Featured Post

Why Catholics Don't Tithe As Much As They Used To

One thing I can clearly recall from my days as a Southern Baptist youth was that people often tithed ten percent or more of their income to ...

Wednesday, June 21, 2017

Oceans Of Blood For An Age Of "Liberty"

While most Americans tend to cheer on their Rah! Rah! Americanism, the fact of the matter is that the enormously bloody wars and genocidal acts of the nations did not begin with the Catholic Church.  These horrific atrocities began shortly after Martin Luther officially rebelled against the Church of Christ.

Christopher Ferrara takes us through this slideshow in Chapter 2 of his book, Liberty: The God That Failed.  The number of citations and references in his book is enormous.  We are fortunate to have such a mind as Ferrara who can bring so much research together and synthesize an overall mosaic, revealing the truth of "liberty" in the annals of Western History.

Citing William T. Cavanaugh, he explains that the so-called "religious wars" that preceded the age of democratic revolution were actually engineered conflicts by state-building elites.  The wars of the Protestant Revolts in Europe were...
"...the birth pangs of the state, in which the overlapping jurisdictions, allegiances, and customs of the medieval order were flattened and circumscribed into the new creation of the sovereign state (not always yet nation-state), a centralizing power with a monopoly on violence within a defined territory."
These bloody prologues for the glorious secular West facilitated the "transfer of the sacred from Christianity to the nation-state."  As a result, nations were left with nationhood as their religion.  Under such circumstances, since the citizens were now the laity of a secular religion--national liberty--the people would be expected to pay for this new religion with their own lives in a repeating cycle of endless wars.

Consider, for example, how the first phase of communism is supposed to involve revolution and war.  As Marx said, it is "the period of the revolutionary transformation" from capitalism into communism.  This deadly period, in which the new communist generation is supposed to cannibalize the old order, is a gestation period in which the people destroy the old capitalism (likely through violent revolution), gradually giving way to a new period of "full communism."  It is along this line of thought that Stalin, Mao, and other genocidal communist dictators were able to rationalize the slaughter of millions of their own citizens.

With that in mind, consider what John Adams once said to Jefferson about what would be required for the flowering of American greatness:
"It is melancholy to contemplate the cruel wars, desolations of countries, and oceans of blood, which must occur before rational principles and rational systems of government can prevail and be established."
Is there really a difference between this statement and Marx's statement?  Both "rational systems" require blood sacrifices in the form of politicides--the murder of people by the government for political purposes.  Christendom--requires conversion into a civic and practical Church, where the bloody sacrifice is made by Jesus Christ, rather than citizens.  In Christendom, it was Christ who suffered so that the sins of the populace could be forgiven, and society could move on peacefully.  But in our present modernist age, everyday average citizens have the privilege of experiencing moral, spiritual and cultural decline "at the point of a gun."

Many people on the Right, both non-Catholics and some ill-informed Catholics, argue that Christendom's monarchies were tyrannical.  And, as we just read, John Adams would have argued that his bloody revolution was necessary for a rational system--thus, implying that Christendom was irrational.  Chris Ferarra holds this stance in contempt:
"The charge is sustainable only upon a complete ignorance of European history and what the modern state system has wrought in terms of death, destruction and governmental impositions on the ordinary citizen.  If anything, the monarchies of Christendom were characterized by a radical decentralization of political power in comparison with the massive centralized governments of the modern nation states."
The rise of This New Thing that oppresses the world coincides with the propping up of unaccountable oligarchies and feral mobs.  With all royalty out of the way, there is hardly anything that can stop the juggernaut of godless, dyscivic, societal breakdown.

And so, the door has been opened for a counter revolution against this five-century trend.  Rulers are rightfully resisted when they transgress God's law, and as Saint Augustine says, "unjust law is not law."  Christendom has a political tradition.  The doctrine is rooted in revelation.  We are obliged to obey civil authority, but there are also grounds for disobedience to immoral commands.

Modern nation-states abandoned that which allowed them to form.  While liberals and neo-cons will rail on about what freedoms we possess, the reality is that the state has been struggling against its own citizens this entire time.

