Friday, August 29, 2014

"The problem is that Christians don't have Christian values"

Lots of good comments in this entry by Dalrock:
The other problem is what it teaches the children. Their family was just broken apart and their lives turned upside down. When they ask who did such a terrible thing to them, the parents answer:
Why no one, silly! This kind of chaos is normal, and you should be happy about it like mommy and daddy are. Now sleep well!
This doesn’t mean you have to fight in front of the children or draw them (further) into the process. But lying and pretending no one did this terrible thing to them creates its own problems. It also teaches them in the most up close and personal way possible that neither of their parents believe that solemn vows have any moral force at all.
The other answer we see parents telling children is:
Don’t worry, we both still love you and we always will.
Yet the child knows mommy and daddy made the same promise to each other and are quite happily changing their mind on that. The divorce is proof that one or both parents don’t take their promises to love seriously at all. Yet a promise that both parents love them is supposed to comfort the child.
It's a wonder that non-Christians get married at all these days. Which is more difficult to escape: a five year cell phone contract or a five year marriage?

Divorce utterly destroys children. It just does. Everyone knows this, most of all the divorcing parents. That's why they work so hard to rationalize their decision and furiously resent it when anyone is gauche enough to point out what they're doing to their own children.

Meanwhile in the Soviet Republic of California...

Am I the only one surprised at how puritanical the liberals have become?
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — State lawmakers on Thursday passed a bill that would make California the first state to define when “yes means yes” while investigating sexual assaults on college campuses.
The Senate unanimously passed SB967 as states and universities across the U.S. are under pressure to change how they handle rape allegations. The bill now goes to Gov. Jerry Brown, who has not indicated his stance on the bill.
Sen. Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, said his bill would begin a paradigm shift in how California campuses prevent and investigate sexual assault. Rather than using the refrain “no means no,” the definition of consent under the bill requires “an affirmative, conscious and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity.” Earlier versions of the bill had similar language.
"Hey girl, this party's lame. Want to come back to my place?"


"All right, first I'll need you to fill out these forms in triplicate. Sign here, here, and here, initial here..."

Continuing our exercise in crimethink, also known as pattern recognition, this is another transparent attempt by women to make the post-hoc rationalization of their feelbad into law. No unmarried man gets invited into an unmarried woman's home after a night of drinking and thinks that she just wants to "hang out." A friend of a friend who works as a law clerk said that the definition of "drunk" in these cases will mean a complete loss of faculties. Very well, if she still has some control of her faculties then why is she allowing a guy she just met into what any reasonable person would see as a compromising situation?

Our grandparents had more sense than this. Young women did not accompany strange men into places where they would be alone because they knew one or both of them might give into passion. At the very least, the woman would be socially shamed. A white knight acquaintance of mine said this means our grandparents were barbaric because maybe she just wanted to hang out. Right.

In practice, consent will mean whatever the presiding judge wants it to mean. Maybe she gave consent because she was buzzed, or being peer pressured, or too horny for her own good. Previous verbal or written consent shall not be used against a young lady in a court of law.

Tuesday, August 26, 2014

Dinosaur porn will be our gift to the ages

Even if you care nothing for the Pink/Blue divide in science-fiction, this link is worth clicking on for a short story from Gene Wolfe. Included is that infamous Hugo nominated short story where a young woman wishes that her lover was a dinosaur. As Dave Barry would say, I am not making this up.

Stephen King has said that there comes a magical time in every aspiring writer's life when they read something and think, "Wow. This sucks. I could do better than this. And this got published." Not just published, but nominated for a big science fiction award!

I'm convinced that what aspiring writers need more than anything else is a confidence boost. That's what they're really asking for when they go to established publishing names and ask for advice. It's easy to fall into the trap of writing about writing instead of doing actual writing. I'm certainly guilty of it. I've published a few short works on this blog before, plus many more that I don't publish here.

Writing isn't a vacation from the real world. It's actual work. Unless you're extraordinarily lucky or extraordinarily good, you won't be able to make it your full time job for a while. It's worth it though. If you can string a coherent sentence together and you enjoy making shit up, give it a try. Don't quit your day job just yet though.

Pattern recognition is the source of all the world's troubles

Husbands who call their wives fat may be guilty of domestic abuse:
Husbands who constantly criticise their wives over their weight or appearance may be guilty of domestic abuse, a Labour frontbencher has suggested.
Seema Malhotra, Labour’s new shadow anti domestic violence minister, said such abuse could be part of a wider pattern of ‘controlling behaviour’ which can be as bad as a physical attack.
She said: ‘It can be part of a pattern of controlling behaviour that leaves people feeling fearful and terrorised in their own homes.’
Rape conviction statistics won't improve "until women stop getting drunk:"
Rape conviction statistics will not improve “until women stop getting drunk”, a retiring judge has said, as she is criticised by women's rights campaigners for her "potentially very harmful" remarks.
Judge Mary Jane Mowat, 66, who worked at Oxford Crown Court until earlier this month, said it was difficult to secure convictions when women could not be sure what had happened because they had drunk too much.
She said juries were faced with an impossible task when a case came down to one person's word against another.
I've noticed a pattern: women tend to be eager to codify their feelbad into law so that they won't ever be held responsible for their decisions.

