Thursday, November 29, 2012

I learned a new term today

The Dark Enlightenment? Count me in.

So, what is it? Jim Donald interprets:
The fundamental realization of the Dark Enlightenment is that all men are not created equal, not individual men, nor the various groups and categories of men, nor are women equal to men, that these beliefs and others like them are religious beliefs, that society is just as religious as ever it was, with an official state religion of progressivism, but this is a new religion, an evil religion, and, if you are a Christian, a demonic religion.

The Dark Enlightenment does not propose that leftism went wrong four years ago, or ten years ago, but that it was fundamentally and terribly wrong a couple of centuries ago, and we have been heading to hell in a handbasket ever since at a rapidly increasing rate – that the enlightenment was dangerously optimistic about humans, human nature, and the state, that it is another good news religion, telling us what we wish to hear, but about this world instead of the next.
 
The only way in which it can be said that all men are created equal is in that we are all created in the image and likeness of God. Liberalism is a jealous god and will not have the actual God come before it. Liberalism exhalts the desires of the free and equal superman, self-created through his own reason and will. No desire is qualitatively better than another, and all supermen should be free to pursue their desires, unless that desire be for the Good. There will be no talk of the Good. The Good is freedom to pursue a desire. It is absolutely not any particular Good. To posit the existence of the Good implies that not all desires are equal. It is to say that some desires are better than others, and that there is an end to which all rightly ordered desires should aim. This will not do at all.

Of course it's impossible for human beings to live like this for an extendend length of time. Liberalism disclaims making any authoritative discriminations between the Good and what is not good, but in practice it must. All desires are equal and everyone should be equally free to pursue them, but only within the defined limits of liberalism. It is not acceptable, in this view, to fight for the defense of marriage against the onslaught of homosexual activists and their heterosexual enablers. Marriage, as it is traditionally understood, places limits on the desires of the free and equal superman, namely he must be married to one woman and forsake all others. We weakened it through no-fault divorce laws. Homosexuals only seek to administer the coup de grace.

Right-liberals are the worst enablers of left-liberalism. They hem and haw and obstruct and argue against something for a generation, but when left-liberals hold their ground - and they always do - eventually right-liberals come to accept it and then lecture the Dark Enlightenment types that they have to get with the program and stop being so divisive over a settled issue. Ironically, this ends up thwarting the right-liberals desire to be taken seriously by left-liberals because the left-liberals interpret their intransigence as based on emotionalism or bigotry. And who can blame them for thinking so? Right-liberals can be good about criticizing the consequences of liberalism but they will never, ever challenge liberalism itself.

I used to read National Review regularly when I was first coming into my political consciousness. I can't recall the last time I clicked on their site. All of the best stuff is coming from those conservatives they have dramatically drummed out of the movement, i.e. Pat Buchanan and John Derbyshire. As the Republicans continue their slow decline into demographic irrelevancy, it might occur to them that Pat and the Derb were right all along.

I say she's earned it

Sandra Fluke, the thirty something law student who needs subsidized contraception, is on the short list for Time's Person of the Year. It makes perfect sense when you think about it:

Can you think of anyone who better represents the America of 2012 than Ms. Fluke? I can’t.
She’s got it all: The “Generation Cupcake” inadequacy (“So what if she didn’t earn the award — give it to her, anyway!); the “Occupod” sense of entitlement (“Somebody should be buying my condoms, and it ain’t gonna be me!”); and, of course, the liberal detachment from reality (“There’s a war on women! We’re being oppressed! Just ask Hillary Clinton, Condi Rice and Oprah!”).
Then there’s the economic angle. One could argue that the icon of the failing Obama economy is the college grad with a worthless degree under his arm and a bed in his mom’s basement.
Time magazine gives us Sandra Fluke, with a bachelor’s degree in (no joke) Feminist, Gender, & Sexuality Studies, no marketable skills, and still on the academic track, living on the largess of others.
 
Protip: any academic discipline that includes the word "Studies" in its title is useless.

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Nice work if you can get it

I wonder what it's like to be Steve Sailer. You do great work on statistics and discussions about human biodiversity, but then you're read out of polite society because you're raciss. Nonetheless, a lot of your work filters into mainstream discussion because, well, the truth will out. Yesterday he linked to some stories about the Asian vote in the '12 presidential election. First up was Charles Murray, father of the Bell Curve, on why Asians vote Democratic:

And yet something has happened to define conservatism in the minds of Asians as deeply unattractive, despite all the reasons that should naturally lead them to vote for a party that is identified with liberty, opportunity to get ahead, and economic growth. I propose that the explanation is simple. Those are not the themes that define the Republican Party in the public mind. Republicans are seen by Asians—as they are by Latinos, blacks, and some large proportion of whites—as the party of Bible-thumping, anti-gay, anti-abortion creationists. Factually, that’s ludicrously inaccurate. In the public mind, except among Republicans, that image is taken for reality.
 
