Featured Post

For Those Who Disregard Prophecy

People who snub prophecy bewilder me. They say, "I'm not obligated to pay any attention to private revelation. The strict teachin...

Wednesday, December 31, 2014

Global Warming is Junk Science

Here is a picture of a sad polar bear drifting into the ocean on a lone iceberg.

Funny thing is that this picture was found to be photoshopped in Science magazine. It's a complete and utter fake, designed to gin up pity and support for "the cause." The polar bear, ice floe, ocean and sky are real—they're just photoshopped into a collage. 

Oh! And another funny thing about polar bears! It seems that Al Gore's polar bear scientist has been forced to retire! Scientist scamster Charles Monnett was forced to retire at around this time last year because of his lies about polar bear drownings. This tends to happen when you use false data.

One more thing about Al Gore. Rumor has it that he had a prediction that in ten years, if people of the world didn't get their act together, then the Earth will turn into a total frying pan. That was in 2006. So, in over a year we're all dead, I guess.

I am not assuming I know everything about this. It is simply that the fruits-of-deceit from Climategate are many, and one need only reach up to the tree of lies to pluck down an example.

What troubles me greatly is the likelihood that so many young'uns were cornered into watching An Inconvenient Truth in high school, and they never took the time to disagree or question it. And so now, "man-made climate change" shall serve as the axiom upon which many further compounded lies and bad policies shall be built.

I want to reiterate that I am not wanting to gin up fear about a conspiracy theory.  I will let some other noble soul with more time than I do that.  I have not set out to demonstrate that there is an evil cabal out there who has set up the global warming hoax so that they can transform the world into a Communist utopia. I am merely pointing out lies on the part of tax-funded "professionals." After all, there are many grants to be had for a climate scientist who travels in the right circles.

Now, let's look at "20th Century global warming."

Here we see something that appears to be century-wide global warming. It makes sense, after all, that rising temperatures (if they truly come from CO2) would correlate with the rise of industry in the world. Right?

So, if we have had a steady increase in industry throughout the world, why is it that rising temperatures decided to take a break between World War 2 and 1978? Did industry just suddenly stop for those three decades? If it is true that global warming has been occurring in conjunction with the world's industrialization, then how come the rise in temperature has not steadily increased without dipping? Why does the correlation of temperature increase and industrialization take a break after WWII?

Hint: Earth has cycles.

For more perspective, let's look at more boring unemotional charts:

The above chart was presented by Dennis Avery at the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change in New York. Notice all of those bumps above and below the center line? Those are what we call cycles. We even have nicknames for them, such as "Medieval Warm Period" and "Little Ice Age."

And look at this next one:

The above chart by Don Easterbrook demonstrates the likelihood that we might actually be cooling down again. Indeed, it is conceivable that we have finished one of the warmer cycles that have occurred throughout history, and we are going to cool off again.

The above are two of my favorites of the boring charts. It is a comparison of temperature with solar activity as well as CO2 emissions. Notice how the temperature spikes seem to mysteriously correlate with the activity of the sun?

Observe how our planet has been pretty much in a steady path of temperature change from 1880 to 2000, and then look at the wacky wild prediction by the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I guess they also liked Al Gore's docu-comedy.

But at this moment, let's leave the sciencey stuff behind us.

I was asked over at Fisheaters today:
I would say that it is Man's duty to be a steward of God's Creation, much like it is our duty not to poison our bodies with something that is toxic, wouldn't you agree?
Yes. (I feel like a broken record on this.)  There is nothing wrong with keeping things clean. I think it's a fine idea to have advanced public transport and perhaps even electrical car requirements for cities that are prone to smog (hello Los Angeles and Beijing). Oil spills should be cleaned up if they are harmful to the environment (sometimes spills are not harmful; stay away from Corexit dispersant). Garbage should be dealt with appropriately. Recycling ain't bad. "Captain Planet, he's a hero. Gonna take pollution down to zero!" and all that. Yeah.

However, caring for the environment should not be an end unto itself.

Fr. Chad Ripperger says: 
Today we tend to see that people panic at the slightest bad report about the environment, and it's a sign of rejection of Divine Providence.
God created the planet which we live on--the material universe--to be able to sustain us in our activities. And to deny that--that is, to be panicking about every little thing that happens in the material-created universe, is nothing short of a denial or a lack of faith in God's prominence.

I, for one, rest comfortable with the idea that God has things under control. I wonder if Pope Francis will say the same sort of thing as Fr. Ripperger.

In any event, I am fully aware of what trash holes other 3rd world nations are like. I'm fully aware of how bad Latin America, China, and Russia are like. Like a broken record, I've been citing the Philippines for the last three days. And, again, this falls in line with my "let's keep things clean" attitude.

Localized and regional pollution are real problems that need addressing. We could talk about those matters all day. I can think of ten real and significant problems right at this moment.
But wringing our hands over the myth of man-made global warming is silly, and it's one of the Left's most laughable follies. I strongly urge the "global warming believers" to reconsider the matter.

Here is a part of a sermon by Father Chad Ripperger, exorcist and FSSP priest:

(The emphasis is Fr. Ripperger's.)

We have come across today a false environmentalism. Which has this idea that the environment is something that should be sought for its own sake, and that ultimately man is there for the sake of the environment. Not the environment for the sake of man.

These things are not there for themselves. They're there for us. God created the material things for ouruse and our benefit. Not the other way around. Today we tend to see that people panic at the slightest bad report about the environment, and it's a sign of rejection of Divine Providence. God created the material universe for our use. Which means that He designed it for the type of use that we're making of it.

So, what's this mean?
It means, in the end, as I tell all the seminarians, God wanted us burning fossil fuels. He wanted us to eat animals. Not before the Fall, which we'll talk about in a bit, but after the Fall, He had every intention for us to burn fossil fuels. If He didn't want us burning fossil fuels, He wouldn't have put them there--and He put a lot of them there, which means He wanted us burning a lot of them.

Now, that doesn't mean that you waste them. It just means that God created the planet which we live on--the material universe--to be able to sustain us in our activities. And to deny that--that is, to be panicking about every little thing that happens in the material-created universe, is nothing short of a denial or a lack of faith in God's prominence.
He provides.

Now, that doesn't mean, again, that we don't abuse the environment inappropriately.
Not because it's an end in itself. But because when we affect the environment, we affect other human beings. So, what we do to the environment, we have a proper moral outlook on it--not for the sake of the environment, but because of the effect it has on other human beings. So, you don't pollute the environment in a way that's going to have a very adverse effect on human beings.
But at the same time, God still intended for us to use the environment for our benefit.
So we have to have a proper balance, which is moderated according to prudence and according to virtue, which seems to be in short supply these days.

Here is the entire sermon of Father Ripperger:

For further reading, I would like to recommend some items mentioned by a long-time online associate, james03.  I mentioned him over at Te Deum, a new lively forum that I've been frequenting.

James03 is in the middle of being blackballed by moderation staff over at the Echo Chamber, but in spite of their squealing emotional noise, he manages to put out a few good points of consideration.  I list them here for you readers to investigate at your leisure:

1. The Upside down Tiljander.

2. Graybill and strip barked tree ring chronologies. Dendro scientists warn not to use them due to increased growth from CO2 fertilization, thus making them a poor temp proxy.

3. The Lonely yamal tree.

4. Law Dome (excellent proxy again showing the medieval warm period, but left out of studies).

5. Climategate.

6. Hide the Decline: proxies that showed an hockeystick diverged significantly from some temperature data showing they were poor proxies for temperature. Sure enough, they were used to get the hockey stick.

7. Satellite data such as RSS vs. "adjusted" data. The divergence between very accurate satellite data and "adjusted" land data is getting pretty dramatic.

8. Urban Heat Island effect.

9. Weather station siting. Putting your temperature recorder in the middle of a runway is not a good idea. This was not intentional fraud, but once discovered, the data should be kicked.

10. Archaeological evidence such as Greenland. Also rare photos from the 30s showing the Arctic with little sea ice.

Tuesday, December 30, 2014

We as a People: Part Two

America is the Roman Empire.

I want to give an excited endorsement to a particular passage I've been directed to. The parallels between the fall of Rome and America's decline are chilling. But consider John G. Sheppard's book, The Fall of Rome and the Rise of New Nationalities. Here, we read "a passage in which he transfers the whole comi-tragedy from Italy of old to England in 1861."
But in order to convey to the uninitiated some idea of th estate of society under Caesarian rule, and which a Caesarian rule, so far as mere government is concerned, if it does not produce, has never shewn any tendency to prevent, let us give reins to imagination for a moment, and picture to ourselves a few social and political analogies in our own England of the nineteenth century.

An entire revolution has taken place in our principles, manners, and form of government. Parliaments, meetings, and all the ordinary expressions of the national will, are no longer in existence, A free press has shared their fate. There is no accredited organ of public opinion ; indeed there is no public opinion to record. Lords and Commons have been swept away, though a number of the richest old gentlemen in London meet daily at Westminster to receive orders from Buckingham Palace. But at the palace itself has broken out one of those sanguinary conspiracies which have of late become unceasing. The last heir of the house of Brunswick is lying dead with a dagger in his heart, and everything is in frightful confusion. The armed force of the capital are of course "masters of the situation," and the Guards, after a tumultuous meeting at Windsor or Knightsbridge, have sold the throne to Baron Rothschild, for a handsome donation of £25 a-piece. Lord Clyde, however, we may be sure, is not likely to stand this, and in a few months will be marching upon London at the head of the Indian Army. In the mean time the Channel Fleet has declared for its own commander, has seized upon Plymouth and Portsmouth, and intends to starve the metropolis by stopping the imports of " bread-stuffs " at the mouth of the Thames. And this has become quite possible ; for half the population of London, under the present state of things, subsist upon free distributions of corn dispensed by the occupant of the throne for the time being.

But a more fatal change than even this has come over the population of the capital and of the whole country. The free citizens and apprentices of London ; the sturdy labourers of Dorsetshire and the eastern counties; and the skilful artizans of Manchester, Sheffield and Birmingham; the mariners and shipwrights of Liverpool, have been long ago drafted into marching regiments, and have left their bones to bleach beneath Indian suns and Polar snows. Their place has been supplied by countless herds of negro slaves, who till the fields and crowd the workshops of our towns, to the entire exclusion of free labour ; for the free population, or rather the miserable relics of them, disdain all manual employment : they divide their time between starvation and a degrading debauchery, the means for which are sedulously provided by the government. The time-honoured institutions of the bull-bait, the cockpit, and the ring, are in daily operation, under the most distinguished patronage. Hyde Park has been converted into a gigantic arena, where criminals from Newgate " set-to " with the animals from the Zoological Gardens. Every fortnight there is a Derby Day, and the whole population pour into the Downs with frantic excitement, leaving the city to the slaves.

