated, even when they have nothing to do with the crime in question.

Funny how secular apathy and hostility towards Christianity never gets cited when we talk about all the Christians ISIS kills, while the West turns a blind eye.

Pardon me if I refuse to give these guys respect. Catholicism does not mean loyalty to the transparently anti-Catholic, even if he's got a bishop's mitre on.

On charges that a person is liable for the sins of others

Gentlemen! I too have been a close observer of the doings of the Bank of the United States. I have had men watching you for a long time, and am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I have determined to rout you out, and by the Eternal, (bringing his fist down on the table) I will rout you out! 
-- Andrew Jackson

Monday, June 13, 2016

War is never the answer, Hitler and Stalin assure you

Count me out of the 'war is never the answer' mindset. I can't tell you when it's right to declare war, when violence on a state level is necessary or justified - at least I can't draw a firm, complete line. But I do realize that violence - even for a Christian - can become legitimate, even necessary, in some conditions. I don't think pacifism is a noble ideal which all should strive for but, alas, most just fall short of. I think pacifism is wrongheaded and, in the right conditions, actually immoral.

There's little argument here - it's more a statement than anything. But it's what I believe.

Sunday, June 12, 2016

Thoughts on the Pulse shooting

Since it was asked, here are my thoughts.

* I don't care about it too much. Not because I have callous disregard for the lives lost (it's a tragedy that should never have happened, no matter what the club was), but frankly - I don't know anyone at the club, or near it. There's no new lesson to be learned from the matter, no surprise. We have been through this shit before. Call me a man before my time - I am living in the world where this is just part of life. Barring Trump getting elected and fulfilling promises, trust me, you will reach this point too.

* No one, aside from Trump or the alt right, will locate any problems or worries with Islam. Not the Pope, not the president. No one. Even discussing the idea, the ways muslim culture influences things, will be desperately treated as beyond civilized discussion. The idea that maybe we shouldn't invite millions of 'refugees' into the country will likewise be beyond the pale. Right now, guaranteed, the real fear many people have is 'Will this make it harder to allow millions more muslim immigrants to the US?' and 'Is this helping Trump, the alt right is scary, they may not prosecute people who say mean things.'

* I see people are already blaming religious freedom legislation and a lack of gun control for this, as well as 'Extremist Right-wing Christians', what with their violent 'I don't want to take photos of your stupid same-sex wedding' rhetoric. I expect Christian religious leaders to go on the defensive, if they acknowledge this talk at all. Because they are worthless.

* Gun control is something people are trying to bring up, but the association with ISIS and Islam was way too fast. Sorry, I don't think the topic's going to be changed. With luck the 'Christians are responsible' gambit will fizzle out like a bad fart too because, as I said, I don't trust Christian leaders to know how to respond to it. Did I mention they're worthless yet?

* I'll skip hopping on the 'thoughts and prayers' train, thanks. I believe last time the liberal gimmick was 'Those don't work, we want action, rrrrr!' Okay, fine: buy some guns and bullets, learn to use a gun responsibly, carry it, and don't frequent 'gun free zones', and don't look to me for sympathy because you already made it clear you don't want that anyway. Also, get used to shit like this unless policies change. In fact, if you're 'LGBT' and 'out and proud', get ready for worse, because - as I've warned in the past - cultural winds are already blowing in an awkward direction. Muslim card trumps LGBT card, and between that and every faggoty college student discovering they have special snowflake identity/sexuality, it's inevitable that LGBT crowd finds themselves in competition with new, more petty, more inane identities when they aren't getting shot and blown to pieces by their new guests.

* Count on LGBT leaders finding themselves torn over whether they should try to use this to gain some additional power versus shutting up about the whole thing because it makes muslims look bad, and they're the top dogs right now. Personally I think they're going to shake, out of fear of feeding the Trump Monster.

There's my take. Goodnight.

Meritocracy's asterix

I love the idea of a meritocracy, and I'm not alone in claiming that. But here's two off the cuff ways to formulate the idea.