The old order has been upturned.  From the French Revolution to the Bolshevik democides, we have the hindsight of hundreds of millions of slaughtered citizens throughout the world.  John Adams has his oceans of blood.  But we have yet to behold any kind of rationality from our current Western governments.
"Did you ever think how the world managed politically to get through the middle ages?  It got through them without breakdown because it had the Roman Catholic Church to draw upon for native gifts, and by no other means that I can see.  If you will look at the politics of the middle ages you will see that states depended for their guidance upon great ecclesiastics, and they depended upon them because the community itself was in strata, was in classes, and the Roman Catholic Church was a great democracy.  Any peasant could become a priest, and any priest a chancellor."
-Woodrow Wilson

Sunday, June 18, 2017

God The Father Looks At His Children

Happy Father's Day, gentlemen.

Today I am drinking iced soda pop from a large cup my own father used to drink from every weekend. Dad died in 2006, eleven years ago. It was a very difficult time for me. I suppose losing a father is difficult for any man. But I once heard that you are not a man until your own father passes on, and you are finally on your own.

My grandfather, on the other hand, is still alive.  Last weekend, we've been celebrating his 93rd birthday. He is a World War II hero who still drives to the nearby store, does woodwork, keeps up his yard, and is always asking me to fix his cable reception. Although age has made him shorter, I would be grateful to live as long and healthy a life as he has.

In just an hour from now, my own children will be waking up to prepare for Mass, and my daughter will be receiving her first communion.  After that, the rest of the day will be just me and the kids hanging out together, probably playing some old Nintendo games, since it's raining pretty hard down here in Tulsa. 

Perhaps today when you go to Mass, you will have heard various parishioners wish their priest a Happy Father's Day.  Because, of course, the priest is our spiritual father.  I also wonder if we had a king, would we not be wishing a Happy Father's Day to him, since a king is a father to his nation.

Our Father in Heaven
But another Father I often think about is God, Himself.  It's easy these days for people to conceptualize Jesus Christ.  He was a real, tangible, physical man on Earth.  We even have his likeness preserved on the Shroud of Turin.  So familiar are we of God the Son, that modernists often like to portray him as a "buddy Christ" dressed in blue jeans.  (Familiarity breeds contempt, I suppose.)

God the Father, on the other hand, is a nebulous and abstract concept for a lot of people.  For many, this person of the Trinity is a sort of philosophical exercise, more than a being with intentions and feelings.  

So, the question arises: How does God see us all as children?  This is asked in a guest post on my friend's website over at Stares At the World:
How is it that He is able to look at us with the affection of a father? How can we—disgusting creatures filled with sin that we are—resemble anything like children to the Creator? There are Islamic murderers, catty in-your-face sodomites, grotesquely obese gluttons, drugged out meth addicts. How can such creatures be looked at affectionately at all?
This has perplexed me for a while. God still loves us, even if we are type of Judas Iscariot, Nero, or an Adolph Hitler. How? How can it be? How is it that the Almighty can love a foul-smelling creep with a bad attitude who refuses to bathe, brush his teeth, or cut his hair?
The author goes on to relate to the perspective of God the Father through the lens of an emergency room worker.  I suppose this article will be a hit with a lot of other people reading this who are involved in the medical field.
It could be easy, as a medical worker, to go through the motions with this person, working as though they’re dealing with a carcass rather than a human being. It would be easy for a medical worker to have a casual conversation about their dating life or what they’ll do at the lake, all the while the infirmed patient lies there silently, unable to speak. Perhaps this geriatric’s glazed eyes stare motionless to the ceiling, and it is assumed by many in the room that the person is an object to talk over. The elderly patient “isn’t all there.” 
I look at this cadaverous mummy, and I imagine a black and white picture of a happy toddler on his tricycle. I look at them, and I realize this piece of human jerky was once a round-faced, bouncing, adorable smiling four-year old who ran to into his father’s arms and lifted him into the air. This skeletal horror was once an innocent, laughing, smiling six-year old who got his first puppy one day, his face covered over with happy puppy kisses one bright afternoon.
The brutal depiction of infirmed people on their last leg in a hospital is not the usual kind of imagery I am used to reading about.  But the question posed in this article is suitable for today's celebration: "Isn't this a face that only a father could love?"

It seems the article has been making the rounds online.  I think I saw a link to it up on Canon212 just last week. I would like to encourage you all to check out Aurini's blog for this and many other articles that he features.  Follow the link below for the full post:

"How God Looks At Us Like Children" can be found here:

Wednesday, June 14, 2017

Leftist Violence: An Invitation To A Party :)

A typical, lunatic leftist, deluded fan of Rachel Maddow has decided to try to kill Republicans this week.  He tried to manifest his sedition into something tangible.  He wanted to make his political opinions real and perceivable for one and all through the killing of various people on the Right.

