Featured Post

The "Rights of Englishmen" Series

This is a list of the posts from my "Rights of Englishmen" series, as well as some others: - The Rights of Englishmen Part 1:...

Thursday, January 28, 2016

Physical Strategies Against Civilization's Enemies: Part 2

Last week I touched on Britain First's move to march through the Islamified streets of Britain, and I juxtaposed their boldness to weak-willed forum owners who dare not even talk about confronting Leftist aggressors...on the internet.

Well, it seems that some folks in France are stepping it up a notch, and in effect, outdoing the British.  I chanced upon this video footage tonight.  Apparently, armed groups of French vigilantes have banded together to combat feral Muslim invaders migrants.




In this country, the last time I heard of a neighborhood watch man taking out a kid who was stomping his head to death, the neighborhood watch man was vilified by half the country, including President Obama.

On a side note, it was just this week that the feds shot an unarmed man in the face after having his hands up in the air.  Then they shot him three more times when he was on the ground.  And that was after filling a car full of unarmed people with 120 rounds of ammunition.  A bit unrelated.  But it's food for thought.




Prophecy: St. Hildegard's Comet

It has been almost a full century after the 1917 appearances of the Virgin Mary in Fatima, Portugal.  It was there that the Holy Mother warned three children of a terrible future for the world if the Church did not listen to her requests.  A century later, and pope after pope have failed to consecrate Russia to her Immaculate Heart.

So, with that in mind, this appeared in the skies above Portugal this week:

Photographed from the Portuguese island of Madeira, observers remarked how it looks like a fist from heaven.


I immediately recalled a prophecy of St. Hildegard:
A powerful wind will rise in the north carrying heavy fog and the densest of dust by divine command, and it will fill their throats and eyes so that they will cease their savagery and be stricken with a great fear.   
Before the Comet comes, many nations, the good excepted, will be scoured with want and famine. The great nation in the ocean that is inhabited by people of different tribes and descent by an earthquake, storm and tidal waves will be devastated. It will be divided, and in great part submerged. That nation will also have many misfortunes at sea, and lose its colonies in the east through a Tiger and a Lion." 
The Comet by its tremendous pressure, will force much out of the ocean and flood many countries, causing much want and many plagues. [After the] great Comet, the great nation will be devastated by earthquakes, storms, and great waves of water, causing much want and plagues. The ocean will also flood many other countries, so that all coastal cities will live in fear, with many destroyed. All sea coast cities will be fearful and many of them will be destroyed by tidal waves, and most living creatures will be killed and even those who escape will die from a horrible disease.

For in none of these cities does a person live according to the laws of God. "Peace will return to Europe when the white flower again takes possession of the throne of France.

On the other hand, it could be nothing.

Monday, January 25, 2016

Physical Strategies Against Civilization's Enemies

While Tracy of Fisheaters, Kaesekopf of SD, and other timid caricatures of meekness continue to trip over themselves in terror of the idea of confronting Leftists, others are picking up the slack.  Indeed, the former categories of people are afraid to even talk about actually confronting Leftists...online.  That's right.  These people are afraid of denting their dainty pride and getting their little cotton tails dirty when it comes to confronting hostile atheists or liberal Catholics...on the Internet.

Britain First puts such cravens to shame.

Visit their website here.

Britain First is confronting their adversaries in real life, in their very enclaves.  Below, you will witness Britain First making an incursion into an Islamic hotspot, Bury Park, Luton.  They endure insults and abuse from the Islamic people there who are pleased to boast about how they are taking over the country of Britain.

These people are not whittling away spare time on the internet.  They are taking actual risks to begin something.  Hopefully for Britain First, they will not be all talk and no show.  I think that next time they patrol through that neighborhood, it might do to have clubs and twice the amount of people.  It's a start.

"Operations like this have to be done.  They have to be done.  We have to show these people that this is still England, this is still Britain, this is still our country.  And we have had enough of being treated like second-class citizens in our own towns."

Good for him, I say.



Expect war.

Friday, January 22, 2016

Hypocracy from Fisheater's Owner: Part 2

Just when you think all of the the shenanigans from the Fisheaters' forum owner have expended themselves, she surprises the public once more with another round of double-dealing.