* I believe that everyone should be judged according to their capabilities. The most capable, the most determined, the most reliable should be rewarded accordingly. There may be differences in outcomes across various metrics - sex, race, religion and more - but so long as the most capable are being fairly recognized and rewarded accordingly, we're all better off.

vs

* I believe that everyone should be judged according to their capabilities. We'll know the system is working properly when there is no difference in outcomes across various metrics - sex, race, religion and more. If this isn't the result we're getting, obviously the system is broken and merit isn't being rewarded.

I think most people who say they want a meritocracy will, when cornered, opt for meritocracy #2, or 'Not a meritocracy at all'. It's not just that they're intentionally bullshitting, though that happens. It's that they're scared of facing the possibility that a meritocracy would result in inequality. Forget, for a moment, that a meritocracy doesn't mean utter Social Darwinism. You can still help out, indirectly or directly, the less capable. But 'less capable' is exactly what they'll be known as, and it will be impossible to ignore, at least on an individual level - and, eventually, on a larger level than that.

I want to underline that point because it's easy to miss: the problem isn't that on a meritocracy, the less capable will be weeded out or obliterated or any other terrible scenario, though that's possible. It's that the less capable will be recognized as being exactly that. Not because they were treated unfairly or a million other excuses, but because that's just the way things are, and 'trying really hard' is only going to change things so much.

That's a possibility many people don't want to face. If the only alternative to facing it is burning the civilization to the ground, they'll ask to borrow some matches.

Saturday, June 11, 2016

A Crude secret

It's not so much of a secret, but it's worth stating bluntly.

I dislike New Atheists. In fact, I dislike self-identified atheists in general. There are exceptions, but my universal experience is that their arguments are bad, their attitudes are obnoxious, and their displayed confidence manages to so outstrip the evidence that it's easy to ignore all the signs that it's also feigned. I can get along with the irreligious and agnostics at times - and yes, even some atheists - but most of the time they just get on my nerves.

That's not the secret.

The secret is that I've got a similar attitude towards quite a lot of Christians too.

Obviously, I like many Christians, and much Christian thought. I better, since I'm Catholic, with all my failings. And some who I used to dislike, I've changed my mind about - I used to have that culturally inculcated fury at YECs, and that's gone now, without changing my views on creation or evolution in any meaningful way. Obviously I dislike SJW Christians, who I view as a kind of cancer which manages to befoul everything they get their hands on.

But other kinds of Christians just bug me, and this probably is because I'm a misanthrope more than anything. I do not like the tendency towards drama, with people tearfully pleading for prayers owing to their dark night of the soul moments, which always treats their faith as something they have zero responsibility for and which teeters on the brink whenever they have shitty experiences. I do not like the tendency towards me-tooisms, where every faddish or prominent 'cause' is a signal to rush in and make it a matter of urgent Christian concern. I do not like the moral cowardice at being perpetually afraid of being called racist, or sexist, or homophobic, or anti-scientific, to the point where they not only will drop positions or doctrines which earn secular ire, but will prove their purity by playing witch hunter at anyone accused of being such things. I dislike the Christian addiction to self-mortification without justice, and apology without wrongdoing.

Granted, I'm not exactly the most pleasant guy around either. But the West has rotted on Christianity's watch. At least some Christians-in-name played a role in that, and my dislike of New Atheism does not blind me to that.

Friday, June 10, 2016

Gawker down for the count

Actually, this looks fairly fatal, but really - I know nothing.

I do know that most of the internet seems to be cheering this turn of events, and more than anything I hope that Kotaku is bought out by the most bland, straight-laced media outfit around. I'd love to see that site reduced to the most uncontroversial of topics. Maybe, just maybe, they'll find a way to crowdsource all of their articles without paying anyone at all. A man can dream.

On defense for Papal offense


I'm being knocked for being too critical of Francis. This, after doing quite a lot of defense for the Pope early into his papacy. I don't complain about this criticism - my earlier benefit of the doubt is no talisman against my being wrong now.

But I do intend to fight for my view. So, here's one chunk of evidence.