This man was not an outlier.  He was not a lone actor in an isolated and uncharacteristic circumstance.  This shooter was created by the same forces that have encouraged Antifa to spread their violence in major US cities.

The good news is that this is an invitation.

People on the Right generally desire to respect law and order.  And because of this fact, they don't typically go out to create battles with the Left on American streets.  The Right carry and conceals all of the time.  Lots of us carry guns legally.  I recommend revolvers, as they never seem to misfire.

A Trump assassination is lauded in a Leftist play in NYC.
Now, the Left cannot come to grips with the fact that they've lost a presidential election.  After eight years of America's first cocaine-snorting, sodomite, atheist/Islamic, globalist black president, the Left is on a high, and it simply refuses to come down.  I suppose this is akin to witnessing violent crime between people in the meth drug culture, here in Oklahoma.  These people are so addicted to their drug, they will rob and kill to keep the high going.

In any event, when the day comes when you witness violence in your vicinity, do not fret.  Do not feel down.  Do not be glum.  Instead, take the opportunity to participate in the civil war that the Left is inviting you to.  Unholster your weapon, and shoot your enemy in a tight shooting pattern in the chest.  If you have a family with children, and if you are able, flee the scene immediately.  But if it looks like the shit is about to hit the fan, your chance to punch Left has arrived.  You have a constitutional right (for what that's worth) to defend your own life

"How to Foment Civil War," by Kathy Griffin
The impending civil war that awaits us all will not be started by the Right.  It will be started by the Left.  The Right is dependent upon the Left to invite us to the fight.  When these moments break out, we have received an invitation to participate in a brand new level of civil discourse, in which we can express our disagreements in a new contract.  This new behavior on the part of the shitlibs is an unspoken accord.  They are secretly saying: "Please, put us in our place.  Show us you can do it."  And, from the inaction of many police departments during these types of skirmishes, it appears that the powers that be have decided to sit this one out.

So, kids!  Just make sure that the law is on your side when the Left comes out for your blood, and you should be able to make your stance clear and unquestioned with two in the chest and one in the head.  While slow to respond to the summons, I am certain that within five years we will hear many tales from various media sources about the various "debates" that will take place on America's bloodied streets.

What a wonderful world the previous generations have left us!

The Kingdom of Católica America 11a: St. Bellarmine Loved Monarchy

So, here's a silly little snipe attack from the comments box:
Have you ever read Doctor of the Church St. Robert Bellarmine's "De Laicis" ? He says God entrusts political power to people who entrust it to a government of their choosing.
By the way, his feast day is Sept. 17th which is Constitution Day here in the U.S.  Alt-rights live in the 1776 past?  Catholic monarchists live in an even more remote past.
This guy is right, we need to talk about St. Robert Bellarmine.  I have witnessed that Bellarmine is discussed a lot in sedevacantist circles.  But let's put his writings to work in one of this blog's most cherished subjects, Catholic Monarchy.

Bottom line: Cardinal Bellarmine loved monarchy over all forms of government.

King Washington?
No doubt, the commenter above is probably one of those Catholics who think that everything America ever did was fantastic, that this nation is inheritently Christian, and that Catholicism helped pave the way for the miracle that is America.  In this way, the commenter can take an ecumenical stance with Protestant America's vision of "A City on a Hill," standing shoulder to shoulder with the Hebraic Puritans who were more Jewish than Christian.  For him, as long as Catholics like him have a seat at the table, there's no need to delve into the details of history.

Let's call his bluff and check out St. Bellarmine.  In fact, let's explore Bellarmine in a series of posts on this topic.

De Controversiis On The Roman Pontiff

In the very beginning of De Controversiis, Bellarmine squarely asks a question.  What is the best system of government in its purest form?  The options he chooses from are monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy.  His answer is immediately: monarchy.  "If some simple form of government must necessarily be chosen, without a doubt monarchy should be chosen."  Clearly, the man had an opinion on the subject.
"But where governance is in the hands of aristocrats, indeed the people have their own order when they are subjected to the aristocrats, but the aristocrats have none among themselves.  Democracy lacks order in a far greater degree, since all citizens are of the same condition, and they are all judged to be of authority in the commonwealth."  
Democracy is a fine thing if your nation state is small, orderly, and everyone is on the same page as far as their belief systems are concerned.  It has the most potential for chaos, however.

Aristocracy has a few degrees more order within it than democracy does.  However, there is then the danger that the aristocracy will suddenly become an oligarchy that can never be dislodged from power (as we have in the United States).