Here is a picture of Two-Face

Tracy, herself, has openly started to question whether or not it is possible for we on the Right to utilize Leftists' very own tactics against them. I, myself, was attempting an on-going discussion on this very topic last year, and my speculations culminated in a thread--and later a blog post--titled "Strategies and Tactics for Catholics in Taking the Net."

Tracy frowned upon my suggestions and demonstrations, and she then went on to ban me from the Fisheaters Forum.

Over a year later, Tracy actually speculates on the very idea she originally condemned:

What's in my brain right now are the matter of leftist tactics and whether the right should adopt any of them.
This came to mind when considering the case of Melissa Click, a University of Missouri Journalism professor, who called for the use of force to remove an Asian student who was filming some rally or other she and The Brainwashed were involved with, thereby trampling all over his 1st amendment rights. This is a Journalism professor, mind you! The video that brought this situation to light is here:
Click's actions enraged the Right and emboldened the Left -- at least most of them, to my understanding -- causing them to rally around her. 115 faculty members came through for her, signing a letter to the Administration, all in support of Click's inanities. From the other side is a petition, at change.org, calling for her to be fired. That petition is here.
You signed the petition?  How brave.
I signed that petition.

But now I'm bothered... I can't stand how social media are used to threaten people's livelihoods, used to make their lives a living Hell. The Left uses that sort of thing as a major tactic, rallying their troops to join in concerted efforts to get, for ex., some poor schlubs fired because they made a joke the Lefties couldn't understand, but took to be a slur. It's madness.
But that petition against Click is a chance for payback, a taste of their own bitter medicine. It's more than that; it's also, IMO, a righteously motivated thing to want to sign in order to clear out our campuses of the cultural Marxists that run them. One difference is that the Leftists will use gaffes or one-offs, and things apologized for to get Rightists fired. This Journalism prof hasn't apologized, to my knowledge. That's one major difference between "us" and "them." We believe in redemption and mercy. But they will go back 20 years in a person's History to find something to get 'em on. They don't accept warranted apologies. They don't submit to reason.

I guess my questions are:1) Would you feel cozy signing that petition?2) How can you fight opponents who fight dirty, as Leftists do?
That last question reminded me of [banning Laramie for mentioning this very thing, just last year?] something I said to the person who fired me [Oh!  Guess not.  Nevermind.] from the museum (written about in the "I was fired for political correctness" thread in this sub-forum): I told her that she heard a complaint from some young, brainwashed, leftist, feminist, but that I GUARANTEE that I've heard things on tours given by others that would annoy conservatives as well. I said that the difference between the Left and the Right, though, is that the Right doesn't run to whoever functions as "Daddy" to go throw some weight around. It wouldn't surprise me at all that the person who fired me truly has no clue that conservatives get equally as annoyed, ticked, bothered, and bewildered by the stuff they hear every single day! But we, typically, don't tattle like kids and ask Daddy/Mommy to step in and "fix things" so we feel better.
But should we? Should we start kvetching as the Leftists do? "The squeaky wheel gets the oil" and all that.
On the other hand, we could squeak all night and few would hear because we're a tree falling in a forest, with no one around, because the media ignore us. But on the other-other hand, the traditional media are waning in a huge way, being overtaken by blogs, websites, etc.
Where'd I hear this idea before? Oh yeah. Me.
I'm thinking out loud here.. What do you all think? What would Sun Tzu and Machiavelli have to say? When the rubber meets the road, how does one balance out such things as basic principles such as "one cannot commit evil so that good may come from it" "vs" (?) "real life," human nature, "lessons learned" from combat and History, etc. How do the Catholic principles of Just War play into all this sorta thing?
To use a Godfather analogy: Should Michael have whacked Freddo?
- - -

So, Tracy has recently been fired for barely talking about her beliefs at her new job, and she's even mentioning ideas that I originally brought up one year ago. Does she understand the ridiculous and unnecessary pains associated with ostracization? Is she beginning to finally grasp what some on those on the Right have been suggesting--that is, fresh aggressive tactics against the Left?