And then the moral condition of this immense mass ! Of the doings about the palace we should be sorry to speak. But the lady patronesses of Almack's still more assiduously patronize the prize-fights, and one of them has been seen within the ropes, in battle array, by the side of Sayers himself. No tongue may tell the orgies enacted, with the aid of French cooks, Italian singers, and foreign artists of all sorts, in the gilded saloons of Park Lane and Mayfair. Suflfice to say, that in them the worst passions of human nature have full swing, unmodified by any thought of human or divine restraints, and only dashed a little now and then by the apprehension that the slaves may rise, and make a clean sweep of the metropolis with fire and steel. But n'importe — Vive la bagatelle ! Mario has just been appointed prime minister, and has made a chorus singer from the Opera Duke of Middlesex and Governor-General of India.

All wise men and all good men despair of the state, but they are not permitted to say anything, much less to act. Mr. Disraeli lost his head a few days ago ; Lords Palmerston and Derby lie in the Tower under sentence of death ; Lord Brougham, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Mr. Gladstone, opened their veins and died in a warm bath last week.

Foreign relations will make a still greater demand on the reader's imagination. We must conceive of England no longer as

" A precious stone set in the silver sea,
Which serves it in the office of a wall,
Or as a moat defensive of a house."

but rather as open to the inroad of every foe whom her aggressive and colonizing genius has provoked. The red man of the West, the Caffre, the Sikh, and the Sepoy, Chinese braves, and fierce orientals of all sorts, are hovering on her frontiers in "numbers numberless," as the flakes of snow in the northern winter. They are not the impotent enemy which we know, but vigorous races, supplied from inexhaustible founts of population, and animated by an insatiate appetite for the gold and silver, purple and fine linen, rich meats and intoxicating drinks of our effete civilization. And we can no longer oppose them with those victorious legions which have fought and conquered in all regions of the world. The men of Waterloo and Inkermann are no more. We are compelled to recruit our armies from those very tribes before whose swords we are receding !

Doubtless the ordinary reader will believe this picture to be overcharged, drawn with manifest exaggeration, and somewhat questionable taste. Every single statement which it contains may be paralleled by the circumstances and events of the decadence of the Roman Empire. [...].
Mr. Sheppard should have added, to make the picture complete, that the Irish have just established popery across St. George's Channel, by the aid of re-immigrants from America; that Free Kirk and National Kirk are carrying on a sanguinary civil war in Scotland ; that the Devonshire Wesleyans have just sacked Exeter cathedral, and murdered the Bishop at the altar, while the Bishop of London, supported by the Jews and the rich churchmen (who are all mixed up in financial operations with Baron Rothschild) has just commanded all Dissenters to leave the metropolis within three days, under pain of death.

I must add yet one more feature to this fearful, but accurate picture, and say how, a few generations forward, an even uglier thing would be seen. The English aristocracy would have been absorbed by foreign adventurers. The grandchildren of these slaves and mercenaries would be holding the highest offices in the state and the army, naming themselves after the masters who had freed them, or disguising their barbarian names by English endings. The De Fung-Chowvilles would be Dukes, the Little-grizzly-bear-Joe-Smiths Earls, and the Fitz-Stanleysons, descended from a king of the gipsies who enlisted to avoid transportation, and in due time became Commander-in-Chief, would rule at Knowsley in place of the Earl of Derby, having inherited the same by the summary process of assassination. Beggars on horseback, only too literally; married, most of them, to Englishwomen of the highest rank ; but looking on England merely as a prey ; without patriotism, without principle ; they would destroy the old aristocracy by legal murders, grind the people, fight against their yet barbarian cousins outside, as long as they were in luck : but the moment the luck turned against them, would call in those barbarian cousins to help them, and invade England every ten years with heathen hordes, armed no more with tulwar and matchlock, but with Enfield rifle and Whitworth cannon.

And that, it must be agreed, would be about the last phase of the British empire. If you will look through the names which figure in the high places of the Roman empire, during the fourth and fifth centuries, you will see how few of them are really Roman. If you will try to investigate, not their genealogies — for they have none — not a grandfather among them — but the few facts of their lives which have come down to us ; you will see how that Nemesis had fallen on her which must at last fall on every nation which attempts to establish itself on slavery as a legal basis. Rome had become the slave of her own slaves
This passage inspires me to return to Edward Gibbon's Fall of Rome.  If only I had the time.

Climategate Pope, Metropolis Conduct, The Parasite, Breaking Bad

Pope Francis and Climategate

Irreparable harm has been done upon the latest generations of people by Al Gore and his comedy "An Inconvenient Truth."

There's oodles of evidence that the numbers supporting man-made global warming have been fraudulently tampered with. But if you bring these things to the attention of the "believers," they will gloss right over any evidence you put forward.

What new madness will spawn if the Church appears to officially accept the cult of earth worship?  Imagine a man three times worse than Pope Francis talking about the importance of controlling family size for the sake of not hurting poor nations via carbon footprints.

Listen to this praise given to communist China, a nation with the biggest "carbon footprint" of them all. (And yet, it is you sick filthy Americans who are to blame for "hurting poor countries" with your materialist pollution.)
"China has contributed significantly to the earth's wealfare by successfully curbing its population growth and energy and resource consumption." 
-Rajendra Pachauri
Carbon dioxide, labelled a pollutant, is what you exhale. Your breath is a pollutant. You better do something about that, earth-worshipers.

What percentage of the Earth's atmosphere is carbon dioxide? 0.039%.   So, what could be causing "global warming?" The sun. And God.

Satellite measurements of global temperature began in 1979. There has been no significant increase in temperature since then. In fact, there was actually a brief period of cooling in the 1970's, and so you had the man-made global cooling scare of that decade.
"If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but 11 degrees colder by the year 2000"
-Kenneth E.F. Watt at the University of California in 1970
Can we not learn from the past?

The U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change quietly downgraded the warming it expected in the 30 years following 1995.  Argo temperature probes have not detected any increased ocean temperatures since at least 2005.

Why is it that when I mention things such as Pacific Decadal Oscillation and other arcane mystical (scientific) things, people just blow it off?  I only hear crickets.

Instead, I've witnessed my debate opponents make ad hominem attacks or they work to ostracize people. Another logical fallacy that I typically witness in such arguments as this is that people make an appeal to authority.  But just because a prominent person might be inclined to continue the comedic lie of "man-made global climate change" --this does not mean that the fad is true.

As I read earlier this week: "[G]roupthink causes some questions not to be asked, and some answers not to be overly scrutinized."

In regards to my concerns about Pope Francis' upcoming encyclical, fellow Catholics might argue that practitioners of conservatism, such as myself, do not want to conserve anything, and that we just want to free "the world from the authority of the Church on anything but the most abstract and metaphysical matters."

This is wrong.

I would like to conserve the integrity and full majesty and honor of the papal office. I would like for our Christian leaders to retain their dignity in the face of a hysteria-driven trend that favors junk science. We have had popes that once scorned the evil inclinations of the world. But these days, we have popes who court and strive to win the approval of Christendom's enemies.

Shall I be expected to go to a mosque this week to pray with Muslims? After all, the Holy Father does just that, and aren't you to follow his lead?

I hope that Pope Francis will not declare man-made climate change as doctrinal truth. That would be disastrous. There's a great amount of information available to everyone that disproves it.

There's nothing wrong with keeping things clean and tidy. I'm proud that The United States is a clean nation. Our air over here is quite fresh. You tend to appreciate that when you visit 3rd World tropical nations.

However, again, there's far more important things for the pope to focus on.

Big City Politeness

Someone at Cathinfo brought up the fact that people in the megalopolis of southern California are a bit ruder than other less occupied spaces in the United States.

Such is the nature of gigantic megalopolises. When you cram that many people together, they adapt themselves for survival. There are many different cultures living around there, and it's like putting cats and dogs together and expecting them to behave. Nonsense, I say.

The Californians my family and I visited this year were were gracious and kind to us. But I'm sure that coming across southern Californian people in commutes is a different matter altogether. I hate LA traffic.  I do not begrudge these people for their survival-based public attitude. If I had to live in New York City for two years, I'm certain I would evolve my attitude much differently from my laid-back and more accommodating public face.


Zostrianos, over at Te Deum, likened the Parasite to a harmless old woman behind a keyboard who is unjustly demonized. Just a harmless Canadian grandmother, nothing more.

I have already given an account of how that woman stirs up the zeitgeist in the childish-minded people who are illiterate, emotional, and unable to critically think for themselves. She has quite a Jewish talent for inciting people who are in the right position to take unwarranted action against people she enjoys passively-aggressively screwing with. Read the details of one of her treacheries here, at my blog post titled: The Echo Chamber's Fears of Honesty and Atheist Confrontations

This woman has lied. She has perpetuated a lie that I am intent on killing atheists.

When The Parasite is not lying and stirring up groupthink among the people she brown-noses, she'll be supporting transvestites in one instance, and totally renounce her stance months later if it will earn her brownie points with her new host victim.

She is a meddler. She is poisonous. She is a feeder of bad ideas. As I've said before, her "reputation for getting people ostracized from groups is well known," and she "destroys friendships and associations." She will talk about people. She will make false dichotomies. She is versed in the art of subtle self-righteous posturing. She creates strife. She lends credence to calumniators, but she will always be careful not to calumniate; she is always happy to ride the coattails of people who attack her opponents. She is a spiteful brown-noser. She will satanically "mix sound words with slithery nasty contortions of the truth."

She is venom for a community. Poisonous venom. She has not learned a single thing about how to stop being this way in the five years I've witnessed her machinations since Fisheaters. It is sad and pitiable that the moderators of The Echo Chamber were unable to spot this kind of a fox in the henhouse.

Zostrianos, I don't care if you think she's some sort of helpless old woman behind a keyboard somewhere. Women attack by proxy. They get others to do their sick wicked work for them. It happens all the time. It's sad that the moderators of the other place are too beta to see this for themselves.

Breaking Bad

Special thanks to Davis M.J. Aurini (an awesome vlogger who I enjoy) for pointing out my new favorite episode of Breaking Bad.  It is episode nine of season two: 4 Days Out.  In this episode, Walter White manages to build a battery out of meth chemicals in order to charge up the Winnebago, which stalled on them far out in the New Mexican wilderness.  Very cool.  Good find, Aurini.

Monday, December 29, 2014

Pope Francis Goes Environmental

Unsurprisingly, our Jesuit Pope wants to tackle environmentalism.

It's not so much that Pope Francis is preaching about the environment, as it is that he's wrong. And it's not so much that Pope Francis is wrong, as it is that he's siding with Gaia-worshiping communists. And it's not so much that Pope Francis is siding with Gaia-worshiping communists as it is that there is so much more wrong and in need of his attention.

For example, Pope Francis really ought to backtrack a little, and make a correction about that Synod on family life he set up. Rather than pouring out attention to sexual deviants and "aberrant fathers and men who eschew fatherhood altogether," he could instead lend his support to earnest family men "who toil in an unfeeling culture as they love their wives and children."

Or, he could just call on a crusade of privately funded men to go to the Middle East to fight ISIS.

Or, he could consecrate Russia to Mary's Immaculate Heart.

Or, he could push for the statue of Our Lady of America to have a procession into America's National Shrine.

Myself, I thought he would be more concerned with the Iraqi Christian children who are getting dissected for their organs while they are still alive.