By anti-gay and anti-abortion, they must mean "Politely opposed to same-sex marriage and abortion except in cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother." Liberal Slate writer David Weigel responded:

The grand master of the Bell Curve is used to liberals pointing and sputtering at his conclusions. He typically pre-empts this by burying them with research -- research they, the sort of people who believe that human evolution happened but that human biodiversity is a myth, sure have not done.
So this piece on why Asian voters went so heavily for the Democrats is a head-scratcher. Where's the data?
 
I justed want to point out that it's astounding a liberal like Weigel is calling out his fellow liberals on how they believe in human evolution but refuse to acknowledge HBD. Judge Richard Posner chimes in:

Jewish voting behavior is further evidence for the expressive theory of voting. For obvious reasons, Jews have an acute sensitivity to discrimination; this may explain their continuing affinity for liberal policies, which does not seem to be in their economic self-interest. Furthermore, historically anti-Semitism in the United States was private rather than governmental; for example, government agencies employed Jewish lawyers in great number at a time when Jews found it hard to get jobs in leading law firms. Big government was a friend, and apparently the friendship is still reciprocated. And this may be a factor in Asian-American voting as well, for it is the government that decides whom to allow to immigrate, and although until a few decades ago our immigration laws discriminated strongly against Asians, they no longer do.
 
Guess which big name blogger linked to all three stories? I'm not knocking Sullivan by any means. But I think Sailer is the personification of one of Ronald Reagan's old quips: It's amazing how much you can accomplish if you don't care who gets the credit.

Great ass kicking literature part three: the cutting floor tolls for thee

The Lord of the Rings films are great movies, based on great literature. I think the movies succeed in spite of director Peter Jackson's changes and not because of them. The most glaring example is the character of Faramir. In the books, Faramir represents the future of the West. The elves are leaving this world, the halflings will vanish into history, Gandalf has fulfilled his mission, and the Age of Men is fast approaching. Faramir is strong, virtuous, and brave. He humbly refuses to carry the Ring, trusting not in his own strength. By confessing his weakness, he is immune to the temptations of the Ring. His father Denethor's disapproval of him is a bitter blow, but he carries on his duty.

In the movies, Faramir is transformed into a whiny daddy-doesn't-love-me teenager. He thinks to take the Ring to Gondor as a means to win Denethor's approval and win the war with Mordor. The Ring is no longer simply tempting as a super weapon, but is now a generic mind control ray. I don't remember her exact words, but in the DVD commentary writer Phillipa Boyens explains why they butchered his character: it didn't make sense to her that they had spent so much time building up the Ring as concentrated evil power only to have this strong warrior so easily refuse its temptation. He was too "static" in the books, she said. She missed the point of his character entirely. Faramir was supposed to represent mankind at its best. He was changed into a contemptible Dr. Phil style headcase.

I'm going to see The Hobbit when it's released in theaters of course. I'm wary about what new changes they've made this time. Stretching The Hobbit, what was originally a children's story, into a three part epic probably made some changes necessary. They just couldn't resist adding a teaspoon of grrrrlpower. It's mildly surprising they didn't add some black, Hispanic, or Asian dwarves given the flack the first trilogy received about racism. We're all about viewing great literature through the lens of 21st century hangups around here.

Speaking of which, Roissy had an entry up a few days ago about reframing against Leftists. Who defines the terms controls the discussion. His strategy is sound, though I'd quibble with the tactics. I enjoy trolling liberals as much as the next Traditionalist, but in this case I would be the grunting caveman:

"Your ass kicking stories are awesome Beefy, but I couldn't help but notice that you don't have any ass kicking lesbian Hispanic warrior princesses or sensitive, scholarly black support characters. All of your heroes are white men!"

"So?"

Monday, November 26, 2012

Living the dream, having it all

This is a brutal glimpse of the reality behind divorce porn. Some friends have suggested that if I'm in need of quick cash, this is one market where you can hardly go wrong. I'm unsure about that. Can I, a never married man, understand the cruelly dashed hopes of women who get trapped in unhaaaappy marriages and abandon their husbands and children to go discover themselves in Third World Buddhist temples? We're about to find out.

Guinvere Simmons was born in 1984 to Biff and Buffy Simmons. Biff and Buffy are doing their part for our tortured mother earth by sterilizing themselves after having their one, precious child. Every child should be a wanted child, as they learned in college. Although they had a lot in common, such as their dabbling in Buddhist mysticism, yoga classes every Tuesday and Thursday, and commitment to veganism, ultimately things didn't work out. These things happen, you know? Buffy raised Guinvere as a single mom and imbibed her progeny with grrrrlpower and equalitarianism: a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle! Fat old white men would try to keep her down through sheer misogynistic animus, but Guinvere's spunk, determination, and masculine will to power would ensure that she'd break through the glass ceiling with a vengeance.

Springtime for Ireland

Ireland, once the most Catholic of countries, is now virulently anti-Catholic.