I thought I'd pop my head in and test the waters.  Here is what I said:
Vox, I cannot believe that you are honestly and openly considering the possibility of utilizing Leftist tactics, and "kvetching as the Leftists do." I cannot believe you are seriously putting this thought out there for your community, after you banned me for this very thing last year.

I was banned for my approach to taking back the Net. My approach involved the utilization of shock troops and shock troop tactics to combat the Left online. I was swiftly banned before there was any discussion for me to tone it down. In fact, you did not even inform me of the reason for being banned until I contacted you through private email after the fact.

I covered the subject of Right/Left tactics in my blog post, "Strategies and Tactics for Catholics in Taking the Net." I covered the events surrounding the ban in a four-part series titled: "Neither Fish nor Fowl."
I figured that these kinds of rejections are due to the fact that I'm actually one of those on the Alt-Right, a topic that DeoDuce was referring to in another thread.  I do not think that people trapped in the old paradigm of thinking are able to tolerate the kind of discussion of "shock troop" tactics I originally initiated last year.

Unfortunately, against all that is transparent, objective, and honest, Tracy managed to completely delete my reply to her post, and she has re-branded the avatar of my new account:

Tracy tells me I'm antagonistic in my approach to people--after she
bans me, prevents me from responding, and changes my avatar.


I'm devastated, I tell ya. Just devastated. And, sadly, for all of her bluster about intelligence, IQ, Mensa membership, and whatnot, she remains a petty TL;DR moderator, content with her sewing circle, and satisfied with her own hand-picked tribe. Her natural habitat continues to remain an echo chamber.

I thought these latest episodes of her tripping over previous contradictory statements were a window of opportunity to re-open discussion, overcome previous misunderstanding, and regain a friendly rapport with each other. But instead, she cut my hand after I extended it.

Her smug deafness when it comes to an unfamiliar opinion is almost as amusing as her mistaken pride:
Also, it'd be nice if those who want to evangelize for Tradition would promote (e.g., link to, mention, etc.) this site, which has probably brought more people to Tradition than any other site on the net.
What a sad mess. No matter. The quest for intellectual honesty continues.

I don't have an entire forum of people to ridicule Tracy in front of.
I guess my little ol' blog will have to do.  



UPDATE: After having banned me from her forum once more, she managed to work herself up to say something:
Laramie, your post got removed before I had a chance to respond, but it's very simple:  politics are politics; religion is religion. Using leftist tactics when it comes to religion is an entirely different story. Nonetheless, even with re. to religion, coming up with memes, art, and all that is great, as is "coolifying" it while not watering down dogma and doctrine by one single drop. I strongly encourage it, just as I encourage responding to anti-Catholic, anti-religion slurs from the atheist and the "I'm Too Sexy For Any God" types, with the attitude that you're not trying to change your interlocutor's mind, but are writing for people reading over your shoulders. 
You were very antagonistic in your approach, which is not what I am talking about --- not when it comes to religion (especially!) or politics. 
"Take Back the Net" is about defending the Faith. What I'm talking about in this thread are tactics and the political "alt-Right." At the bottom of the "Take Back the Net" page are these words:
Some General Tips
Always be charitable, and try to be pleasant, too. As my Mamma used to say, you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. And as St. Francis de Sales wrote:
If you wish to labor with fruit in the conversion of souls, you must pour the balsam of sweetness upon the wine of your zeal, that it may not be too fiery, but mild, soothing, patient, and full of compassion. For the human soul is so constituted that by rigor it becomes harder, but mildness completely softens it. Besides, we ought to remember that Jesus Christ came to bless good intentions, and if we leave them to His control, little by little He will make them fruitful.
Let the true peace of Christ be reflected in you.
If you don't know something, say you don't know and don't pretend you do. Keep your ego chained up in the basement, and just tell the person you will do your best to find an answer for them.
We've discussed this already.
Define terms that are "iffy" before trying to come to an understanding. Words and phrases like "born again," "Bible-believing," Tradition," "anti-semitic," etc., have to be defined before anything good can come from using them with various groups.
Define their premises before trying to build your argument. What do they accept as true? Is that premise true or false? If it's false, disavow them of it; if it's true, build on it.
Finally, keep a sense of HUMOR!
In your "Take Back the Net" threads, you weren't "getting" that stuff. At least, you weren't expressing that you did.
# # #

How unfortunate that I do not have the ability to respond to her.  Doubtless, the woman doesn't care.  She has said her peace and had the last word in the thread, which is pretty much all that matters to her.  