But hey. Divorced couples, Cuba, environmentalism...a man has to have his priorities. I guess the Iraqi Genocide can wait.

Are people supposed to be good stewards of the environment? Yes.  But a few questions must be asked when it comes to "climate change."

Do we know what is causing the weather to act the way it does? No.

There is no evidence for man-made global climate change. Scientists will argue "a consensus has been made," but a consensus is not science.

Another question that arises: Who is this pope directing his words to? The Philippines? Now, that's a dirty country. They need to learn to collectively stop littering, find a constructive place to put their trash, and they need some sort of emissions regulations for their vehicles. The smog in Cebu City is terrible. Or perhaps Pope Francis will be talking about Beijing, China? Of course, these places are only suffering local pollution issues. But no; it is said that this pope will address "man-made global climate change," which, again, is a dubious religion at this point.

Will Pope Francis be addressing America with this future encyclical? I hope not. We are far cleaner than the Philippines or China. I hear that most of Europe is also a tidy clean place.

If Pope Francis is addressing 3rd World polluting nations, then why is he picking on the poor who he is always trying to speak up for?

What bearing does this subject have on anyone's soul? Are souls salting the mountains of Hell because they are contributing to "man-made global climate change?"

And finally, if this has nothing to do with our souls, then is this really a judicious and wise use of the pope's time and attention? I thought he was going to "clean house" in the Vatican. But all I've witnessed is Pope Francis kicking out conservative cardinals.

How will Pope Francis talking about weather changes caused by our evil cars and our evil coal plants have any bearing whatsoever on someone seeking out the Lord?  I do not see how climate change or the condition of our individual souls are related in any way. Man-made climate change meets a man's search for faith? I just don't see it.

Tonight, I was told that the rich are ruining the world for the poor via man-made global climate change.

This is a laughable premise that is based on the axiom that climate change is caused by man.  This axiom is false, and Pope Francis' next encyclical may be based on this false axiom.  

Let's look at a hole in the climate change argument.

Recently, NASA tried to come out with a computer model showing a whole bunch of carbon being emitted from Western Countries in the Northern Hemisphere. Laughably, NASA's brand new Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO-2) has demonstrated that there's actually tons of CO2 emissions from the largely non-industrial southern hemisphere. All of the CO2 is actually coming from rainforests.

So, if it's the rainforests that are hurting poor people, hopefully Pope Francis will speak out for deforestation in the Southern Hemisphere in his new encyclical.

What NASA computers projected our carbon output would be.

Actual global carbon dioxide output, as measured by the Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2  

Notice all of the carbon dioxide in the Southern Hemisphere that is NOT being produced by Western nations

Climategate is rife with lies.  Consider that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has fudged a lot of numbers, substituting real temperature data with fabricated computer model numbers.

Wouldn't it be a good idea to--before settling on this man-made climate change assumption--to address a few things, like NOAA, OCO-2 sattelite readings, fraud on the part of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Argo temperature probes, and other such science-sounding things that seem to point away from the idea of man-made global climate change?

Man-made global climate change is unproven at best, and wrong at worst. And the Pope is about to tell us about how we should accept it as a fact.

I am discussing man-made global climate change, which is a silly religion.

However, it is perfectly acceptable to speak out against real pollution. Last I heard, the Pacific Ocean is a sea of trash, Fukushima radiation is washing up on our shores from Alaska to northern California, Chinese smog can be cut with a knife, there are lakes of spilled oil in Africa, and Southeast Asia can be rather litter-filled. Local or regional pollution is a very real thing, for sure. I'm all for conservation, and I'm a big fan of our national parks. Might I add that hunters, in fact, are the best conservationists out there?

It amuses me that people can just skim over things like NGO fraud, rising sea ice, WHO exaggerations about "climate deaths," Hadcrut temperature monitoring, record food production, studies on Pacific atmosphere controls, and other magical science things, and just accept the man-made-global-climate-change premise anyway, and simply skip to attacking a critic as a "climate change denier."

Alas, arguments about the validity of Climategate shall arise in these pitiable times.  And sadly, a drumbeat of lies will win the day with the collective masses.

Irreparable harm has been done upon the latest generations of people by Al Gore and his comedy "An Inconvenient Truth."  There's oodles of evidence that the numbers (supporting man-made global warming) have been fraudulently tampered with.  But if you bring these things to the attention of the "believers," they will gloss right over any evidence you put forward.

Consider what new madness will spawn if the Church appears to officially accept the cult of earth worship.  Imagine a man three times worse than Pope Francis talking about the importance of controlling family size for the sake of not hurting poor nations via carbon footprints.

For further consideration about Earthkult, I present to you this investigation put together by ChurchMilitantTV, back in the day when it was allowed to call itself RealCatholicTV:

Tuesday, December 23, 2014

Talking About Ethnic Groups Versus Talking About Individuals

My conversation with Vox at Fisheaters continued today.

When it comes to race talk, it is important to not compare apples to oranges.

I like the idea of a Catholic utopia. Sure, it's a fine idea that one day there would be a truly universal stretch of real estate where people could live, be Catholic, and not care about each other's ethnicity. Heck, there was even a thread on Fisheaters where I advocated the creation of a Catholic ghetto, but that thread of conversation didn't go on for very long.

Now, when I talk about the reality of racial politics and sociology--when I am looking at collections of people and playing The Anthropologist--that does not mean that I'm saying blacks or other races are stupid, and in every single person's life, they need to go out of their way and treat individual black people or whoever like a piece of crap. I'm not saying, "Go out and kick a brother."

Of course, on individual levels, be polite and respectful to others, no matter what ethnicity. That goes without saying. And people often can't get past that part in a discussion like this.

But when you talk about large numbers of people, you are talking about a whole other animal right there.  You are talking about a collective.  And in terms of such conversations, I refuse to be silenced from talking about the matter. Most SWPL liberal whites fear to tread into this kind of discussion. But frankly, I'm tired of it.

Vox, today you implied that talking about race will turn people away from my message. But I have found that talking about race actually attracts people's attention, because a lot of whites in this country as well as Europe are tired of being silent about this matter. If you look at our recent threads about Europe, you see handfuls of marches for Nationalism. In fact, if you take a look at where Dr. David Duke's latest speaking engagements have been, you will see that he has done a lot of talks over in Europe, and not America.

People are becoming eager to talk about race and how bad the Diversity Experiment has ruined their culture. Multiculturalism is just more of the same Marxism that has been shoved down our throats for the entirety of the 20th Century.

And even yesterday's post, which included much of what I said about segregation, earned a higher visitor stats than the average blog post.

I believe that the only people I turn off when mentioning race in my first sentence are the people who are afraid to talk about it. And ultimately, when talking about race, why would I want to converse with folks who are afraid to talk about it? I just don't think such a conversation would go anywhere.

You presented an article about liberal academia that states:  "[G]roupthink causes some questions not to be asked, and some answers not to be overly scrutinized" (hello Echo Chamber).

Fortunately, we are on the internet, and we are not in liberal academia. Here, we can talk about such things, and have those fabled "dialogues about race" that Attorney General Eric Holder says we ought to have.

"People feel uncomfortable talking about racial issues out of fear that if they express things, they will be characterized in a way that's not fair. I think that there is still a need for a dialogue about things racial that we've not engaged in."
Attorney General Eric Holder

Monday, December 22, 2014

Cubans Become Traditionalists, Catholic Media: Enter the Manosphere!, Segregation and Integration

Cubans Sound Like Traditionalist Catholics

Consider the following statements about Pope Francis in the past few days:
"I'm still Catholic till the day I die, but I am a Catholic without a pope."
"The church is contaminated."
"I don't know what the pope was thinking. I see a certain naivete in the pope."
"His Holiness [should] take up the cause of freedom and democracy."  (As opposed to...Marxism?)
"He's trying to get a legacy at any price."
"He wants to be everywhere, he wants to be liked by everyone.  That's his job to be a peace guy, but it doesn't accomplish a damn thing..."
What makes all of this hilarious is the fact that none of this is being spouted off by your usual suspects [us Traditionalists in the States or Europe]. This is being said about the pontiff BY CUBANS.

They are on the receiving end of meddling on the part of the Vatican in Cuba's affairs. After 50 years of trying to control Cuban communism, America, with the help of the Vatican, has thrown up its hands and said, "Screw it! We were wrong!"

At first, I thought that the opening of relations with Cuba was no big deal. But the more I explore this issue, the more I begin to fall on the side of Cuban refugees who have maintained their faith IN SPITE of communist Cuba, and who will hopefully continue to keep their faith IN SPITE of Pope Francis.

A historian, Jesus Mendez says: "[Pope Francis is] very concerned over the decline of Catholic fervor, primarily in Europe but also even in the United States and Canada, so of course he sees it important to have a high profile for the Catholic Church in Cuba."

I find this statement to be hilarious and pathetic. Quite short sighted. If anything, this recent action by America and the Vatican has only alienated Cuban Catholics even further from the Church. Just like us Traditionalists.

All of these quotations can be found in this news article, Pope's role in Cuba deal fractures Cuban-American flock.

I guess those Marxists are still dividing the masses, making them weaker and weaker.

Catholic Media: Where To?

When asked in what direction I think Catholic media should go, I say that it ought to delve somewhat into the online manosphere.  There are a ton of men these days who are pretty pissed off at our sick punitive culture against men.

Self-Segregation Will Ultimately Turn to More Integration Into White Neighborhoods

Let's explore a concept, folks.

I've just read John Derbyshire's article, The Cold Civil War: Two Groups Of Whites Fighting Over America, With Minorities On The Sidelines

I am reminded of how this year we went to see the home of my great great grandparents. It was in a white house with a balcony in a little town not too far away. My tribe and I drove that way to get a gander of what our ancestral house looked like. What did we find? To sum it up, "Martin King Jr. Boulevard" was just a few streets away. Some black folks sat on their porches and stared at us as we drove through. Stares of anger and mischief shot right at us. It was a brief visit.

I then asked myself, "I wonder how long until my own neighborhood is overcome by black people?" Twenty five more years? Fifty? Who knows. Probably somewhere around thirty, I'll bet.

As I read John Derbyshire's article, a thought occurred to me. Even if the liberal whites of America and Europe caved in and allowed blacks, whites, and muslims to segregate peacefully and of their own accord, the whites would still lose.

Do you hear me? Even if self-segregation is allowed, whites will still lose. How?

1. First, whites, blacks, and Muslims will all concentrate into their centers of power and form their communities wherever they are.
2. However, blacks typically realize that their neighborhoods and cities are deplorable, and the best of them tend to gradually leave for white enclaves.
3. Whites, mostly liberal and stupid, allow blacks to integrate into their enclaves, and they shout down any other white who has an objection to black incursions.
4. Thus, black integration into white enclaves is allowed, until a few generations pass and the community or city becomes unberable, aka Ferguson, Missouri or Detroit, Michigan.
5. The whites cannot live in these increasingly balkanized places, and so they run off into another suburb or city, starting the process all over again.
6. Ultimately this cycle will repeat over and over, until finally blacks have colonized all of the places where whites formerly lived, and the whites are left with spaces that are desolate, or they are simply bred out due to their contraception.