Remember: our Blessed Lord said that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church. He never said anything about the gates of hell never prevailing against the Church in a particular time or place. Ask any Catholics from the diocese of Hippo, if you can find any. The way things are going, it may be that the Church of the future will be reduced to the Bishop of Rome and eleven hand-picked bishops, just like two thousand years ago.

I've met many priests and a few bishops over the last few years. Almost to a man they speak of secularization and de-Christianization in impersonal terms, as if they were forces of nature we simply have to accept like the occasional earthquake or hurricane. A few of the brighter ones know that secularization is not a force of nature but the result of ideas held by conscious, acting individuals and the decisions they made or did not make. Secularization and de-Christianization are too far along and too deeply entrenched to be reversed within my lifetime. But that doesn't mean we give up the fight. A good commander doesn't flinch at ordering men to their deaths. And we, as good soldiers of Christ, shouldn't flinch at going forth into the long defeat.

That part doesn't bother me. What does bother me is how many souls have unnecessarily been lost due to poor decisions by those who should have known better. Gentlemen, the world's gonna world and the devil's gonna devil. The Church is the way she is today not because of impersonal forces beyond our control, but because of decisions that priests, religious, and bishops have made over the last fifty years, namely the manic self-destruction that peaked in the 1970s and 1980s.

Napoleon once said to a cardinal that he would destroy the Catholic Church. The cardinal laughed in his face and said, "Good luck with that. We've been trying for centuries."

Saturday, November 24, 2012

The devil was the first liberal

More fallout from the C of E's vote against women bishops:

A saddened [Prime Minister David] Cameron told MPs: "I am very clear that the time is right for women bishops; it was right many years ago. The church needs to get on with it and get with the programme."
Parliament had to "respect individual institutions and how they work, while giving them a sharp prod", he added. "I think it's important for the Church of England to be a modern church, in touch with society as it is today, and this was a key step they needed to take."
...The government argues that the narrowness of the vote justified revisiting the issue quickly, and for ministers to step up the public pressure.
Liberalism sees itself as simply being the way reality is. If it suffers a defeat, well then it was because the people were misinformed, or harboring old prejudices and bigotry. We'll keep having do overs until they get it right! And then we need more vigorous reeducation!

Reflecting an awareness in the church's leadership of how much damage the crisis could do, the outgoing archbishop of Canterbury warned the synod that it had to move forward as quickly as possibly with finding a way of getting women into the episcopate in order to avoid losing even more credibility than it already had. "Every day that we fail to resolve this to our satisfaction …is a day when our credibility in the public eye is likely to diminish," said Rowan Williams, in a strongly worded speech. The failure of the legislation had left the church looking "willfully blind" to the trends and priorities of secular society.
"We have – to put it very bluntly – a lot of explaining to do," he said. "Whatever the motivations for voting yesterday … the fact remains that a great deal of this discussion is not intelligible to our wider society."

 With liberals like Williams, who needs straw men? I couldn't have written a better description of liberal Christianity myself. A Christianity that follows the trends and priorities of secular society is a Christianity that is something less than it claims to be. A Christianity that slavishly follows the views of the ruling class is a Christianity that has emasculated itself. It is a public admission of surrender to the world. It is an announcement that Christianity is subordinate to the advances of liberalism. Why settle for a pale imitation when one can have the real thing?

Again, I believe this happened because the C of E is in its essence a Protestant institution, with all of the errors that Protestantism entails. Something like this was inevitable. Even so, I don't take any satisfaction from its fall. There are plenty of buffoons within my own Church - many of them in Roman collars and bishops miters - who want us to follow the Anglicans descent into irrelevancy.

See sesh hits the mainstream again

This was a surprisingly balanced article on the subject of secession.

One of the problems with secession in the 21st century is that every red state has urban enclaves of blue, and every blue state has vast swathes of red. If the red and the blue were to have an amicable separation in my home state of California, for example, then Libertopia would be a long skinny strip of coastline anchored by Los Angeles at the bottom, and Conservatopia would encompass everything from the San Fernando Valley up to the Oregon border and the Sierra Nevadas.

Even so, what used to be a fringe topic is now in mainstream venues. One of the core tenets of liberalism is that the State exists so that the free and equal superman, self-created through his own reason and will, free from the unchosen constraints of race and family, can freely pursue the satisfaction of his desires. Race, family, religion, creed, and other external constraints on the desires of the free and equal superman must be either destroyed, made to not matter, or made matters of choice. Liberalism has no coherent way of resolving conflicts between competing desires in part because liberals do not believe liberalism is one competing worldview among many but simply the way reality is. Opposition to liberalism, therefore, can only be rooted in hatred toward the other, and irrational attachments to dead traditions which were created to oppress the other. This is one reason why businessmen and academics are subjected to endless PC sermonizing about how prejudice can be defeated through education (better start in the womb then!) Liberalism sees itself as an impartial arbiter that places no external constraints on those it rules over save refraining from violence or fraud. In practice, of course, liberalism must make demands, place constraints, and make authoritative discriminations between clashing desires. If we had to sum up the incoherence of liberalism in one sentence it would be, "You must discriminate without discriminating."