Tracy has proven herself a TL;DR moderator.  If a discussion about this was allowed on her "discussion" forum, then I would refer her back to the Strategies and Tactics for Catholics in Taking the Net post.  I would remind her that taking the Net is not about converting people, but that it's about aggressively winning territory.  

When it comes to winning territory vs conversion, I would likely remind her of these points that I made a year ago, but that she did not read:

*  It often has seemed as though she wants Catholics to attempt to convert anyone we are confronting in a comment box. I have likened such attempts to the idea of someone going to a nightclub and attempting to convert people there.

Non-confrontational Catholic: "Oh, we have to engage the other side in order to convert the individual we are debating with."  Laramie Hirsch: "No. We must shame the opponent, win the social space, and plant a flag for our side."

* Should we focus on winning, rather than teaching and converting? Why not? If you focus on anything else, you will lose. You might feel good about yourself for taking the high road, but you'll lose. You are not going to convert any hostile opponent in an internet comment box. 
  
*  If anything, you will be drawing the SJW out. Sometimes that is all that you can do. Sometimes, there is no other "victory" when a person is being obstinate. You draw the person out, and the crowd twenty feet away from you is able to visualize what the entire monster looks like. You don't convert your opponent, but then that was never a realistic possibility in the first place. In such circumstances, goals become redefined. The Catholics in the crowd become reaffirmed that, yes, the individual is unreasonable and uncivil, and they become heartened that someone had the patience to do endure a "long game." The faithless in the crowd, meanwhile, recoil at you and bad talk you as a horrible villain. And if there are any people on the fence, they will see the demonstration you've made with your debate, and they will make their own decisions.

No matter.  Return to your sewing circle.

Heck, soon, even Facebook will be joining you, KK, and other narcissists in deleting undesirable "mean" posts and forcing "good think" onto their internet community.  So, it looks like you've got company in that regard.


Monday, January 18, 2016

The Internet Wastes Our Time: Part 2

For Davis Aurini, who had a bad time of it last year.  May all of your projects this year reach their conclusion.

On those who fail to complete a collaborative creative work:

There are some people on whom one can count:when they promise, they keep their word.  Now every beginning is a promise, unless it is a piece of folly.  Others give their word, swear by all they hold sacred, and nothing happens; you would think that they have some natural inaptitude for undertaking an obligation; you cannot bind them, and they cannot bind themselves; they are like running water.

People like that represent a morally inferior species; the intellectual who resembles them is not really an intellectual, his vocation has condemned itself.  You who have the sacred call, make up your mind to be faithful.  There is a law within you, let it be obeyed.  You have said: "I will do this," do it.  A case of conscience is before you: settle it to your honor; every unfinished work will be a reproach to you.  

I see a cause of moral decadence in abandoning a project or an undertaking.  One grows used to giving-up; one resigns oneself to disorder, to an uncomfortable conscience; one gets a habit of shilly-shallying.  Thence comes a loss of dignity that can have no favorable effect on one's progress.  


From Part IV of the chapter, "Creative Work"
From the book: The Intellectual Life
By A.D. Sertillanges, O.P.

Sunday, January 17, 2016

The Internet Wastes Our Time: Part 1

For those of us who "can't get enough" of the down-low, or can never fulfill our need for more information:

There are books everywhere, and only a few are necessary.  Society, stimulation, one finds these in spirit in one's solitude: the great are there, present to those who call on them, and the great ages behind impel the ardent thinker forward.  


The Intellectual Life
By A.D. Sertillanges, O.P.