Thus, blacks have conquered the white man.

As for Muslims, they make incursions into white spaces in the same way as blacks, only their reasoning has the added "benefit" of spreading Islam.

Blight hitting black population centers is a fact that America can easily observe. We turn away from this kind of phenomenon out of willful ignorance.  Everyone should know this, but no one in polite white circles will acknowledge it.  Consider the following article:

The Food Desertization of Ferguson Well Underway: Big Lots Closing Up Shop in 67% Black City

Because of all of this, many of the great cities are now filled with crime and danger, while civilized whites are living in their "pre-fab" McMansions in suburbia. One day, those spaces, too, will be abandoned to the less civilized.

The solution?

I'm afraid hardly anyone in my circles is willing to explore this idea further.

Over at Fisheaters, Vox made the case that it is not Catholic to think in terms of race, but instead, culture. I answered that I do try to regard other races in that manner. I honestly do. Definitely, on an individual level, I can look at a man of another race and value his soul above all the other things about him. However, if you take people collectively and put them into groups, they become something new entirely. That is just an objective fact.

If you do not acknowledge the game you are playing, your opponent will run right over you. Whites might be able to pretend these days that all races are equal, that they have no problems with people of other races. Whites may work to achieve an "I am not racist" mindset. But I assure you of this: every other race doesn't care, and they still look at race honestly.

I suppose these thoughts of mine have developed in the last two years, since the Trayvon Martin incident. But I assure you that I've put a lot of consideration into the matter, and it is not some willy-nilly uneducated prejudice. I still maintain that the souls of men of all races start out equal at birth before the Almighty.

However, biological differences are real. The different races are built differently in both body and mind. God has made us this way. The newest Catechism speaks about how God intentionally makes men different from each other, so that we can compliment one another. So, that's great.

Yet, let's not also forget that for most of history, we did not have instantaneous travel, and people were limited to their communities and territories. Only now can man treat the world like a petri dish and experiment with society in this Malthusian manner.

I wish it were not this way, but an axiom I hear these days rings true in this matter:

Diversity + Proximity = War

I'm sure you've heard that one as well. If not, you will hear it again from someone else besides me.

Call me a racist if you like. I really don't care. I'd technically consider myself a racial realist. Whites will continue to pretend that race does not exist for the most part. Blacks and Hispanics will continue to acknowledge that race is real, and the blacks in particular will continue to rejoice as they push into the social spaces of whites.

And so long as whites continue to pretend this situation does not exist, the more whites will lose.

In contrast to this idea of the white liberal giving away their identity to blacks, let me finish this post with the words of the president of Zimbabwe, who clearly acknowledges race, and plays the game aggressively:

"No white person will be allowed to own land." I'm sure Zimbabwe will become the bread basket of Africa again. You bet.

Sunday, December 21, 2014

Tarpley, A Message to Putin, Converting to the Church, Jews, Nihilism, and Forum Conduct

Webster Tarpley

This man is a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat if ever there was one.  This man is on a mission to destroy the Republican Party, utilizing his superpower of ad hominem attacks.  This commentator is pro-FDR Democrat 1000%.  And when he is not lambasting his hated targets with personal derision, he typically speaks in terms of statistics and material.  Programs and polls.  I do not think that a single thought about the meaning of a civilization has ever entered this man's mind.  I imagine if one were to ask him a handful of religious questions, he would wave it all off, laugh, chuckle, and say such things were opiates for the masses.

I used to enjoy listening to him dissect supranational political news.  These days, however, he is gung ho on pushing for an ever-more socialist nation.

And, in hindsight, I don't think that most people in the United States give a thought to their culture.  People see no ramification in the horrible example presented by our "aristocracy."  And who is the "aristocracy" in our Freemasonic Republic?  Why, Hollywood, pop media stars, and politicians, of course!

For the most part, people just go on with their lives with the attitude, "Live and let live.  He's not hurting me."  And so, you get people like Tarpley who completely miss the mark on many occasions.

My Message to Putin  

Many conservatives are agog about the masculinity that Putin presents on the world stage.  And a lot of conservatives love the fact that he seems to embrace Christianity.  That's nice and all, but let's take a look at the nitty gritty.  He is not completely pro-Christian, in that Catholics are still rather taboo in Russia.  In fact, the Catholic Church in Eastern Ukraine is being sent underground after 25 brief years of freedom.  Catholics are still persecuted from one degree to another under Putin.

So, here is my message:

Dear President Putin,

If you really want to win a lot of fans in the Post Christian West, here is what you should do.

1.  Stop the persecution of Catholics in your territory.
2.  Furthermore, do what you can on your part to bridge the rift between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church.  Put pressure on the Catholic Church to seek unity with the Orthodox.
3.  Finally achieve unity with the Roman Catholic Church by requesting that the Pope and all of the bishops of the Catholic Church consecrate Russian to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.  Doing this will create a sense of awkwardness among liberals here in the West, but they will be forced to comply with your request, and you and your nation will enjoy the confused and dazed attitude of the liberals, while you will win many fans among the non-liberal Roman Catholics.

But remember, you have got to also stop allowing the persecution of Catholics.

Do all of these things, and you will have pulled the rug out from underneath the secular godless powers that oppose you.  By reconciling with the Catholic Church, Russia will win a fan base among the Christian West that will undermine all of the foul cultural leadership that currently oozes across the globe.

Welcoming a New Convert From Protestantism

I was once a Protestant. Southern Baptist, actually. I actually was a fan of John Hagee sermons. But the man spoke with no authority whatsoever. Everything he said was coming from his assumptions and his imagination.

After the guidance of my friend, after reading some Peter Kreeft (and even Fr. Malachi Martin), most of the mysteries that plagued me during Protestantism were solved. Suddenly, I realized that before, my faith was a shallow pond. But with the Universal Church, my faith could become as deep as an ocean. It was all amazing.

Once I announced my conversion, the majority of my family was repulsed. This shocked me. No one had ever expressed disagreement with the Church before. Yet, this was because no one had ever mentioned Catholics before. But suddenly, everyone was showing instantaneous revulsion, and this puzzled me. But then I realized that just as Jesus Christ was despised by the world, so too is His Chuch. The world's hatred for the Catholic Church demonstrates that Jesus' mark is permanently branded upon it.

In regards to seeking out more guidance from the SSPX, I caution you.  The priests are priests, yes. And their Masses are indeed valid. But other sacraments are not recognized due to the SSPX's irregular status.

I want to assure you that no matter how sinful a priest is, no matter how disrespectful the Mass may seem, the Mass is still valid, and the Eucharist is still there. God's Authority overrides all of man's foolishness, and this is a powerful gift to the priesthood.

I enjoy conversing with people in the SSPX, as they are very erudite and knowledgable about the Church's situation in this world. But most Catholic clergy regard them as schismatics. So you must take everything with them with a grain of salt. If possible, I would encourage you to attend an FSSP Mass, or a diocesan Tridentine Latin Mass, if there is one available.

Furthermore, expect condemnation and mockery from many followers of the SSPX as well as sedevacantists. Catholic forums and comment threads are rife with these folks.

Sadly, when you came into the Church, you came in when She was divided into pieces by the Devil. We live in an evil time. Be cautious, be careful, be alert.

(When I came into the Church, the priest pedophilia scandal was fresh in the news headlines. Everyone around me was boggled how I could convert to such an Institution amid such a scandal. But I tried to objectively distinguish facts, and I had to recognize that many priests were abusing the authority and trust given to them. The Institution, however, remains incorrupt and pure. Men should work to attain such purity.)

I do a bit of exploring of the SSPX here:


and here:


I'm quite hard on the sedevacantists, as the sedes will tell you. My take on the SSPX, however, is more light-handed. I see much evidence that shows them to be irregular and to be avoided. But there are still nuggets--powerful kernals--of facts about the SSPX that keep me from being completely dismissive.

Lets not call Jews "Jews"

Jews are tricky.  Often, if you corner them about something they are blamed for historically, they will cry out racism.  Doing this is one of their many nasty tricks.

Consider this scenario. 

I will be talking about how the Jews have been conniving against the Christians with Juilan the Apostate, or I'll discuss how they helped to print Protestant bibles during the Protestant Revolt. Perhaps I'll talk about how the Jews were the main drivers of the slave trade for the Americas, or I might mention about how Jews were selling out Catholic Spain to the Muslims during the struggle with the Umayyad Caliphate.

And then Joe Liberal finds my discussion in a Google search, sees my words, and throws out something like:
"What a racist bigot you are! It's racist bigots like you who need to crawl away and die."
In reality, I am not talking about race at all. I would be discussing the plots and schemes of a prolonged two millenium attack against the followers of Jesus Christ. And this group of people--the followers of their evil school of thought--is the same group of scum who demanded that Jesus' blood be on their heads. 

Currently, I simply call them Judaics.

I've been calling Talmudic Jews Judaics for two to three years now, starting over at Cathinfo. And I would encourage other critics of their satanic cult to do the same.

I recall a woman who once said that, in reality, the term "Jew" is a trumph card that they can use against people to accuse them of racism.

The YouTube Video of her is titled: "It's a Trick, We Always Use It"

Here is a transcript:

“Well, it’s a trick, we always use it. When from Europe somebody is criticizing Israel, then we bring up the Holocaust. When in this country people are criticizing Israel, then they are anti-Semitic. And the [Jewish] organization is strong, and has a lot of money, and the ties between Israel and the American Jewish establishment are very strong and they are strong in this country, as you know. And they have power, which is OK. They are talented people and they have power and money, and the media and other things, and their attitude is ‘Israel, my country right or wrong,’ identification. And they are not ready to hear criticism. And it’s very easy to blame people who criticize certain acts of the Israeli government as anti-Semitic, and to bring up the Holocaust, and the suffering of the Jewish people, and that is justify every- thing we do to the Palestinians.”

I'd just as soon not play their game. Go around their snares and traps. Because when they try to use "Jew" as a racial term, it throws the entire argument off, and they win.

This is because they cannot win against an honest dialectic.

Others have suggested calling them Talmudists, and I am fine with that as well.  

Davis M.J. Aurini's Nihilism

Aurini discusses his nihilism in the video "His Name was Robert Paulson: Fight Club, Nihilism, and The End of History"  Today, I asked him:
Have you ever stopped to consider that not only are we already in such a horrible state as a society--but have you taken it further and considered the possibility that the Almighty has abandoned mankind to his own madness as a form of punishment? (Yes, salvation is possible, but as a collective whole, He just ain't with us as He used to be?)
I wonder if he thinks that God has always abandoned us to this extent.  If so, why such a pessimistic view about God?  If Aurini does not think it was always this way between God and us, then what happened?

I would like to know his thoughts on the matter.

Conduct on Forums

As I look to the future of how I will regard forums, I reflect on the past five years of talking on them, and I recall one strong lesson from all of it: forum members of any forum will not or cannot stand a multi-staged exploration of a topic in a discussion.  You might be able to drag the forum members through a lot of mud, but at best, pulling them through a topic like that will frustrate them, and at worst they will decide they cannot tolerate you as a person and get rid of you.