Whatever one may think about the causes of the Union or the Confederacy in the first Civil War, both sides had a definitive world view and the conflict would decide which would prevail. Frankly, I don't think there would be a shooting war over another go at secession. Left-liberals and right-liberals have made self-determination the centerpiece of their foreign policy since World War I. Every time the subject of secession comes up, a friend of mine on Facebook repeats over and over "It's a settled issue, it's a settled issue." Well, in geopolitics settled issues only remain settled so long as one side or the other is willing to fight over it. If Texas or several other red states decided to take their leave, I really can't see the blue states breaking a sweat trying to stop them. They might vigorously argue about it on TV and the internet, but all the while a terrible thought would be gnawing at their heart: "If self-determination is good enough for Iraqis, and Afghanis, and Egyptians, then why not rednecks?" FedGov would move men and material around, but that would last up until the moment they were actually ordered to open fire on their neighbors.

It sometimes comes up in these discussions that the blue states subsidize the red states. All the better from the secessionists point of view. Eventually, the blue states can be pushed into saying "Good riddance!"

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

Rearranging the deck chairs

Catholics who lament the priest shortage sometimes suggest that Holy Mother Church should ordain women and married men. I respond that the Episcopalians have been doing just that for many years and they're experiencing a shortage of laity.

I'm mildly surprised the Anglicans voted against women bishops but it's only a matter of time. Protestantism is a dead duck that is rapidly sinking beneath the waves of error, heresy, and apostasy. Some Christians would say it's because the mainline denominations long ago stopped preaching the Word and began preaching the World. That's true to be sure, but I also think it's because of some not insignificant errors present in Protestantism from the start, when its creators were not yet Protestant but still apostate Catholics.

One of those errors is Positivism. The one thing all Protestants have in common is rejection of the teaching authority of the papacy and of capital "T" Tradition. Some of them are friendlier toward the person of the pope than others, but none of them accept his authority to bind and loose in matters of faith. Now that I think about it, that applies to a bunch of Catholics I could name. In any case, Protestants reject both the papacy and Tradition as authoritative in matters of faith and morals. Sola Scriptura, Scripture alone, is their guide. This causes a number of problems.

Formal definitions, such as citations from the Bible or the Catechism, are good and necessary things, but they aren't the only things, and treating them like the only things leads to errant nonsense. To claim Sola Scriptura is to claim "The heremeutic system of which the Bible is a part is complete." It's an attempt to confine all the meaning of God's revelation into a single text. The practical effect is to free up the believer to construct any kind of religion he wants; how many thousands of Protestant sects exist? Ironically, attempts to confine meaning into a single text robs that text of all meaning. Next stop, the dictatorship of relativism.

Catholics are prone to this error. Any Catholic who has spent any amount of time engaging in online polemics has played the time honored game of "My document carries greater magisterial authority than your document." But the deposit of faith is not entirely contained in documents. It is also contained in how the faith is lived and has been lived for two thousand years.

Anglicanism does not formally adhere to Sola Scriptura. They had no founding theologian like Luther or Calvin. And they have no central teaching authority. Like her fellow Protestants, the Anglican communion is always five minutes behind the times, huffing and puffing to catch up. She's twisting herself into knots arguing over women bishops while the world looks on, clucking its tongue over what backwards sexists they are. And so it goes while the band plays on.

Thursday, November 15, 2012

A major gaffe

In political discourse, a gaffe means to say something out loud which everyone knows is true but you aren't supposed to talk about in public. Papa John's CEO has committed a major gaffe. Yes, it might cost a nickel a pie or whatever the final figure is if he passes on the cost of Obamacare to consumers. Of course the people who supply his dough, vegetables, meat, and soda are paying more too. So are the truck drivers who bring it all in and the banks who manage his money.

Economics can be described in one sentence: people respond to incentives. Everything else is commentary. The government usually provides incentives for employers to cut costs. And the first cost employers look to cut is wages. As if they didn't have enough already, employers have yet another incentive to have as few full time employees as possible.

Molon Labe

Good on them:

(CNSNews.com) - Cardinal Timothy Dolan, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, says the Roman Catholic Church will continue to resist the Obama administration requirement that religiously affiliated hospitals, charities and colleges provide health insurance covering sterilization, contraception and abortifacients.
 
My cynicism is a character fault to be sure. Nonetheless, I can't help but think that I'll believe his Eminence when I see it. Most priests and bishops of a certain age are Democrats by temperament and they always struck me as not having their hearts in this fight. In my darker moments, I think that they'll collapse like a house of cards if the God King promises amnesty for illegal aliens in exchange for them toning down the rhetoric (as if their public statements aren't already watered down!) A few firebrand holdouts like Cordileone, Chaput, and Jenky might fight on, but they would quickly be isolated and neutralized by their brother bishops.