Monarchy, however, is the form of government required for when things are out of control, and there is a great need for order and clarity.  When the people need a purpose and a mission—when a nation requires a father—a king will be the most ideal leader to guide the masses out of their own darkness.


If Bellarmine were to consider the modern American's emotional concept of democracy, he would reply:
"[T]he end of government, however, is the unity of the citizens among themselves, and peace, which that union appears principally to be centered on, that all might think the same, wish the same and follow the same.  They will obtain it much more certainly and easily if one must be obeyed, rather than many..."
Unity.  What a completely foreign concept for DiversityKult.  What an absolute insult to the archons of vibrancy and pluralism.  Today's sophists rant and rave about how wonderful our time bomb of a nation is with so many different religions, belief systems, ethnicities, and even hyphenated nationalities.  Unable to draw any lessons from history or modern-day Europe, the United States is on a suicidal crash course that will wreck the world.

Currently the president of Russia is joking that Americans have lost their minds.  And he is absolutely correct.  There is no unity in this country.  As a people, we are schizophrenic sociopaths.  Order is ridiculed and quickly torn down.  The Left wants to destroy everything and everyone, and the Right is happy to shoot their own in the back of the head when anyone tries to take the reins and lead.

We do not think the same.  We do not wish for the same things.  We do not follow the same people.  It is uncertain that we will ever obtain any unity at all, and if we ever do, it will be tremendously difficult.

Bellarmine stated that democracy often falls into a state of sedition.  And do we not see this with the attempts of the deep state to cooperate with the media to destroy our current sitting president, Donald Trump?  Do we not see sedition when we witness the insane mob terrorism of violent antifa thugs in our major cities?
"It is a stronger state, in which there is a greater peace and concord among the citizens, indeed the combined strength dissipated among them is itself stronger: but a greater unity is where all depend upon one, than where they depend upon many, as was proved above, therefore, monarchy makes both a stronger state, and itself is the best government."  
It is more difficult for a monarchy to be divided.  There are less black swan emergencies in a monarchy.  A monarchical government is stable and less changeable—which is precisely what the sane remnant of America has been thirsting for.  It is less easily torn apart under the rule of one man.  But it is easily torn apart when the nation depends on a multitude of 300 million people agreeing as one body.


The ultimate evil end of aristocracy is oligarchy.  And oligarchy is precisely what we have in the United States.  

We are controlled by the media, by Hollywood, by Marxist international interests (George Soros, Bilderbergers, and a plethora of Leftist NGOs), by the military industrial complex, by corporations, by the pornography industry, by the Monsanto corporation, by the Deep State, and so many other interests.  And might I also mention that Jews are in charge of most of these?  Just saying.  

Bellarmine points to the example of the kingdom of the Scythians to be the oldest of all kingdoms, which had remained for thousands of years, and he points to the fact that no republic had ever been stable enough remain around for so long.

Many Americans will point out that our democratic republic is great because it is fashioned in a manner after the Roman republic.  How great was the Roman republic according to St. Bellarmine?  
"Certainly the most powerful republic of the Romans could scarcely count 480 years, as many years from the expulsion of the kings even to the reign of Julius Caesar.  But under the monarchs in the east from Caesar even to the last Constantine, it endured for 1495 years without interruption, in the west, however, from the same Caesar even to Augustulus around 500 years, and from Charlemagne even to the present emperor it has been nearly 800.  But for the 480 years that democracy flourished in the Roman Empire, the republic was not always ruled in the same manner: from the beginning yearly consuls were created, a little after they added tribunes, then the consuls and tribunes were taken up, creating the decemviri; after a year these were thrown out, and again the consuls and tribunes were recalled not rarely, even dictators and as many military tribunes were brought in with consular power.  Therefore, no one form endured long, nor could they all reach the age of noble kingdoms together."  
Rome was an absolute mess.  The entire empire was like a wild pig rolling around in mud, goring whatever came near it.  The Huns put the wild beast out of its misery.  If you ever want to watch the slow-motion destruction of an organization, then begin to have that entity make its decision through committees.  You will swiftly see the withdrawal of justice and common sense.  