Today's Response

Today, I've received a message from Jayne.  I believe it deserves a swift response, which I can provide, since I'm not at work, and I'm down sick this evening.  My reply comes after her message.
When I was banned from Fish Eaters, I was sad at first but I got over it fairly quickly because I had a sense that I did not really belong there any more. Also most of the people I wanted to associate with were on Suscipe Domine anyhow. I think you are right that the harm from being banned comes from the disruption of relationships. A lot of people say that online actions and relationships don't really count but I disagree. They are real and important. 
It seems that you hold me at least partially responsible for your getting banned from Suscipe Domine and I never really took that seriously before because I never explicitly asked for you to be banned. But I have been reflecting lately and understanding that I did contribute to it. My constant interfering and scolding played a role in you being banned and I am sorry. As I was thinking over my six years on trad forums, I could see I had a pattern of wrong and damaging behavior.
I thought about what you wrote a couple of months ago, that I needed to apologize with both words and actions. And I remembered your even earlier comment that I ought to be limited to 3 posts a day. So I decided to spend 2016 doing penance for my online errors and bad behaviour by limiting myself to 3 posts a day (not including prayers).
You have talked about the seriousness of banning from forums a few times, but it has only lately been making sense to me. Lately Te Deum has become a forum that I wish I could particiate in. There are subjects that I would like to discuss and posters with whom I would like to interact. I am really regretting getting myself banned. It's my own fault and I deserve it so I just have to live with consequences of my actions. It is the feeling of being cut off from people that is so hard, just as you have been saying.
It is good that you are trying to limit yourself to 3 posts a day.  I'm actually now wondering if that'd be a good idea for me, as well.  Also, kudos to you for dealing with that liberal Catholic blogger a few months ago.  I won't mention her name, as at this point I want nothing to do with her.  At this point, she's been confronted by two Trads (us), and in each instance she has demonstrated her irrationality and inability to focus.  If that doesn't prove she's a lost cause, I don't know what does.  That little online episode with her has shown us a taste of things to come from liberal Catholics, I believe.

Real quick, about Fisheaters, I'll say that like everyone else, I sort of lost interest in Fisheaters--long before I got banned from there.  But the manner of getting banned by Tracy is a ridiculous personal and public insult, demonstrating Tracy's hypocrisy, among other things.  I've openly talked about these kinds of problems as a warning beacon, but I'm becoming convinced it's all wasted energy.  I'm uncertain that the online Traditional Catholic community is going to go anywhere, as people are perfectly comfortable to continue to do what they've been doing--which is talk in circles and eat each other alive.

Yes, I hold you somewhat responsible for me getting banned from SD.  But on the bright side, it's only accelerated my latest conclusions about the online Trad community.  So, there's always that.

But yes, you're also right when you bring up the pain of being kept from other Catholics.  I feel that such ostracization is a terrible thing to do to a person.  We presume that Catholic forum owners who claim to be, well, Catholic--we presume them to believe and practice Catholic behavior.  This includes an endorsement for the communion of saints, as well as the ability to "forgive" seventy times seven.  (Not that I have anything to be forgiven for; I've done nothing wrong to FE or SD.  If anything, KK and Tracy owe me apologies.)

Perma-banning someone works against the idea of ever being "forgiven," and it works against that idea of keeping Catholics in communion with one another.

Heck, Pope Francis is out there embracing Muslims, Jews, and transvestites.  And yet, in our quarter, people cannot withstand the temptation to snipe their ally in the back of the head.  Case in point: the most recent Cathinfo thread where everyone, including the moderator, chimes in and throws stones at VoxPop.  That was one of the most malicious threads I've seen in a while.  It appears that a fellow named ranlare created a brand new CI account for the sole purpose of dumping his hate and arrogance into that thread.  

This brings me to the final point: that I am starting to think that these forums and this community is too much of an opportunity to stir up hate and enmity.  I see a great deal of calumny, detraction, backbiting, and talebearing in this community.

I am no janitor.  It is not my life's mission to clean up these messes.

My participation in forums evolved from being #1 just a guy trying to get some information about Catholicism and meeting people, to #2 happily considering the forums as a religious/political outlet, to #3 an explorer of new concepts, and a more activist approach where I've tried calling out bad behavior, and where I try to rally people for one cause or another.  #3 has obviously failed, and it's gotten me shunned because, again, it's all going nowhere.  People are content to be stuck in their cycles.