We get the leaders we deserve but we should never put our trust in princes anyway. Pray that the bishops stand firm. Hope for the best but be prepared for the worst. If I may make a suggestion to their excellencies and eminences, if the God King won't budge then do not close Catholic hospitals. Tell them to continue operations as normal without any provision for abortifacients, contraceptives, and sterilizations. If the administration doesn't like our hospitals working that way, tell him to come and take them. Call his bluff. If he doesn't blink... well, a little persecution is good for sifting the wheat from the chaff. At least then everyone will finally have to put their cards on the table.

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

RIP Catman

This is really horrifying.

This morning's post comes with heavy news, and I'm in the terrible position of reporting the death of body modification icon Dennis Avner, often better known as Stalking Cat or just Tiger. A US Navy vet more recently working as a programmer and technician, Dennis identified strongly with his feline totem animals and in what he told me was a Huron traditional of actually adopting the physical form of ones totem, he transformed himself not just into a tiger, but a female tiger at that, blurring and exploring the gender line as much as the species line. Much of his work had been done by body modification pioneer Steve Haworth, who rebuilt Dennis's ears, lip, nose, and face to resemble a tiger, including a multitude of transdermals that held artificial whiskers. In addition to being almost completely covered in tattoos, he'd also sculpted his face and body with extensive silicone work, had custom teeth built to emulate his inner nature, and regularly wore contact lenses and an artificial robotic tail.
 
But he never was a tiger or a stalking cat. He was Dennis Avner. I've been told that it's cruel for me to not believe in transsexuals. What I mean by that is, even if a man mutilates himself and goes through extensive surgery and hormonal therapy, he is not a woman but a deeply confused man who has mutilated himself. You are you, and however much you may carve yourself up or pretend otherwise, you cannot escape you.

Help me help you

It's not so much the crisis itself that troubles me, catastrophic though it is, but rather how it's like pulling teeth getting our shepherds to admit the size and scope of the crisis. Most parish priests are terrified of confrontation. They preach bland banalities and pious platitudes week in and week out. If they spoke out forcefully against divorce, contraception, and all dissent in general, it might make people mad. It would rock the boat, and one does not climb the hierarchy of the Catholic Church through bold, fearless, confrontational speaking about old fashioned things like death, judgment, heaven, or hell. Gentlemen, I want to help you. I want to stand with you. I want to fight the good fight with you. I really do. But you have to meet me half way. If you're not concerned about the salvation of souls, then why the hell do you expect anyone else to be? Jesus Christ himself preached very hard truths. Some of his followers said, to Jesus Christ himself, to his very face which would soon be wounded and scarred, "This teaching is hard, who can follow it?" and they walked away. Do you really think you can do Jesus one better and not make anyone walk away?

The Onionization of the world continues

Let's see if I have this straight: the married Petraeus had an affair with the married Broadwell (Dickens himself could hardly have made up a better name) who wrote threatening emails to the married Kelley whom she believed to be muscling in on her married man (Petraeus, not her husband.) Plus the agent whom Kelley told about the emails was taken off the case because he sexted her shirtless pictures of himself. And now there's a crazy twin sister thrown into the mix? We mock soap operas for being melodramatic, but perhaps they come close to how reality actually is after all.

My conspiracy theorist friends have been letting me down. The CIA director gets blown up one week after a major election and before he was scheduled to give major testimony to Congress? This stuff writes itself. I suppose it depends on how much of an honest man David Petraeus is. If he was going to tell the truth about Benghazi - that it was a preplanned attack by a major terrorist group instead of a spontaneous uprising over a silly movie - then it was the administration who pressed his self-destruct button. If he was going to play ball with the silly movie cover story, then it was the CIA who blew him up.

I wonder if this is how patriotic Roman citizens felt in the fourth or fifth century AD. The United States is a temporal thing and like all temporal things it was never going to last. But why, O Lord, did you have to put me here, now?

Thursday, November 8, 2012

If you're not a pessimist, you're part of the problem

If nothing else, mainstream right liberals like to put on happy faces. They maintain a "rah rah America, rah rah Republicans" attitude no matter how badly or how often they might lose. They want to be sunny optimists like their hero, Ronald Reagan. And what is the Republican primary if not an extended exercise in Reagan nostalgia, a year long marathon to find the new Reagan who will finally, finally get the message out?

There's nothing wrong with optimism per se, but it has to be an optimism based in reality or else it is just delusional happy talk. Our current reality is that we've reached the demographic tipping point. If conservatives keep going on about "getting the message out" then they will continue losing, and deservedly so. The shock of this week's election has jolted a few right liberals. Sean Hannity had Pat Buchanan on his show last night and all but admitted that Pat was right all along. Juan Williams was quick to jump in and warn them that they were skirting close to being raciss.