It is easier to find one good man.  But it is hard to find many good men.  And yet, we have 535 members of Congress.  And that's our federal government alone.  535 minds who want nothing to do with one another unless there is a mutual self-interest involved.  How noble.  How are the 300 million American citizens of this continent supposed to respect and honor over 535 men and women?  
"[M]agistracies which take turns, and govern a state for a short time, are often compelled first to lay aside a duty than plainly recognize the business of the state; on the other hand, a king who always exercises the same office, even if from time to time he is of a meager intelligence, nevertheless by use and also experience is better than many others.  In like manner , yearly magistracies look after a business of the state, which is not their own, but common, as foreign; a king does so as properly his own.  It is certain that it is not only easier, but even more thorough for one to care for his own things, than for others."
Our senators and representatives do not look at the political system as theirs.  The legislative branch of government and its functions in tandem with the executive and judicial branches of government are one big game.  I'd recommend House of Cards if the show wasn't filled with lewd and pornographic imagery.  But the show was a perfect encapsulation of the Democrat struggle for power—particularly in the case of Hillary Clinton.

If our bureaucrats look at the political system as their own in any kind of a manner, it is only in the manner of an object that is there to be used and manipulated to achieve their own anti-Christian ends.  They do not look at the system and say: "Our poor system is broken.  We must patch it up and fix it."  Heavens, no.  Just look at the neglect our immigration system has endured since 1980 for a swift answer on that note.

In fact, the broken parts of our system are merely loopholes and opportunities for the most vile and wicked people in our oligarchy to take advantage of.  Never let a serious crisis go to waste, after all.  St. Bellarmine would agree:
"Where there are many who rule, it can hardly be the case that there would be no rivalry, ambition and contention present, and in point of fact it does not rarely happen that some impede others, and effect that, those who govern the affairs at hand, will administer the commonwealth badly, in such a case it is better for themselves that when they exercise the magistracy, they receive glory in abundance.  But monarchy, which does not have anyone it might envy, or with whom to contend in governance, more easily moderates all things."
Rivalry, ambition, and contention?  Let's put it this way.  In the headlines this week is news of a play that portrays a grisly assassination of President Trump.  Though some advertisers have pulled out of sponsoring the play, the liberal talking heads love it.  I've never seen politics so contentious in my entire life.  Nor has my 93-year old grandfather.

Do various forces in our government impede one another?  Consider that our president has the full right to control the immigration into this country in order to protect American citizens.  And then consider that various courts have been taking turns at rejecting his executive order for a travel ban.  These powers would rather enjoy calling Trump a racist and risk a terrorist event.  The three branches of government are supposed to be checks and balances for one another.  And yet, the judiciary is completely overstepping its bounds and taking a stab at the executive branch.  By complying with the court rulings, Trump is unwittingly creating a new precedent that the courts have the power to dictate the extent of president's authority when it comes to immigration.  We never saw this under their darling, President Obama, who overstepped his bounds many times.

Our "commonwealth" is administered to badly, due to the careerism and pure hate of the vile Left and the fearful conservatives on the Right.  The Left will happily "exercise the magistracy" and "receive glory in abundance" when it is on their terms.  But the interest of the nation is not in their interest.
"Lastly, to the extent that in great households, where many servants are assigned to the same duty, they manage their business badly because one shall leave behind a common duty to another: thus even where there are many heads of state, one looks to another, and while each one throws back the burden on his colleagues, no one sufficiently employs diligent care to the state.  A king, however, that knows all things depend upon himself alone, is compelled to neglect nothing."
Monarchy is superior to aristocracy.  The aristocracy oligarchy that has controlled this country has run it into the ground.  There is an endless list of items and policies that have been neglected.  It is hard to bring the United States down because the land mass is so vast and there are so many people who live such wonderful first-world lives when compared to the rest of the globe.  Also, there are two enormous oceans on each side of the continent.  Finally, it takes time to tear something down that took so long to build up.  The America that we know did not suddenly come into being, after all.

America is waiting for the payload of a long train of neglect that has stretched back to its inception.  It takes a long time for an entire continent to go mad.  But we're finding out what it looks like in the 21st century.  There is no unity, no sanity, no understanding, no assurance of long-term peace between citizens, no stability, no cooperation, no morality, no respect, no selflessness...no order.  Millions of different voices screaming to be heard, and all the while, nothing sensible is being done.


St. Bellarmine states that:
"Since simple monarchy in the empire of God and Christ holds place, and moreover the best things ought to be attributed to God and Christ, therefore, the best government must be simple monarchy."  
Of course, if you can't handle the best—if you're only capable of tolerating second best, or even third or fourth place—well, at least you tried.  Not everyone can be #1, after all.

Many Americanist zealots fiercely argue that "if America is so bad, then why is everyone pouring over our borders?"  America is the hottest attraction for the world, so why try to do any better than this?