Most threads on forums are quite short and void of meaning.

Saturday, December 20, 2014

Protestants, Swedish Nationalism, Cuba cont'd, Pope Survey


As they say, wars are caused by religion. False religion, that is.

The Protestant Revolts alone attest to this.

The continuous bloody battles of middle Europe that started in the 14th Century are a direct result of men thirsty to grab power and steal from the Church.

Of course, if you go to Wikipedia and type "Protestant Revolt" in the search engine, you will be redirected to the "ProtestantReformation" page. This trivial fact, of course, plays into the idea that Protestants are shamelessness in rewriting history for their own ends. Western Civilization is now Protestant "Civilization," and so it's only natural that one observes this zeitgeist in all of society's aspects, including Wikipedia.

I've always thought that such shameful acts rank right up there with the idea of Protestant families sending their kids off to the Philippines to convert those silly spiritual blind Filipinos--from Catholicism to Protestantism. Heaven forbid these self-righteous Protestant families go witness to the Muslims. I'm sure heads would roll in such cases.

I really like something that RomanCatholic1953 said over at Cathinfo today. It was about the loss of awe for God in our day and age:
You feel that sanctifying grace is no longer in the church. Just a collection of people meeting at a mason hall once a week.
Amazing. Right on, RomanCatholic1953.

Nationalism in Sweden

I hope something comes of all this nationalistic furor across Europe. My fear is that it will be nothing more than sound and fury, signifying nothing. My hope is that all of this lays the foundation for a counter-revolutaionary movement that will eventually be led by a grand monarch.

More on Cuban Relations

I wonder if this move by Obama, Pope Francis, and Castro is like a slap in the face to the Cubans who escaped that island.

And let's not forget how Obama mocked the previous nine presidents who pursued a "failed policy" with Cuba. I suppose, for Obama, a successful policy would have been to embrace Cuba's communism in the middle of the 20th Century?

Doesn't this move towards shunning past American policy on Cuba help to vindicate Cuban communists?

Consider what Raul Castro's daughter said this week. She stated that Cuba will not be reduced "to being a servile country to hegemonic interests of the most powerful financial groups in the US."

Now you tell me. Does that sound like Cuban officials are now going to be open, welcoming, and friendly to the United States? Or do those words sound like someone who has maintained several generations of bitterness and angst against their enemy?

A Survey About the Pope

Here is a collection of my responses in a survey about Pope Francis:

-The most memorable thing he's done is to throw together this dishonorable Synod that has been attempting to legitimize illegitimate unions and homosexuality.

-The most disappointing thing he's ever done was to say: "Who am I to judge?" The Church's enemies will use that phrase against Her for the rest of time.

-I wish I could tell Pope Francis: "You have not done anything nice for actual Catholics, and you've done a lot of things for the enemies of Catholics. My godless associates and coworkers mock the Church now, more than ever."

-He gets an F-. He does not come off as educated in Church matters in any way. He does not strike me as a man who reads books. He hardly speaks about sin, confession, or the Four Last Things. He completely ignores the history of the Church. He has consistently stepped on the faithful who have steadfastly kept the Faith and Catholic practices.

-I cannot think of a single thing I like about him. His blatant Leftism is surprising to say the least. He has made me glaringly aware that I need to stand up to internecine strife within the Catholic Church.

Because of the lack of leadership coming from the Holy Father, the Church is fracturing now more than ever. I've become painfully aware that I need to stand up to liberal Catholics, as well as schismatics who are leaving the Church in droves due to the hierarchy's leftist departure from Church teaching.

-My greatest hope for Pope Francis is that he will either change his ways and realize the damage he has done to Christ's Spouse, or he will simply do absolutely nothing until his papacy is over. Perhaps in his recklessness, he will accidentally release the 3rd Secret of Fatima.
-This survey is strange. The survey seems to be made by and for liberal Catholics. I could be wrong on this.

Friday, December 19, 2014

Cuba, Confrontations with Atheists

The Pope and Obama: Why Cuba? Why Now?

On the one hand, yes, something needed to be done about Cuba's situation long ago. Cuba's hanging status has been around for a long time, now.

However, this really does seem like low-hanging fruit, as Voxxpopulisuxx said [at the Te Deum Forum]. I suppose the Pope had more important things to do than to address that poor Christian Pakistani couple that directly asked Pope Francis for help. They were burned to death for their religion. Their legs were broken so that they couldn't escape, and the woman was wrapped in cotton so that she would burn faster.

Meanwhile, Pope Francis is one more step towards a Nobel Peace Prize for this thing with Cuba he is doing. Obama wins political points. And somehow, Che Guevara will become ever-more popular in trendy leftist circles.

Is it not possible that only the most corrupt people in Cuba will become enriched when we open the doors? Is it not possible, that though Cuba might become "capitalist," it will still remain an authoritarian regime for decades to come?

Almost all of the Christians in Iraq have been killed and driven away, yet our pope goes after...this?

Confronting Atheists with Rhetoric

For all of my life, I have seen the faithful and their leaders play coy with aggressive hostile faithless men. Most often, soft Christians are yelled down, and the Christian will just calmly say "I will pray for their soul."

Just what in the world is wrong with a robust masculine approach to the kinds of bullying tactics I am speaking about?

Illiterate morons will think I'm discussing using violence. But if you pay attention for a minute--if you read sentences--you will see that I am suggesting a strong reproach to aggressive atheist pressure in the public sphere.

This implies returning rhetoric with rhetoric.

You cannot battle rhetoric with dialectic. You already lose in a confrontation from the very beginning if you do that. The kinds of hostile atheists I am referring to are not interested in reasoning with you. They are interested in shouting you down and disqualifying you.

And now, I ask you to consider the advice a favorite blogger of mine (in his instance, he discusses Gamergate):

...[The Social Justice Warrior] side is not reasonable and is never going to be convinced by sweet reason. They have no interest in it and little capacity for it.

This is the same divide between dialectic and rhetoric that I keep pointing out to everyone. You do NOT fight a rhetorical battle with dialectic; in a rhetorical battle the only use for dialectic is in a rhetorical manner; it can be used to explode pseudo-dialectic poses, but that is the extent of its effectiveness. It is an intrinsically defensive weapon on the rhetorical level. This means you cannot win with it. 
The primary difference between the Left and the Right is that the Left instinctively defends its extremists and the Right instinctively runs from them and leaves them out to dry. The latter is an appeasement strategy, and it works about as well as the infamous failures of appeasement we all know from history. 
All appeasement does is signal to the SJW what buttons he needs to push in order to force an opponent to retreat. When you dutifully point out that "you don't agree with everything X says" or "don’t include the sexists, the woman haters and those who argue in bad faith", what you are accomplishing is not the inoculation of your argument from their extremist taint, you are telling the SJW exactly how he can rhetorically defeat you by painting you as the very sort of extremist you disavow. And remember, rhetorical victory is the entirety of their objective! 
Embrace the extremists. Defend them. Refuse to permit them to be cut off and isolated. Allow them to play their role as the intellectual shock troops they are. That is how you win. Because if they're not taking the incoming fire, you are. And the shock troops are much better equipped psychologically to take it and survive than the average self-styled moderate.
The above seems like sound advice. And in my opinion, if Christians had aggressively met hostile godless subversives in the public sphere years ago, we would not have statues of Lucifer being built for state capitals today.

As Vox Day says, distancing ourselves from more distasteful examples in our movement only serves to break us apart in front of our enemies. We should defend the so-called "extremists," and further, we should verbally pour out our rhetoric--our contempt--towards the opponent and argue that our cause is completely righteous and nothing to be embarrassed over.

Again, I am not arguing for the use of violence. Everyone who suggests that is what I am saying is guilty of calumny.

Rather, I endorse standing up to the hostile faithless quite more often than we have been. You might not win over the godless person you are publicly confronting, but I assure you that many many people will be watching you put up the good fight. It is the spectators who you are truly talking to. Not the bitter social justice warrior.

Thursday, December 18, 2014

Jeb, Christmas, Outer Space, and European Nationalism

Jeb Bush wants to run for President.

Madness. This is why I see no point in voting any longer. Just look at the recent midterm victory. Repukes take everything, and they still caved on the massive spending bill that followed. The Republican Party is not going to save this country.

Repukes are the party of cowardice and slow death. They are the 21st Century Mensheviks.

I have a friend who gets livid when I tell him I stopped voting. He states that I am somehow a part of the problem. I could show him countless examples of when the GOP betrayed its constituency, yet I'm supposed to vote for them?!?

America is a junkie that needs to hit rock bottom before it can go anywhere else. And besides, half of this country voted for the immigrant president. Twice. Is such a place and system--are such a people--even worth saving? I think not.

In short, Jeb's a cruel joke.

Christmas with Family

So, many schedules aren't meshing for my family this Christmas Eve--the night that most of the family celebrates Christmas. This has frustrated a relative to no end. I put out the option of celebrating on the Twelfth day of Christmas, the Epiphany. My relative said "no," complaining that was too Catholic.

This has made me painfully aware of just how much the Coca-Cola Company, Macy's, and the US Congress' placement of Thanksgiving has shaped the idea of Christmas for most people.

Deep Space

Voyager I is still doing work for us, detecting a tsunami wave that flies through interstellar space.

Space exploration is fantastic and awesome, and I'm grateful that God has allowed us to dare to do what we have done in regards to outer space.

And on that note, we finally FINALLY get to see Pluto this next year. I wonder. If they discover that Pluto has an atmosphere, will it be a planet again?

Rebirth of European Nationalism

I say, thank God. Though, it's probably too little too late. A return to appreciating your own countrymen and rejecting multiculturalism is just what the doctor ordered. Unfortunately, this little uprising is not enough to stop the economic and societal collapse that's about to happen.

Wednesday, December 17, 2014

We As a People: Part One

Thought for the day.

If you are living in a country in which 50% voted for the Immigrant President, is it still a country worth saving?

America is a junkie that needs to hit rock bottom before it can clean up.

Sunday, December 14, 2014

The Echo Chamber's Fears of Honesty and Atheist Confrontations

The Christians are losing. The Church is laughed at and mocked. Godlessness, and thus the Evil One, is winning almost every temporal battle.

At every turn the enemies of Creation are winning new ground. Catholics ought to know this.

But if Catholics are truly aware of this problem, why is nothing being done to combat evil? Here in the West, Christians have a direct and obvious ideological enemy: militant hostile atheists. And yet, these out and loud enemies of Christ are hardly ever taken to task.

And so, Lucifer gains more ground.

Since I am interested in making Catholics become aware of their own apathy, I began a thread this week that addressed this problem over at Suscipe Domine The Echo Chamber. I have since been banned.

Raising awareness of confrontations with atheists is too much for the "too long, didn't read it" leadership of The Echo Chamber, and so I was deemed unfit to remain in their company.

This blog post is therefore the third and final installment following my ban from the Catholic forum, Suscipe Domine. Here, I shall explain the order of events of the final thread I created which irked the illiterates of The Echo Chamber.

So, what happened in that post? There are many people who are banned from that forum who might not have access to the forum's otherwise public discussion threads.