The media speaks of the browning of America as if it were an historical inevitability instead of the result of a law passed in 1965. We speak of the disappearance of our history, our culture, and our traditional form of government as if it were an act of God instead of an act of Congress. We are a country that accepts the homosexualization of the military, same-sex "marriage," a lawless leftist regime that is persecuting the Church, that has toppled a foreign government and installed our jihadist foes in its place, and is constantly importing an alien underclass that will never, ever vote for a party that even half heartedly suggests cutting the rate of the welfare state's growth. The United States is a liberal country that lags behind the advanced liberalism of Western Europe because a significant minority still has a sentimental attachment to the idea of a limited government. I hope conservatives realize that we can't even count on that anymore. The last thing conservatives should do is pretend that everything is okay, that all we need to do is rephrase our positions a little, soften them up a bit to win the votes of a few more alienated minorities and single mothers.

Instead, conservatives should embrace reality. They probably will not have a realistic chance at winning the presidency for a few generations to come. I pray God we never hear that silly word "electability" again. Romney was the most electable candidate out of all the Republicans who ran. Conservatives should embrace Solzhenitsyn's dictum which is splashed across the top of this blog: live not by lies. Better yet, they should adopt Roissy's attitude and actively seek to vanquish pretty lies. No, the demographic displacement of the American people is not a good thing. No, single motherhood is not just as good as a two parent household. No, same-sex "marriage" is not something to be celebrated. No, we are not going to continue importing a million new Democrats each year, both legal and illegal.

Are they going to win on that? Probably not. But they're not going to win by continuing to serve as the rear guard of liberalism's advancing army either. Face it men, the Revolution has triumphed. Go Solzhenitsyn. Deal with the Revolutionary State if you must but never accept it. Marry and have as many children as possible. Pass on religion and culture. If you didn't already know it by now, politics and elections have become meaningless. By voting for candidates who complain about the consequences of liberalism without ever challenging liberalism itself, you are perpetuating the problem. Cling to Christ and His Church with all your strength, however much the Church's earthly shepherds let us down.

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

Just think of the awful mess he's inheriting

I was spectacularly wrong and Nate Silver was right. Obama ran the table with battleground states, with the exception of North Carolina. Bill O'Reilly of all people came close to uttering a HBD crime thought on his program last night. I don't have the exact quote but he said something like, "Blacks, Hispanics, and women want THINGS. Everyone knows that Barack Obama is the candidate that is promising more THINGS." If there was a big winner on the Republican side last night, it was Pat Buchanan. He's been arguing for years that if Republicans wish to avoid demographic irrelevancy, then curbing immigration is paramount. The Stupid Party, true to form, continued to cheer for the importation of a million new Democrats each year, both legal and illegal.

Two things: Romney didn't win enough white votes to close the deal, and Hispanics went 69-30 Obama. As per usual after every lost election cycle, professional Republicans are going to say that we must reach out to Hispanic voters. Left-liberals will solemnly nod their heads and say the Republicans must do something about their racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobic base if they wish to remain a relevant party. They always offer the same advice because they care, you see. They love conservatism and wish to see it win more often, so they're only giving us that friendly advice for our own good. If the Republicans would only come out fully in support of infanticide and sodomy, they say, then they'd be popular again.

More ominous for Republicans, Asians went for Obama by 75-25. The gender gap is the most talked about, but almost unmentioned except in a few corners of the HBD and manosphere is the marriage gap. Single people went for Obama by twenty points, while married people went for Romney by almost as big a margin. I think this is the best explication of the marriage gap I've seen:

On this last factor, the American growth industry of single moms is certainly pushing the country in a more redistributionist direction, because no demographic outside of blacks, gays and Hispanics ismore generally and reliably pro-government handout than the single mom with kids to feed and no dad around to help out.
Go read the whole thing.

The browning of America has has become a mainstream topic now. Mitt Romney might have been the Republicans last realistic shot at the presidency for several generations. Married whites continue to be a declining share of the population while the gimmiedats continue growing apace, along with all of the crime and illegitimacy that goes with them. Romney thought to win on a strictly economic platform, but appeals to Constitutional government, self-reliance, and responsibility fall on deaf ears when the other side is promising equality, tolerance, and other left-wing dog whistles for perversion, infanticide, and free birth control.

As I expected, Obama won 50% of the Catholic vote. This is why the God King picked a fight with the Catholic Church in the first place: he correctly guessed that a rapidly browning AmChurch would vote for more goodies than for its pro-life principles. The bishops, God bless them, have based their anti-HHS mandate campaign on abstract appeals to freedoms enshrined in the Constitution. Ironically, their pro-immigration enthusiasm has ensured that such appeals will fall flat since conservative whites, a shrinking minority within AmChurch, are the only ones who might take them seriously.