Via Yahoo:

ABOARD THE PAPAL PLANE (AP) — Pope Francis says he wasn't offended by the "Communist crucifix" given to him by Bolivian President Evo Morales during his South American pilgrimage.
Morales surprised the pontiff with the unusual gift, a crucifix attached to a hammer and sickle, when Francis arrived in La Paz on Wednesday.
The crucifix was a replica of one designed by a Jesuit priest, the Rev. Luis Espinal, who was tortured and killed by Bolivian paramilitary squads in 1980. Francis prayed at the site of Espinal's assassination upon his arrival in Bolivia.
The modified crucifix immediately raised eyebrows, with some questioning whether Morales, whose socialist and anti-church rhetoric is well-known, was trying to score a questionable political point with a questionable, and possibly sacrilegious, melding of faith and ideology.
Francis, an Argentine Jesuit, said Espinal was well-known among his fellow Jesuits as a proponent of the Marxist strain of liberation theology. The Vatican opposed it, fearing that Marxists were using liberation theology's "preferential option for the poor" as a call for armed revolution against oppressive right-wing regimes that were in power in much of Latin America in the 1970s and 1980s.
During a news conference en route home to Rome on Sunday, Francis said he interpreted Morales' gift through the prism of Espinal's Marxist bent and viewed it as protest art.
After taking into consideration the time in which he lived, Francis said: "I understand this work. For me it wasn't an offense."
Francis added that he brought the crucifix home with him.
Now that's Yahoo news, complete with its own slant.
But there you go. For the Pope, this is all quite fine. For more perspective, here's the wikipedia entry quoting Morales on his belief in God:
Morales has commented that he is only a Roman Catholic in order "to go to weddings", and when asked if he believed in God, responded that "I believe in the land. In my father and my mother. And in Cuchi-Cuchi.
Quite the guy to be presenting Catholic art.

So, I put it to the resident Papal defenders. Nothing to criticize here? Totally reasonable response from the Pope?

Let's up the ante: let's say Morales presented the Pope with an immaculately carved crucifix, except Christ was painted to look like a clown, and also Morales took a big shit on it before handing it over. The Pope responds by praising Morales' creativity and passion, and mentions how he views it as a commentary on how 'so many of us nowadays preach Christ, but it is this mockery of Christ who we are really preaching, like those of us who treat abortion as a grave sin which could separate someone from God, who loves all'.

Would you nod your head and say, 'Nothing to see here. Everything is fine.' then?

Fred on Everything

A worthy post for today.

Thursday, June 9, 2016

Actually, maybe he just plain doesn't like them

I get a little tired of people who take it upon themselves to be the Pope's personal PR agent. We have a pontiff who is almost completely incapable of communicating clearly or clarifying his own remarks, unless there's a liberal backlash or a prominent conservative attacks him (thinking Kim Davis and Donald Trump, respectively.)

It'd be one thing if there was clear evidence the Pope was taken out of context, but that's rarely it. Instead the game seems to be that we're supposed to read the Pope in some context, any context, to make him not be delivering a very blatant slight to orthodox Catholics. (Who seem, I note, to be literally the only group the Pope has any criticism for.) And sometimes these people end up with egg on their faces, like during the communist cross incident where everyone pointed to a mistaken sneer on the Pope's face as a sign that he didn't like the cross. Then when he talked about how great it was, they all went silent. God forbid they let it sink in that no, the Pope doesn't necessarily follow their script.

And so long as I'm ranting, a note. Yes, Christ did hang out with tax collectors and prostitutes. So did Ted Kennedy. Do people forget that sometimes the guy who shows an unusual interest in getting to know every whore in town isn't a preacher but a freaking whoremonger?

The multiculturalism of the modern nationalists

Oddly enough, I think it's the nationalists who really support a multicultural world. Modern nationalists tend to believe in borders for themselves, and for just about anyone else who wants them. The chinese can do what the chinese want, the japanese what the japanese want, the germans what the germans want. Keep it within one's own borders, and it becomes a largely - not completely, but largely - internal dispute. That's as multicultural as it gets, gents.

Wednesday, June 8, 2016

The Fall of Sanders

So, here's what I'm thinking.

They should give Bernie Sanders a prime time speaking slot at the Democrat National Convention. Pride of place and everything.