I began by stating objective truth that every Catholic involved in social media should be aware of:

Atheists are vile, loud, and quite emboldened in this age of Satan, their lord.
In every encounter I've had with them, there has been absolutely no communication, and I've received nothing but complete disrespect from them.
I have never seen such massive quantities of people thirst for Hell so badly, and I'm sure that a great deal of them would violently slaughter Christ Himself if they got a chance, such is their hatred for everything good.
As we observe these lunatics--ungrateful for their own creation--bumbling madly through their short and wasted lives, on a path straight towards the gaping throat of Hell, I find myself drawing a blank when it comes time to say anything whatsoever to these people.
There is no meeting in the middle. There is no giving the benefit of the doubt. These people have chosen to be the enemies of Creation.
And so, I figured I'd ask if any of you have had any dealings with them in a confrontation about religion. What do you do when you come across such individuals? 
While the words are strong, these statements ought not be objectionable to any Catholic. They are as true as the sky is blue. I list the qualities of the 21st Century atheist, and then I turn to the forum to ask what they do when confronted with these kinds of people. 

Generating an awareness for these kinds of battles is the first intended part of this conversation. It never got beyond that, however.
One person was quick to respond.
LausTibiChriste's First Response
LausTibiChriste read that original post, mockingly asked if I'm "smoking something," self-righteously proclaimed how he treats atheists with respect (as does Pope Francis!), and then upbraided me and said I should "not sit here and rave like a lunatic about how evil they are."
His response was ridiculous. His first sentence was an insult, so I could safely conclude he meant no respect towards anything I was trying to say. He is fair game for debating, as far as I was concerned. And his blindness towards the problems Catholics have with atheist cultural incursions is glaring and in dire need for correction.

I returned his strong words with my strong words:
How fun. What an interesting perspective.
Also fun is how you consider my description of your typical vocal atheist as "raving like a lunatic."
These people have had ample opportunity to consider Christianity, and collectively speaking, they reject it in spades.
I truly don't think you get out much. If you do, I am disturbed by how softly you accept their Satanic hatred for Creation.
Remember, folks! Don't "sit there and rave like a lunatic at them!" Instead, treat them with respect! Because they've definitely earned it, haven't they? 
A reasonable return. Just listen to how ridiculous he sounds. Treat atheists with respect? How about if they're cussing at you and cussing the Church? Should you give more ground to their insults? Does LausTibiChriste think that giving a raging atheist another inch will somehow soften their hatred for you as a Christian? No. Giving any ground will only cause them to smell weakness and embolden them. 
I then quoted an atheist, Sam Harris:
"Some beliefs are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them."
Surely, I thought, this example of Sam Harris' atheist hate and desire to kill off Christians would show LausTibiChriste that atheists can be very intolerant and wicked.
At that point in the thread, I wanted to introduce (but never got to fully discuss) an idea: Catholics should be unafraid to aggressively confront atheists in confrontations. To perhaps help him see where I wanted to go with the dialogue, I quoted Saint Nicholas when he mocked the cult of Artemis:
In the spirit of the season, let's recall what St. Nicholas said to the cult of Artemis:
"Go to Hell's fire, which has been lit for you by the Devil."
But oh, no! Not you guys! You be respectful, else you're a raving lunatic. 
I had hoped that by showing how LausTibiChriste sounded, by showing him Sam Harris' desire to kill Christians, and showing how St. Nicholas handled non-believers, that perhaps he would back down from being insulting and to reconsider what I was saying. 

LausTibiChriste's Second Response
After one of the forum members gave an honest account of how he dealt with atheists, LausTibiChriste replied.

Again, he mockingly asked if I was smoking something. He then had 4 points.

Second Response, Point 1
(1) Have you stepped out into the world lately? Given the state of the Church and how little the Church as a whole cares about converting those without the Faith I'd argue they really haven't had a good chance to embrace Catholicism. You've clearly met a bunch of Richard Dawkins type folks, because most people I've met who are "atheists" don't have any reason for their beliefs, they don't even care - they just look at Christianity today and think it's completely f***ed up and there's no way Truth could come of it. They don't sit there formulating logical arguments as to why God doesn't exist...they go to work, come home, eat, play with their kids etc. But when the conciliar Church is what it is, you can hardly blame them for looking at it and thinking it's nonsense. That's where you come in Laramie - open their eyes to the Truth...with compassion (as much as I hate that word) because a forceful, threatening demeanor is just going to harden the views they already hold....let's face it, you can sit here raving about how we should kill all atheists, or you can sit down with them over a cup of coffee and open their eyes to the Truth. You decide. 

In this first point, he rambles about how the Church doesn't care about converting people. But my original post had nothing to do with how the Church goes about converting people. I specifically was asking people how they handled encounters with atheists.

He then becomes a sort of apologist for atheists, as if they were victimized and forced into their decision to deny Christ and despise Christianity. Yes, Richard Dawkins is an extreme example of public hatred towards us, but only because he has more ability and the means to make his points known.

He then concludes by telling me that I am forceful, threatening, and raving that I want to kill all of the atheists. This is so very wrong. I never once said that I wanted to kill atheists. I said that the atheist Sam Harris wants to kill Christians. Furthermore, I never implied that Catholics should be forceful, threatening, and raving. And if LausTibiChriste thought that the original thread post was how I would approach atheists, he was quite wrong. The original thread post was typed out for the members of The Echo Chamber, and not for atheists.

This demonstrates, once again, the lack of reading comprehension that I have become accustomed to from SD.

Second Response, Point 2
His second point:

(2) I do get out much - a lot more than you do by the sounds of things. I've been all over the world (60+ countries at last count), worked a few unique jobs and have friends who are atheists (including a brother who is vehemently so)/agnostics/buddhists, an aunt who is Hindu...and you know what I learned? Sitting there bitching about how wrong they are and how logical Catholicism is will get you no where. In fact it'll (in my experience) drive them further away from Catholicism...but my all means Laramie, since you get out so much more than I do, enlighten me.
So, here he implies that I'm some sort of shut in. Laughable.

He then boasts about aaaaaallllll of his worldly travels and intercultural experience. And he mentions Buddhists and Hindus, even though I started a conversation about atheists, and not various false religions.

He then concludes that my approach (I suppose in addition to being forceful, threatening, and raving?) is to "bitch" about how wrong my opponents are. I find this so strange. I was banned from The Echo Chamber before I was ever able to go into any kind of meaningful depth about how to approach atheists. And yet, here LausTibiChriste boldly ASSERTS FOR THE SECOND TIME about how I want to address atheists.

Second Response, Point 3
His third point:

(3) I do not accept their disbelief at all, you're clearly misreading what I am saying. What I am against is railing against your average, normal joe who doesn't believe in God. You're not going to convert him like that. I have no place for disbelieving the truths of our Faith, but our mission is to convert these people, not burn them at the stake.
THIS IS THE THIRD TIME HE'S DONE IT, NOW. Three times, LausTibiChriste has presumed that I am advocating "railing against your average, normal joe who doesn't believe in God." He just doesn't know how to shut up for a minute and read what I said. I never said I wanted to rail against atheists.

Then he says I want to burn atheists at the stake. THIS IS THE SECOND TIME HE ACCUSES THAT I WANT TO KILL ATHEISTS. Was LausTibiChriste truly this dumb? Was he this illiterate? I never said I wanted to burn atheists at the stake.

Second Response, Point 4
His fourth point:

(4) THEY deserve respect yes, their beliefs do not. Do not think they do not deserve respect and do not lump them into the same category. I highly recommend you go do some spiritual reading and read up on Christ's Creation. If you love it so much than why don't you see these people as a Son of Christ and try to win them over for Him, instead of bitching on the internet like a loon? Christ loves them just as much as He loves you, so how can you sit there and say they should all be put to death? Seriously. It's attitudes like yours that turn people off from Catholicism, and I can hardly blame them. It's up to Christ to punish them for their disbelief, but until the moment they're dead it is your duty as a Christian to try to win over their conversion. Christ is constantly calling them, so why aren't you?  
The first part of point 4 can be confusing. At first, he says atheists deserve respect, but their beliefs do not. What is that supposed to even mean? Respect what? Their right to be snotty disagreeable people? Their personal space? At most, I will respect the soul of an atheist. I will love my enemy that much. But a definition of what LausTibiChriste meant by "respect" would have been helpful.

But then he gets confusing. He says: "Do not think they do not deserve respect and do not lump them into the same category." Two clauses, no comma separating them. (Call the Grammar Gestapo!)

First clause: he says atheists deserve respect. But again, what does he mean by "respect?" Pope Francis seems to think that respecting atheists means giving them interpretable interviews, letting them earn brownie points with Church Hierarchy, and at the same time spitting on actual Catholics. Is that how we should "respect" atheists? Should I just let atheists figuratively beat my bloodied head down until I'm on the street and I'm dead, never pulling my gun?

Second clause: "do not lump them into the same category." What? Lump who? Into what category? What is LausTibiChriste trying to say here? Lump "they" (the atheist as a person?) and "their beliefs" into the same category? What is that supposed to mean? Should I have started an entire thread discussing whether or not a man is separate from his beliefs? How many tangents do we have to open up here, LausTibiChriste? You've already posted 4 long and inaccurate points that I'm still dissecting.

After that confusing pair of sentences, he insults me again and insists I read something spiritual about Creation, insinuating I'm illiterate on such matters. Because remember folks, at The Echo Chamber it is okay to be insulting and snarky towards Laramie Hirsch! But by gum, if he tries to hold his own against you, rest assured that Jayne will report him to the moderators for a swift banning! I am then called a loon. I don't recall any moderators intervening in the thread to warn him against calling me names. But he's done it several times already, so I guess that's The Echo Chamber's double-standard for ya.

Finally, he accuses me of wanting to "put to death" atheists. THIS IS THE THIRD TIME HE'S ACCUSED ME OF WANTING TO KILL ATHEISTS. I never EVER even implied such a thing. I wonder, if I reported him to the moderators for false accusations, would Archer give a damn? Or would Archer the Moderator just tell me to "shut up," as he did before? The Echo Chamber Double-Standard…on special reserve for Laramie Hirsch.

How many times on that forum have I heard people bring up calumny, scandal, or ruining someone's reputation? I mean, in this thread, I've been repeatedly falsely accused of wanting to dart out at atheists and rail at them, and I've been repeatedly accused of wanting to kill atheists. People with a weaker nerve would run off and bitch to the moderators for this type of nonsense. 

I decided to take the hits and try to keep going with the thread, not complain to the moderators.  

Laramie's 2nd Response to LausTibiChriste
Over 24 hours later, another member of the forum states his honest method for approaching atheists.