So what now? This election represented bad news for the historic American nation, culture, and people no matter who won. The fact that someone like Obama won reelection handily in this economy against a competent opponent is a sign that we've reached the tipping point. Blacks, Hispanics, other non-white immigrants, unmarried women, single moms, and alienated SWPLers are now in the drivers seat which ensures we will continue our leftward drift for another few generations. At least until whites and white men start embracing identity politics whole sale, which is when we'll see secession become mainstream again.

In the long run, liberalism is incoherent, inhuman, and wracked with far more internal contradictions than Soviet communism ever was. I won't live to see it but it will collapse. What can't go on forever, won't. In the mean time, learn to live like Solzhenitsyn with a free mind, a free heart, and a free spirit, because your ass belongs to the State.

Tuesday, November 6, 2012

Go ahead, break the rules

This account from a middle aged spinster made me quite sad:

Like everyone, I think and worry about the future and wonder where I’ll be in the final decade or so of my life.
With at least another 20 years of work ahead of me, I don’t know whether I’ll be comfortably off or stony broke, and I hope that the good health I’ve enjoyed so far won’t desert me later on.
One thing I’m pretty sure of, though, is that I’ll be on my own, with no spouse to look out for me or children to visit.
All she did was follow the script that all women in the Western world imbibed with their mother's milk. Young ladies are supposed to spend their twenties earning their feminist merit badge (a degree and a career), practicing serial monogamy with alpha males who still have a feminine side (good luck finding those), and generally being loud, mannish, ball breaking, aggressive, and full of grrrlpower until they settle down with a beta provider some time in their early to mid thirties before they hit the wall. Our author never did and now she's staring down the barrel of cat ladydom. She tries to rationalize it by saying she has a lot of disposable income but some kernels of truth can be plucked from this sad account.

The alpha males she hooked up with eventually married meek, traditional housewives who were happy to subordinate themselves to their husbands' careers. Perusing dating sites reveals that men in their forties still pursue women in their twenties. I'm ultimately a sensitive soul and it breaks my heart to see women like our author disillusioned by the merciless nature of the dating market. They've been lied to since birth. Western women are spending the prime of their lives in terms of their youth, beauty, and fertility pursuing their feminist merit badge and then their lives become a desparate scramble to get hitched before they hit the wall. Age does not have as drastic an effect on a man's SMV as it does for a girl.

The reality is that girls can't have it all. If girls are serious about marriage and raising children, then they must do it sooner rather than later. And, mirabile dictu, it turns out that men don't care for girls whose attitude and demeanor would make a linebacker blush.

The Republicans last stand

No presidential ticket with a Catholic in the VP slot has ever lost an election. Statistics don't lie. 269-269 tie!

My official prediction is Mitt Romney, at least 51% of the popular vote, no less than 300 electoral votes. So come back later tonight to praise me for my political acumen or mock me for my wild ass guessing. I didn't vote for Romney. He's flip flopped so many times on so many different issues that only Mitt and God himself know what he really believes. I am absolutely certain that Barack Obama will win California's electoral votes, so my third party vote need not produce paroxysms of outrage from our civic faithful. I will say this for Mitt: he seems serious. When John McCain secured the GOP nomination four years ago I knew the Republicans had already conceded the election. McCain was the old warhorse whose turn had arrived, like Bob Dole in 1996. McCain, bless his heart, even made it a point to refuse to run Jeremiah Wright ads 24/7. Come on; who wants to be the mean old white guy who stands in the way of our first black president? I was eleven years old during the 1992 election so my convictions were not yet fully cohered, but even then I thought George Bush the Elder was phoning it in. Whatever else one may say about Mitt, he doesn't strike me as being a sacrificial lamb. I've made my prediction but I wouldn't put money on it. That Nate Silver person liberals are going wild about predicts that Obama has a 300% chance of victory at least three times a week.

One thing to consider is that if Mitt loses, he's probably the Republicans last shot at winning the presidency. Hispanics will never vote Republican in significant enough numbers to swing elections, but with a few honorable exceptions, Republicans continue to support the suicidal immigration policies that are dooming them to demographic irrelevancy. Why do you think Obama took on the Catholic Church? His handlers correctly guessed that Hispanics vote for more government, not their faith. Our bishops are relying on abstruse legal arguments based on the Constitution which appeal mostly to conservative white Catholics, while also regularly trumpeting that Hispanics are going to make up more than half of the American Church in generations to come. The Republicans will continue to serve as the rear guard of liberalism's ever advancing army. They will stand athwart history yelling "Slow down!" We will continue our leftward drift until the collapse, but Republicans and right-liberals will continue assuring us that every election is the most important election of our lifetimes.

Thursday, November 1, 2012

Gather us in indeed


Just when I'm about to start rending my garments in fury and banging my head on the wall in frustrated outrage at the stupid hippie dreck that still dominates so much of the Catholic Church in North America... pieces like these remind me of why I converted in the first place.