And then, 30 seconds into his speech, they should let some Black Lives Matters protesters on the stage and say, 'If you can get him to stand down, you can have his time slot.'

Tuesday, June 7, 2016

Outcry as historic turkish cathedral used for Ramadan

So says the news.

I know, it's utterly unthinkable. Why in the world is there a Christian church in Turkey? The Crusaders probably built it when they invaded.

Monday, June 6, 2016

If you oppose illegal immigration, suspecting a Mexican-American judge may be biased is called 'sanity'

I keep saying that Trump's value as a candidate is immediate, rather than hypothetical. The payoff for candidate Trump is not 'If he gets elected' but 'right here and now'.

Trump's suspicions about the bias of the judge is not a bizarre conspiracy theory that has appeared suddenly and without cause from Malicior, the Hatred Dimension. It's, at the very least, a reasonable possibility. In other contexts - namely, in contexts where the authority in question was white - bias would be a front and center consideration in the media, complete with talk about how the onus was on the authority to do everything in their power to look unbiased. But this is White-guy Trump and the authority is Mexican, so the very suggestion at the possibility of bias - despite full blown La Raza membership - is supposed to be something no good man entertains. Even Newt Gingrich got in on the act of saying this was all terrible and Trump should stop that this instant.

Which, once again, makes Trump's decision to stick to his guns that much more laudable. If the media can question the bias of a white cop with a black criminal, or a white judge with an anything-but-white defendant, then scenarios where the roles are reversed are fair game for questioning as well.

Trump's dumping on that idea, and in the process, making it a whole lot easier for everyone else to do the same. In the process, he's making Republicans tear their hair out, all of whom have comfortably acclimated to being on the 'noble losers who no one thinks is noble' side for so long. I call that a double win.

Conservatives against racial collectivism

Vox Day has a post up highlighting a conservative columnist reading the alt right out of conservatism on the grounds that some of the group's members think in terms of racial identity. There's no room in conservatism for people who identify as 'white people' advancing 'white interests' or protecting 'white culture', and so on. Conservatism and libertarianism both are about individuals, not tribes.

I'm sympathetic. But I'm vastly more skeptical than sympathetic.

Tell me there's no place in conservatism, or the GOP, for NAACP members. Or members of La Raza. Or any other number of organizations which are expressly 'tribal' and focus squarely on advancing people of a certain ethnicity, or religion, or more.

It's not going to happen, because the opposition to tribalism or 'collectivism' is insincere. A NAACP member announcing their conservatism would be celebrated as a precious trophy by conservatives. No expectation to denounce the NAACP would be had.

I'd like to think this isn't an anti-white thing so much as it is an anti-complications thing. It's pure conservatism in practice, in a way: even though the opposition to tribalism has not just failed, but disastrously failed, the old way of approaching cultural issues still must be maintained at all costs. That's what modern conservatism really is about: an 'it ain't broke if we don't fix it' attitude.

Sunday, June 5, 2016

On Christians ministering to racists

If liberal Christians were forced to minister to racists the same way they minister to LGBT people, they'd deconvert en masse.

Even the crypto-liberals who deploy the 'Yes it's a sin, but it's more important to save their souls, let's discuss that in the far future' line would choke before arguing that a person's racism be ignored, and that it's more important to bring them to God and into the community.

Saturday, June 4, 2016

So, is Glenn Beck praising the patriots in California?

After all, he and his allies had been openly talking about how Trump is so dangerous, that it may take some true patriots to do what's necessary, stand up, and make sure that this man doesn't take down our noble Republic.

Well, good news for Glenn Beck. #NeverTrump has a whole lot of support out West, it seems. Those guys waving the Mexican flag are true patriots, I'm sure - full-blooded members of the propositional nation. Can you imagine anyone would be so monstrous as to suggest deporting illegal immigrants?

Friday, June 3, 2016

Disappointing, Notch. Very disappointing.

...That said, it's generally a bad idea to act like a self-made billionaires cares what you think of him. Not that that justifies it, but really. Notch has said things that pissed me off too, but this kind of weird passive aggressive snarking is just out of place. Glad to see Notch has the right attitude to it. (And good taste in cartoons besides.)