After that, I decided to respond as best as I could to LausTibiChriste's long-winded, confusing, deceitful, and insulting reply.
I reminded him of how insulting he was and that he was putting words in my mouth. I had faintly hoped that by showing a poster of a prominent New York atheist, former Catholic Catherine Deveny, that the flagrant insult of the poster and her smirk attitude would convey the difficult hurdles that faithful Catholics have to overcome when confronted with atheists. I said:
Even better than your previous post. You go from telling me I'm a raving lunatic to putting words in my mouth.
First off, let's cover old ground. Everything I've stated is objectively true. 100%. These people have become the children of Satan. That's scriptural. They ARE vile and loud. Read any of their comments in news stories lately?
They collectively despise Christianity. This is the truth of our age. They rejoiced when Satan was publicly worshiped on public property in Oklahoma, and they rejoiced further when one of them ran his car into the Ten Commandments Statue at the same government property where there is planned to be a statue of Lucifer.
I don't suppose you have too many atheist colleagues on your Facebook inundating your page with blasphemies or renunciations of what used to be Christendom. Oh, wait. You've been to 60+ countries. Gratz. I'm sure all of the great saints have been to 60+ countries.
These people are ungrateful for Creation and the Creator. It is why they jerk their knees at any mention of God in any setting. Have you not witnessed this? For them, conscience and morality are illusions and artificial constructs that must be erased and covered over. And they go out of their way to offend Christians by creating arguments filled with rhetoric designed to make the Christian lose his temper. They do this because they are broken withered souls. They want to destroy anyone who stands above them. They will find nothing but emotional collapse in this life and endless Hellfire in the next. It is almost as if they are getting a head start at their place with the demons in the next world.  
I tried to explain that those who reject Christ are children of Satan. This is true and this fact is in the Bible (John 8:44, Acts 13:10, 1 John 3).

I then reiterate the vile behavior of atheists in the 21st Century, discussing their nature and how nasty they are when confronting Christianity in the public sphere. I thought that mentioning my state of Oklahoma's recent battle against Satanists--and the following delight of atheists--would strike a chord with LausTibiChristie. I then referred to social media, such as Facebook, in hopes that he would perhaps recollect some encounter online with obnoxiously hostile atheists. After all, who hasn't experienced that before? Surely, he wasn't that sheltered.

I returned his posturing (about world travel) with my own pinch of sarcasm. And I concluded by explaining the mindset of atheists. I thought that if I were perhaps more descriptive about atheists--perhaps then, LausTibiChristie would understand what I am saying.

I then try to clarify that my detailed descriptions of atheists were directed towards the forum, not to atheists. And I reinforce my position: that I am focused on the ultimate temporal battle for souls, here in Church Militant.
Am I talking to atheists right now? No. I'm talking to other Catholics. And it appears that I'm talking to other Catholics who "don't really believe all that bull$hit." For such a person, all that "Church crap" is just something to read in a really good book or read on a blog on the internet. Keep it in the sanctuary but out of the public eye, right?
But as for me, the endgame is the souls of people. The only things that matter are my soul, yours, theirs, and the souls of those people that atheists further influence.
So if you think I'm a bit brash, it's probably because I actually believe in all of this stuff about Jesus Christ. I don't just sit around passively watching the world go to Hell without giving it a further thought.
I started a thread to discuss approaches to atheists. Not a thread that actually approaches atheists. Here, in this thread on Suscipe Domine, I am speaking to whom I believe to be Catholics. I have not even stated my past exchanges with atheists.
If you don't like the fact that these people are on a path to Hell, that's your problem, and I'm not sorry for saying that. Get over it. 
  I try to defend myself, and tell LausTibiChristie that I am not advocating killing atheists:
Kill atheists? Burn them at the stake? Are you insane? Have I said any such thing? Can you not see that I did not say any such thing?
Just look at how you throw out your assumptions.  
Was my mentioning the ongoing fight with atheists the act of "bitching like a loon?" It ought not to be seen that way. Confronting atheists is a very important battle for Catholics. How can it be loony to want to engage in this fight?

So, I decided to perhaps show LausTibiChristie how he sounded. I decided to label SD's common everyday discussions as "loony:"

"I think sedevacantists and haters of the Novus Ordo Mass and the Conciliarist Church are bitching on the internet like a bunch of loons."
See how crappy that sounds? 

In LausTibiChristie's previous reply, he said that my attitude turned people away from Catholicism, that he couldn't blame them, that I need to grow up, and that I was making Catholics look bad.
Most people find that sort of statement insulting. So, I decided to describe LausTibiChristie:
Your attitude comes off as flacid, un-fiery, unconcerned, and uninspiring. It's no wonder hardly anyone in this world respects Catholicism any longer.
I'm not even debating atheists. I objectively state their nature, and you come at me with this tripe.
It is as if I am watching someone who is jumping to the defense of atheists. And if that were the case, then this explains a lot of how society has fallen into its current state. You would rather be friends with these people than set them on a right path.
I'm not always a polite guy. The world is drowning in politeness and political correctness. Are you, by chance, a fan of Pope Francis? It sounds as though he's your non-confrontational idol. 
Finally, I tried to steer the thread back on track. I was more interested in good dialogue about the thread subject than bickering with my opponent. I wanted to keep this thread a good contribution to the forum.
Moving on, we all know how LausTibiChriste tiptoes confronts atheists whenever a confrontation arises.
Has anyone else ever had any experiences they'd want to share? 

Good Conversation for a While
Good exchanges followed. There were five replies from people other than LausTibiChristie and myself. Somewhere in there I even decided to change the thread's title, in order to keep the conversation honest and accurate.

The original thread title was:
What do you do when you meet atheists?

The newly-changed title was:
What do you do when you meet HOSTILE atheists?

Kaesekopf the Reckless
After that short spat of honest talk with other forum members, the owner of The Echo Chamber, Kaesekopf, decided to dart in and insult me:
Laramie bloviating again?
Man, for a man who has such little free time... he sure finds time to cause a rabble! 
What a complete jerk you are, Kaesekopf. I was accused of wanting to kill atheists three times, and I was accused of wanting to harangue and "rail" against atheists three times. IT WAS EITHER KAESEKOPF'S DUTY OR A MODERATOR'S DUTY TO CAREFULLY READ AND DISCERN WHAT WAS GOING ON. 

But instead, "TL;DR Kaesekopf" either didn't read any of what transpired or simply overlooked what was happening. What a worm. Multiple times on your forum, you, Kaesekopf, have darted into a conversation I was having and talked out of the side of your mouth like a snake. What a DISHONORABLE CATHOLIC YOU ARE. You are supposed to be the leader of these people. It is your forum. You are supposed to be setting a good example. Instead, you insult me like this (and many other times in the past). And if I am being insulted or I am defending myself against someone else's conniving in a thread, you allow your moderators to come in and tell me to "shut up, Laramie." Suscipe Domine's moderation is a double-standard to some people, and more and more people are getting to know that. I wonder if the day is coming when you and your crew whittle down your forum into nothing. You are not a respectable leader.

A Couple of More Good Posts, and Then I Defend Myself Against Kaesekopf
There were two more good contributing posts to the thread. One of them was even an unobjectionable post from Jayne, the two-faced.

But then, after I saw Kaesekopf's nasty little squirt of disrespect, I decided to stand up for myself:

What fun we are having! Hey! Here's Kaesekopf whining about not having time to sort things out on his forum:
I have a full-time job, I am heavily involved in my local KofC Council, I have a girlfriend, and a very active social life. I don't have time for this petty garbage that apparently others have. I spent my Sunday going to Mass, eating lunch, babysitting, and watching the Packer game. 
It gets busy, and this is our side thing. We don't get paid here, and we're juggling personal obligations alongside this forum. We're all very busy here at Suscipe Domine. All of my moderators have at least one kid and are married and very busy. I'm juggling too many things to count. We'd like a little bit of slack, because I feel we GIVE a lot of slack and leeway.
The mods here are very busy, very active members of the world outside our internet forum. We do not always get to things the moment they happen. You might have time in life to spend hours on this forum. Others are busy with lives, work, and church activities.
Your previous complaints are quite funny to me, considering that you have the time to post 10,000+ times (whereas I'm sitting around the 620).
Perhaps you can get Moderator Archer to chime in with an:
Quote from: Archer on November 16, 2014, 05:18:29 PM
"Oh shut up Laramie."
That'd be really cute.
Or perhaps Jayne could report me to the moderators for some small thing.
I also am entertained with the fact that you can just make fun of this thread that seeks to approach the atheists in our culture, when you yourself in your all-important-forum-owner tone carry on and spout off:
We're already fighting an uphill battle to win souls for Christ, let's not make it harder by being abrasive idiots about it all.
But ah! It's just fine and dandy to be abrasive to good ol' Laramie. "Just ban him for a few days, and it will blow over," some like to joke. That seems to be the standard program, it seems.

I apologize for daring to consider how we approach those poor wittle itty bitty atheists. Clearly, that has nothing to do with the "uphill battle to win souls for Christ."

Perhaps we can close off this thread with some fart jokes.
I knew that addressing Kaesekopf would merit some sort of response. A private message to me would have been a good start. I've had a few grievances against the leadership of The Echo Chamber for the past year. But there was simply no dialogue with me. No one came to me in private during this fiasco at all. Everything that is publicly displayed in the thread is the extent of communication with me up until now. And I find this to be completely dishonest.

Jayne the Self-Righteous Takes Position
The Scourge of Catholic forums sees an opportunity, and the demonization begins:
This was an interesting and potentially useful topic. It is unfortunate that you seem more interested in personal attacks and complaining about your past grievances. Try to focus on what is really important.
If only The Echo Chamber's moderators and owner could see through her noxious fronts. But, as we can see from the moderator's inability to comprehend what they read, it is no surprise to me that they are fooled and perhaps flattered by Jayne's butt kissing.

LausTibiChristie Insults Again, I Defend
Five good contributing posts later, and LausTibiChristie joins up with Kaesekopf and lays on another insult.

I don't have time to read your last ramble Laramie (I've decided I need to get out more)...but I'll answer your question with this:
You deal with hostile atheists with patience, meekness and humility...the same way the Saints would have. 

My latest ramble? Look at your own ridiculous 4-point reply that completely missed the point! The assumptions and mistakes you made in that pablum are numerous!
And then, you just tell me in a general way that saints deal with atheists with "patience, meekness, and humility," but I was the one who quoted an actual saint, Saint Nicholas. Remember? "Go to Hell's fire, which has been lit for you by the Devil." Santa Clause said that. And he punched Arius in the face as well. And every Christmas he's the most remembered Catholic saint in the entire world.
Two good productive posts later from forum members, and I defend myself and return his insult:
No problem LTC! 
Not everyone has the attention span beyond a 3rd grader. By all means, carry on with the usual pope-bashing. I understand that evangelization is not a priority for you. 
He really did not seem to have any fire in his belly for discussing the original post of the thread. I asked what people do when confronted by nasty and vile atheists. LausTibiChristie goes off on a tear filled with lies and insults about how I want to kill atheists, how I want to yell at atheists, and how I'm a loon. LausTibiChristie merited disciplinary action. It was my fault for not reporting him to the moderators first. Though, I doubt that would have done any good, since The Echo Chamber's masters disliked me. I was too forgiving and too nice. I gave him too many chances to understand what I was saying. Arguing with LausTibiChristie was like arguing with liberals: I gave him an inch, he took a mile. And I got banned. 