Intimacy with the Divine is what it means to be Catholic. The Protestants speak of having a "personal relationship with Christ." What could be more personal than receiving his most Precious Body and Blood at every Sacrifice of the Mass? The Mass makes present the Sacrifice of Calvary, which the priest, acting in the Person of Christ, represents to God the Father as an oblation and for the expiation of our sins and those of the whole world.

That's the official teaching anyway. If the purpose of liturgy is to make us cognizant of supernatural realities which we cannot see, then it is of tremendous help if the nature of the liturgy we are participating in reflects those realities. The priest turns his back on the people so that we can all face God together. He whispers the Roman Canon because he is addressing God, not the congregation. He speaks a dead language because the words, being dead, have meaning that is fixed. Today in particular, All Saints Day, reminds us of the heavenly hosts and the saints in heaven who behold the Blessed Trinity face to face for all eternity.

The typical parish liturgy today does not reflect these realities, to put it mildly. The priest faces the people, he speaks in their language, they smile, they crack jokes, they shake hands, hug, receive communion in the hand, the choir sings vernacular songs that celebrate the community or congratulates us on being such perfect Christians that the world will know us by our love. It's all very nice and pleasant, if nice people are involved (very often they're not nice), in the same way that a company birthday celebration is nice and pleasant. The week in and week out reality (day in and day out reality for the priest) is that this latitudinarian, easy going, undisciplined approach gradually leads to the loss of faith. Most practicing Catholics only learn about the Faith through the Sunday homily and priests are notoriously bad speakers. Numbers don't lie; how many Catholics attend Mass every Sunday today compared to sixty years ago? What little I know about the Catholic faith has had to be almost entirely self-taught.

Eventually you grow numb to the silliness and childishness. Gas prices preclude my going to the Traditional Latin Mass every Sunday, so I do my best to pick the least bad liturgy and ignore as much of it as possible until it's time to receive our Blessed Lord. Is it a good attitude? Probably not, but then again I'm not a good Catholic.

Great ass kicking literature, revisited

Culture and the downloadable novel:
 My Kindle allowed me to have a free copy of Tocqueville’s classic, in the first place … but I have long since learned that the price of such free stuff is a gaudy billboard staring me in the face every time I reach for my palm-held library. Last week, some TV serial titled “Nashville” hounded me. This week it’s a novel called Dawn which claims to be “Book One of the Xenogenesis Trilogy.” Has the author, then, already contracted to produce two more tomes … or is this glorious triad being republished for Kindle-owners after an initial triumph? Or, does it even matter? Isn’t everything a trilogy now? Does the sort of person who reads these things actually know what a trilogy is, any more than he or she is alert to the literal absurdity behind the word “xenogenesis”?
 
...Today’s setting, to be sure, is a little different: no two historical periods or cultural phases are inflexibly identical. Yet the similarities can descend to a stunning degree of subtlety. Consider only the kind of soft neo-paganism that circulates through all of these rambling fantasies, assuring the select few a safe passage to wealth and romantic bliss as the rest of the world goes to hell in a handbasket. To be sure, I haven’t read “Dawn” and have no plans to do so. What do you want to bet, though, that “xenogenesis” is a first cousin to Pan and Isis?
I don't think our appetite for novelty is quite as insatiable as Mr. Harris believes. Stories are like music: there are only a finite number of notes or plots, but you can make an infinite number of compositions. The more literate SWPLers knocked The Hunger Games as a rip off of Battle Royale. The most literate SWPLers knocked them both as a rip off of the myth of Perseus and the Minotaur. If we skipped the middle man and just retold the story of the actual Perseus, the budding young author would have to make him black, give him a gay sidekick, throw in an ass kicking Hispanic warrior princess as the love interest, and make the Mitt-notaur a loud mouthed, racist, sexist, homophobic mythical creature while still making sure its human body was suitably caucasian. You see? I'm a born story teller.

Much as I am temperamentally inclined to agree with Mr. Harris and say that literature is going to hell in a hand basket like everything else, I can't help but wonder if it hasn't always been so. How many works of the 19th century do we regard as classics? A few dozen? A few hundred? Now how many books were published over the entire 19th century: several hundred thousand? Several million? Benjamin Disraeli wanted to get into politics but he didn't have two pence to rub together. So he knocked out a few novels to raise the money. Does anyone besides specialists read Disraeli's novels today?

I whole heartedly agree that this "teen paranormal romance" bandwagon is absurd. Vampires are not sensitive sparkly souls who only want to be loved. They are hard core, stone cold, bad ass killers who must be terminated with extreme prejudice. I need the money so some day I might knock out a teen romance novel, with or without vampires, that has a lot of adverbs and exclamation points. But right now I see a niche that is begging to be filled. We need more novels that are unapologetically about ass kicking. Ass kicking comes first. Ass kicking is the mission. The protagonist might have an insight about the good, the true, and the beautiful, or he might have a penetrating insight about the human condition. But he won't get there without kicking a lot of asses first.