Hell is other Christians

Mr. Green, a great commenter, recently suggested that he doesn't think Trump's rise is going to help much of anything in America, as it does nothing to reverse the West's (and America in particular's) key problem: the loss of Christianity.

You may think I'd be sympathetic to that. After all, I'm on record as really disliking New Atheists. Certainly SJWs, who are typically but not exclusively anti-Christian in orientation. The problem is, I'm also not a fan of Episcopalians, Quakers, Universalists, the UCC and others. In fact, there's a good number of Catholic clergy who I regard as instrumental in the decline of the West.

The West has decayed on Christianity's watch, ladies and gentlemen. Some of us fought against it, but some of us aided and abetted it. I think more fought than aided, numerically. But just as I don't exonerate atheists for communism's rise, I'm not about to turn a blind eye to the Church's role in illegal immigration, the existence of dissident Catholics, and more.

I am afraid the rot in the West goes beyond Christian faith. And I have some hope that what Trump offers will, in fact, help return that faith. Christianity didn't cause this, but I believe the rot we're talking about can't be solved by some bumper crop of Anglican clergy. What ails us requires something more, because there's more ways to be sick than to lack Christ, certainly in name.

I don't think Trump is to the Church what Aristotle was to it. That's silly. Not even Charlemagne - he's too detached, too vague. But he may be something Charlemagne-like, and that is what we need right now - on a number of levels.

Thursday, June 2, 2016

But don't worry, GOPe, y'all are masculine

Just a reminder that this man...


...Is currently one of the bravest faces of right-wing thought and activism right now.

David French announces only guys 'unafraid' of giving other men head are REALLY masculine

Well, not really, but close to it.

I don't do much boosting of masculine virtues on here, partly because I think it's secondary to other concerns. But I'm noticing lately that one of the go-to criticisms of Trump is 'He's not strong. He's actually weak! Strong men don't feel the need to attack others or mock them, they don't brag about what they do! They're gentle and sweet and kind and nurturing! Their manliness manifests in quietly doing what they should!' Sometimes 'just like Jesus!' gets tacked on for a failed attempt at poignancy.

And yeah, it does remind me of the title claim, which I have actually heard before. Why, it's only a man who's confident in his sexuality who's willing to put on a dress and be laughed at! Only a guy confident in his sexuality - and that is REAL macho - is willing to give a guy head! Because only a weak guy wouldn't do something he didn't want to do! Right? Right?

Pardon me if I'm unconvinced, and also if I think that all sounds unforgivably stupid besides. It's a commercial for a certain mindset, and a bad one, like insisting that people who REALLY know computers are getting a Dell. Dells are pieces of shit, sucking cock isn't masculine, and being afraid of offending people is actually worse than the cock thing.

That's not to say I don't think criticisms of Trump, even Trump's 'virtues', are possible. Sure they are. The problem is that complete dismissal of Trump's 'virtues' isn't really possible. If Trump is wrong, he's wrong in part. He could be so wrong in part that he's not worth supporting, I suppose. But some things he does, some things he IS, are positive. He gets some things right, he does some things which are praiseworthy. The inability to admit that - the desperate attempt to admit that at all costs - is a flaw. A major one, and it's a hell of a lot more sinister and dangerous than 'Trump attacks his opponents'.

That's really one of my major problems with Trump's conservative detractors. They seem to, literally, oppose everything he's ever said of done. Everything, including his attacks on the media, his standing by his comments about Mexican illegals even as the world rages at him, and more. They hate him so much that they can't give him any credit at all, and that to me is weird and crazy and, yeah, more than a little faggoty. It's not even femininity - it's counterfeit femininity. Guy in drag being a tremendous parody-bitch.

Regardless, I'd say this shit has to end, but I know this is a necessary part of the process. Trump, win or lose, may well have started something that's going to change the lay of the right-wing land. By the end of it, it should look a lot more alt-right. And the French sorts - the eloquent conservatives obsessed with smacking down 'hate speech' and so on? Well they can keep their mouths shut, lower their heads, and just do as they're told until they grow old and pass on, surrendering one more battlefield.

Which, they will insist in whispers, is what -real- masculinity is all about.