Jayne the Meddler Wades Into Someone Else's Business
After another brief insult from LausTibiChristie and a good contribution to the thread, Jayne decided to pretend to be moderator again and tell Laramie "how it is."
Your OP did not really come across as a call to evangelization. It sounded like emotional venting. Going on about how evil atheists are does not promote evangelization. LTC's objections to that post said nothing about his priorities.
I do not like pope-bashing and I wish there was far less of it on this forum, but, for the most part, what we see here is being done by good people with good motives. You are making a false dichotomy between the desire to have a good pope and evangelism. As far as I can tell, most people here consider both to be very important. We do not have to choose between them. 
Typically, I do my best to completely ignore Jayne. But since this post is an explication of the entire incident, I am forced to examine her poisonous words.
You are right, Jayne. The OP is not a call to evangelization. It is a statement as to the nature of hostile atheists in social media, and it is rounded off with a question of how SD members deal with atheists in confrontations.

I think we know who we can blame for the reasoning behind my banning. Emotional venting? I was told that I was banned for my "emotional" posting. Gollee gee, where did that language come from? Jayne, your reputation for getting people ostracized from groups is well known, and you are a terrible person for this. You destroy friendships and associations, and you should go to confession for this horrible sin that you do.
"Going on" about the evil of atheists and describing their characteristics is THE VERY FIRST STEP in evangelizing them. It helps to know who you are talking to before you talk to them. Typically, I think before I talk to people. And it is clear that you think before you talk ABOUT people--so that you can harm them.
"You are making a false dichotomy between the desire to have a good pope and evangelism." I don't even care about whatever point you are trying to make here. I've explained each of my replies to LausTibiChristie, and it is clear that you have been thrilled to add your subtle self-righteous posturing to his insults as well as Kaesekopf's insults, thereby ostracizing me all the more. Such is your wicked hobby.

In Spite of Insults and Being Cornered, Laramie Tries to Be Honest and Stay On Track
At this point in the thread, three days after the original post, I decided to try to keep the conversation about handling atheists on track. I did not want LausTibiChristie, Kaesekopf, or Jayne the Meddler to derail the thread with their crap.
I tried to suggest re-directing any negative energy into something more positive: the approach towards atheists. I mentioned the incident where a Duck Dynasty star was getting clobbered by secular press for his Christianity, and I mentioned some inspiring words from a blogger I enjoy reading.
All of the glib scorn I've seen in this thread ought to be directed towards the hostile atheists I've been talking about. Rather than remaining an infighting Catholic who brushes the subject off with the usual smirk, why not turn that energy towards the hordes of nasty atheists that I am referring to?

Society is succumbing to the atheist religion. Social media swarms with their comments and offenses. They are hardly ever matched or called out. They continue on and on. Meanwhile, people of faith are quiet and passive, allowing godless madness to be unchallenged.

When one of the Christian Duck Dynasty stars spoke out against homosexuality, atheist America glibly laughed at the old guy for being intolerant of gays. Of this incident, one blogger that I follow said:

QuoteFirst, give them an inch and they will not only take a mile, but will insult you in the process. Second, there is absolutely no reasoning with these people. They are an implacable enemy and no quarter should be shown to them even when they wave the white flag and start talking about negotiating a settled peace.
As Churchill once said of the Hun, he is either at your feet or at your throat. We can't leave them alone because they won't leave us alone. We can't tolerate them because they will not tolerate us. So, root them out of your lives, stop supporting them, stop enabling them, and stop funding their assault on your beliefs, your family, and your faith. There are no fences upon which moderates can safely sit in a cultural war.
...One cannot reason with totalitarians. One can only refuse to submit to them. And sooner or later, one must fight them.
I think this is a great attitude.  It shows perseverance and steadfastness in the face of an overwhelming trend towards societal disintegration.  
Are any here ever inclined--at least on occasion--to call out some atheist in public or a troll on the web?  Does anyone ever pick that battle at least on an annual basis?
Fasting and prayer are nice. They're strong weapons, to be sure. But so is actually doing something.
I then posted a picture, where the head of a Virgin Mary statue was cut off by some Catholic haters. The photo is from a recent news article, where in Illinois some vandals destroyed Church property. I thought the photo was a good representation of what Catholics are up against when facing hostile atheists. Pictures are louder than words, right?
Surely this enthusiasm for the topic and my attempt to keep the thread on track would demonstrate that I am trying to be honest with what I was saying. Surely my attackers would see that I was trying to move beyond the muck and make a good contribution to the forum. Right?

LausTibiChristie Returns to Insult, I Defend
After two legitimate contributions to the thread, LausTibiChristie chimed in briefly with no content or contribution to the discussion. He popped back in, only to pick at the wound:
L if youre this insufferable in real life Id be an atheist too
After a bit of encouragement from TheKnightVigilant, who agreed with some of what I was saying, I defended myself against LausTibiChristie once more:
You already speak like one [like an atheist].
And I was right. Lying that I wanted to kill atheists, insulting me, and putting words in my mouth IS EXACTLY WHAT AN ATHEIST WILL DO IN AN ARGUMENT WITH A CHRISTIAN. LausTibiChristie's behavior was uncharitable, mean, and spiteful. Just like a hostile atheist.
Jayne Stirs the Pot More, Creates More Strife, Builds a False Impression of Laramie
Your words are filth, Jayne. I just want to start this section off by saying this, in case the readers miss that point.

You say this: 
Quoting Laramie:
Fasting and prayer are nice. They're strong weapons, to be sure. But so is actually doing something.

Like what? What are you actually suggesting that people do? Are you proposing violence? If so, that is stupid on several levels.
Uh oh! Jayne sees that I'm being portrayed as potentially violent towards atheists, and she's going to take advantage of the situation to get good ol' Laramie in trouble again! She accepts LausTibiChristie's portrayal of me.

By asking me if I am proposing violence, you, Jayne, lend credence to LausTibiChristie's absurd accusations that I want to kill atheists. You know this. You know that you are creating trouble when you do this. You are creating a narrative. You are beginning to paint me as a bad guy with this nasty subtle tactic.

No one likes you because of stunts like this.

You then go on to imply I am "stupid on several levels."

You are a brown-noser. I would expect better behavior from someone as old as you. You are supposed to be an example to the younger generations. But this bullshit is the actions of a spiteful 15-year old gossip queen. LausTibiChristie should be telling YOU to grow up, not me.
You continue. After quoting me when I liken LausTibiChristie to an atheist, you say:
That is just ridiculous. LTC does not resemble an atheist at all. Please try to make sense.What condescension! "Please try to make sense." Ha! I've already detailed above how LausTibiChristie sounds like an atheist. His behavior was apparent without me having to even explain it. But because of illiterates like the moderators you cozy up to, I must explain everything in microscopic detail.

Your actions, Jayne, also resemble that of a person outside of the Catholic Faith. I just want to add that.
Jayne finishes: 
Quoting TheKnightVigilant:
Actually, Laramie has the right attitude. These people should be confronted and their false opinions refuted. All atheists without exception are of bad will (Romans 1:20) and it is the honourable, charitable thing to do to hit them with hard, uncompromising truths. If we offer no public opposition to their preaching, if we fail to raise our voices above theirs and make ourselves heard, we've already lost. They already overwhelmingly dominate the public discourse thanks to the pathetic indifference of most Christians.
We are commanded to speak the truth in love. Yes, we must preach the truth, but not with a belligerent and confrontational attitude. I have not seen anyone in this thread suggest that we not publicly present the truth. The disagreement is about how we do it. People are not converted by being told that they are evil children of Satan. Look at the examples of the saints who are famed as preachers.
Hostile atheists make us angry and so we want to get back at them. It is a temptation to convince ourselves that acting on our anger is somehow doing God's work. It is not. We must purify our motives if we wish to best serve God.
I never said to be "belligerent and confrontational." I never even got to start suggesting approaches to atheists in this thread. You are riding the coattails of LausTibiChristie's false accusations.

"People are not converted by being told that they are evil children of Satan." Who suggested that?!?  It wasn't me.

The way you self-righteously preach how people should act--in between your manipulations--is what tricks so many people. You mix sound words with slithery nasty contortions of the truth, and I find this to be very Satanic. You have a real problem, Jayne. You have a psychological problem, and it is destructive to anyone in proximity to you.
The Thread Goes On, Even After I Was Banned
The fact that the thread continued on after I was banned is a testament to my solid contributions to The Echo Chamber.

After LoneWolfTrad suggested that "everyone chill," there was about a half-dozen legitimate contributions to the thread.
After I was gone, LausTibiChristie leaped in and spitefully joked:
If wanting to convert atheists, even the most vehement ones, through meekness and humility makes me an atheist, then slap my ass and call me Dawkins 
What a worm. What you need is a slap across your mouth, as Saint Nicholas did to Arius. You're a smart ass, a reckless accuser, and contortionist of words. The way you've talked to me in this thread is ANYTHING BUT MEEK AND HUMBLE. 

LausTibiChristie's insults do not deserve this kind of examination. I was sharing dialectic, but he was spewing rhetoric. I was on a wholly and completely higher level, and he had no chance at keeping up with what I was saying. Instead, he was destructively insulting and deceitful. However, there are many who have asked me what, particularly, happened for me to finally be banned from The Echo Chamber. And so, I have condescended to explain his fallacies. With this blog post, I am talking over LausTibiChristie and over the moderators of The Echo Chamber for the benefit of the many good, kind, and honest associates that I have made in my time on these Catholic forums.

In the past, I have tried to help save face for the moderators and forum owner of Suscipe Domine. But this recent action, this recent banning, has earned my condemnation. I condemn their decision, their behavior, their attitude, and their methods for running a forum. I have been completely wronged in this matter, and I am innocent of all charges. The spiteful instigators of this thread were LausTibiChristie, Kaesekopf, and Jayne. I tried a few times to move beyond their pettiness. But by trying to overlook them, by not addressing their bullshit, they conjured a narrative out of thin air that metastasized into my banning.

I am banned "for emotional and agenda-driven posting over a sustained period of time." What the hell is that supposed to mean? Can you get any more vague? I have the ability to explicate an entire thread, looking at exactly what was said. I know precisely what I am talking about. I've said this before: if anyone is being emotional and agenda-driven, it is the moderators and owner of The Echo Chamber.
It is unfair that I am in a position to have to describe a thread in this manner. Looking into the matter is a job for The Echo Chamber's moderators. But, as I've pointed out before, and as Kaesekopf has previously whined, he and the moderators have outside lives, and SD is their "side thing." Well, if you don't have the time to properly and justly moderate your forum, you ought to not have one.

This ridiculous episode has demonstrated a fact to one-and-all about The Echo Chamber. Either SD has banned me because the owner and the moderators despise me and were looking for any shallow reason to get rid of me, or SD has banned me because they're a collection of cowards who are afraid to even approach discussing a confrontation with atheists. I think it's both. The leadership of SD would much rather gossip and tear down other Catholics, rather than focus on productive discourse.

I am certain that other forums can succeed where The Echo Chamber horribly fails.

It's not my problem anymore, and I am freer than ever. I'll just let the losers worry about losin', and I'll move on to converse with mature adults elsewhere.

At least they still have Jayne. What a prize.