Perhaps I've failed on this before, but whenever I'm talking about something, I try to be objective and cover a matter in detail.  I try to publicly talk about the public statements made by public people, reducing my observations to only their public words and actions.  Heck, I try to be objective and careful in a lot of the threads I've started.  But if it's one thing I've learned, it's all for nothing.  Most people do not know how to be objective, non-emotional, or how to just stick with the facts.  And this frustrates me a lot.

So, I'm clearly now operating on some sort of level no one else wants to deal with.  Ultimately, I ask myself "What is all of this for?  Does anyone get anything out of  what I put out there?"  I do not think so.

I recall the story of St. Philip Neri's penance that he gave to a woman who confessed to gossiping.  It's the story of how she was to rip open a pillow at the top of a church bell tower, and then go out throughout the village to gather all of the feathers that went everywhere.  I look at some of what I've pointed out about different people on the internet, or perhaps public figures--and all I do is attract snide comments.  I could simply be sowing enmity.

For that reason, I've been considering taking down either a large portion--if not all--of my blog posts.  Doing so would prevent my words from being taken and used wrongly, and it would help me to catapult my way into a better hobby and away from this strange echo chamber microcosm I've found myself in.

I heartily endorse a limit of three posts per day.  It is a good step in the right direction.

-Laramie

Friday, January 15, 2016

Hypocrisy from Fisheaters' Owner

So, this week, Vox Clamantis, owner of Fisheaters, decided to share with everyone that she was fired from a volunteer position at a local medical museum for daring to discreetly share a few conservative anecdotes.

Much to my amusement, Tracy appears to be surprised by this. 
 
That sounds almost as preposterous as getting banned from a discussion forum echo chamber for talking about something that the forum owner doesn't like. 
 
Look at it this way, Tracy, at least you weren't cut off from your colleagues in the process.

Friday, January 8, 2016

Checking In. Hiatus Extended

As some of you know, I've popped my head in every now and then to the different circles and communities I chat with.  But most of it was non-committal, and I think that, actually, the greatest portion of involved conversation (which hasn't been much) took place over at Vox Popoli.  But, for the most part, I've done what I can to minimize my time with the online community for now.

There's oodles to discuss.  That is for sure.  I even have a list of things to address, if I were so inclined. But this has been a time of reflection and study for me.  And I do believe I may possibly re-orient myself away from the forums and blogs I frequent, and put more attention to other pursuits that supersede and pre-date this person you know as Laramie Hirsch.  I do not feel as though blogging is my life's calling, after all.

But I will return and be more available in some capacity at the end of the second week in March.

For now, I'll share this passage, from the book, The Intellectual Life: Its Spirit, Conditions, Methods:

We want to develop breadth of mind, to practice comparative study, to keep the horizon before us; these things cannot be done without much reading. But much and little are opposites only in the same domain. . . [M]uch is necessary in the absolute sense, because the work to be done is vast; but little, relatively to the deluge of writing that…floods our libraries and our minds nowadays. . . . What we are proscribing is the passion for reading, the uncontrolled habit, the poisoning of the mind by excess of mental food, the laziness in disguise which prefers easy familiarity with others’ thought to personal effort. . . . The passion for reading which many pride themselves on as a precious intellectual quality is in reality a defect; it differs in no wise from other passions that monopolize the soul , keep it in a state of disturbance, set it in uncertain currents and cross-currents, and exhaust its powers. . . . The mind is dulled, not fed, by inordinate reading, it is made gradually incapable of reflection and concentration, and therefore of production; it grows inwardly extroverted, if one can so express oneself, becomes the slave of its mental images, of the ebb and flow of ideas on which it has eagerly fastened its attention. This uncontrolled delight is an escape from self; it ousts the intelligence from its function and allows it merely to follow point for point the thoughts of others, to be carried along in the stream of words, developments, chapters, volumes. . . . [N]ever read when you can reflect; read only, except in moments of recreation, what concerns the purpose you are pursuing; and read little, so as not to eat up your interior silence.