About that ice bucket challenge

I'm still not sure what it's all about. Isn't essentially a dare to not give money to charity?

Thursday, August 21, 2014

The greatest pope of the twentieth century

The Great Pius X:
First I would like to highlight the striking clarity and uncompromising straight-forwardness of Pius X. This is nowhere more evidenced than in Pius' famous 1904 with Zionist leader Theodor Herzl, who came to the pontiff seeking support for the Jewish movement in Palestine. When if he would support Jewish independence in a restored Israel, Pope Pius X responded:
"We cannot give approval to this movement. We cannot prevent the Jews from going to Jerusalem—but we could never sanction it. The soil of Jerusalem, if it was not always sacred, has been sanctified by the life of Jesus Christ. As the head of the Church I cannot tell you anything different. The Jews have not recognized our Lord, therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish people"

Herzl, recounting the interview in his diary, noted:

At the outset, to be sure, I tried to be conciliatory. I recited my little piece about extraterritorialization, res sacrae extra commercium [holy places removed from business]. It didn't make much of an impression. Gerusalemme, he said, must not get into the hands of the Jews.

"And its present status, Holy Father?"

"I know, it is not pleasant to see the Turks in possession of our Holy Places. We simply have to put up with that. But to support the Jews in the acquisition of the Holy Places, that we cannot do."

I said that our point of departure had been solely the distress of the Jews and that we desired to avoid the religious issues.

"Yes, but we, and I as the head of the Church, cannot do this. There are two possibilities. Either the Jews will cling to their faith and continue to await the Messiah who, for us, has already appeared. In that case they will be denying the divinity of Jesus and we cannot help them. Or else they will go there without any religion, and then we can be even less favorable to them. The Jewish religion was the foundation of our own; but it was superseded by the teachings of Christ, and we cannot concede it any further validity. The Jews, who ought to have been the first to acknowledge Jesus Christ, have not done so to this day."
Can you imagine if any prelate spoke in such clear language today? He'd be hounded out of office and banished to a monastery to do penance for what he'd done.

A lot of people argue that Pius didn't defeat Modernism but only drove it underground. The complete collapse of the Church in the 1970s is presented as proof that the Church wasn't as healthy as she appeared. That's a possibility, but one could easily use the collapse to argue the opposite: the damage wouldn't have been nearly as bad if the Modernists hadn't been presented with a golden opportunity at Vatican II.

Attentive or nerdy readers will have quickly figured out that my blog's title is a pun based on Pius X's list of condemned Modernist propositions, Lamentabili Sane. It makes for a sobering read. Modernists pretty much have had free reign over Scripture studies for forty years. If you've ever heard your priest deliver a homily about how the real miracle of the loaves and fishes was that Jesus inspired everyone to share their picnic lunches (I hear that one every year) then you can be sure your priest was formed by Modernists.

Take proposition 31: "The doctrine concerning Christ taught by Paul, John, and the Councils of Nicea, Ephesus and Chalcedon is not that which Jesus taught but that which the Christian conscience conceived concerning Jesus." I hear this one a lot from godless heathens and those who received a Jesuit education (but I repeat myself.) For the Modernist, the Catholic faith is not a deposit of divinely revealed dogmas that must be believed, but our efforts to rationalize our subjective experiences. It is indeed the synthesis of all heresies, one that has been corroding the Church for over a century. In the distant future, the Modernist crisis will be listed among the greatest crises of the Church, after the Protestant Revolt and the Arian heresy.

St. Pius X, pray for us.

Scandal on the Internet: Five Guys and the Quinnspiracy

Video has some NSFW language, but otherwise it neatly summarizes the scandal tearing up the world of video game journalism. You almost have to wonder if the whole thing is a put on because it includes pretty much every one of the manosphere's bugaboos: women and social justice warriors spoiling what was traditionally an all male enclave, a self-professed feminist using sex to get ahead in her career, white knights riding to her rescue when she's called out on her actions, lack of journalistic integrity, and a conspiracy of silence. I'm surprised that reddit is censoring this discussion, but I'm astonished that 4chan is doing so. I mean, if 4chan has gone over to the social justice dark side, then truly no one is safe.

I know, video game journalism seems like such a silly thing to get upset over. The last time I seriously read a magazine on video games, I must have been in junior high with a brand new SNES. Video gaming is a billion dollar industry now. For better and mostly for worse, young men and boys now spend most of their creative energies on video games. And much like literature, movies, and music, video gaming has been overrun with obnoxious SJWs who act both as gatekeepers and as kommisars who jealously guard which acceptable messages can be sent through the medium.

Fortunately in this case, it's easier than ever to bypass the gatekeepers. No matter how often these things blow up in people's faces, we never learn that the cover up is frequently worse than the crime. Thanks to the internet, the cover up is not only worse but also impossible.