By settling for the current form of America that we now live with, we are settling for less-than-best.  Yes, perhaps the United States is the top dog right now in a lot of ways when compared to other countries.  But again, that could change quickly in our chaotic world.  Is this the best we can do?  Is this ramshackle setup, built on the ideology of Jewish-inspired heretics, the most we can hope to achieve?  Have we passed the top of the bell curve, and we're now headed for a dip?  Will we still be fiercely defending our democratic republic when, fifty years from now, the nation has become a stew pot of mongrels with no concerns whatsoever to our past?

Monarchy is what is needed now.

Tuesday, June 13, 2017

West London Building Fire. Accident or Arson?

There's an apartment building in West London that's on fire right this moment.  Everyone is currently concerned about the action on the scene, survivors, injured people, and so on.

I hope that the remaining survivors get out of there, and that whoever is about to die make a good final act of contrition.  Although, it's not likely, as I think most of the residents are Muslims.

So, now I must ask.  Was it arson?  Or was it an accident?

Happy Ramadan.

Wednesday, June 7, 2017

Catholic Priest Retreats, Gives Way to Modernist Advancement

A few other ideas I had for the title of this post were:

  • How To Lose A Cultural War
  • What Happens When Pretending There Is No War
  • Luciferian Modernist Advancement Continue, Catholics Lose Again

Out ya go, Fr. Riehl!
I spoke in April about how a Father Christopher Riehl had accepted the duty of performing Catholic missionary work in  North Carolina, bringing true Catholicism to the confused people of his parish under the benevolent leadership of Bishop Peter Jugis.  But guess what?  The Baby Boomers win again!  

The Charlotte Observer has recently reported that Fr. Riehl of St. John the Evangelist parish complains of being "worn out or burned out," and that he's taking a sabbatical.  

How brave.  
A group calling itself Appalachian Catholics in the Smoky Mountain Region said in a statement earlier this year that Riehl and some other conservative priests assigned by Jugis to small parishes in the mountains “seem to be more intent on taking the church back to pre-Vatican ll days rather than minister to the people. They seem to be steeped in doctrine and theology, but are unwilling to participate in ecumenical activities, and are lacking in compassion, love and mercy. They are doing the job of the theologian, but not the job of the pastor. This is directly opposed to what Pope Francis and Vatican II are teaching us.”
Well yaaay for the Appalachian Catholics in the Smoky Mountains!  What a victory they can now celebrate!  The triumphalist has been expunged, and the precious, silver-haired faithful can continue worshipping Christ in the manner they see fit, without any real demands made of them.  

Of course, Riehl is claiming that his leaving isn't prompted by anything other than his need to take some time away from parish ministry.  However, the Diocese of Charlotte has stated that they don't think Fr. Riehl will be assigned anywhere in that diocese again.  

You will have FrancisChurch.  

Of course, this Baby Boomer victory is to the detriment of younger Catholics who crave for some kind of a link to the Church's past.  The Baby Boomers are doing whatever they can to ensure that all past associations to the Church of Christendom is wiped clean, sterilized, unrecognizable, and similar in most ways to Protestant worship.  

I find it peculiar how, even here in Tulsa, the Baby Boomers breathed a sigh of relief to see that Bishop Slattery--who was a friend to Traditional Catholicism--finally retired from the diocese.  To this day, I still hear from the elderly Boomers that they're glad he's gone, and that they hope the "modern reforms" will become in vogue once more.  

Catholicism will continue to lose, so long as priests and laity continue to retreat in a war they do not even realize is being waged against them.  The current environment in Trad Land is one in which different people make compromises, betray one another, animosities grow, and various people pensively keep their heads down in "defense mode" while various ridiculous things sprout up here and there.  So as long as this remains the pervading environment, we will continue to see defeat after defeat, routs, abdications, embarrassments, ostracization, overthrown strongholds, and effeminate weakness.  
Bishop Fellay, smiling nervously
in an interview he should never
have agreed to

In order to make the gains necessary to actually win in this cultural war, priests and laity must accept that they will have to sacrifice their comfort and reputations.  They will have to suffer financially.  They will have to accept ridicule in the media.  They will have to accept the pressure of hundreds if not thousands of dissenting, hateful voices screaming at them.  

If Catholics cannot take this kind of abuse, then we lose.  

Terror In London. And?

I can't help but agree and relate to The Becthloff this week.  Something tells me you will too:

Check out The Bechtloff video here, or follow the link below.

Some Muslims killed more Westerners during this latest annual Islamic killing season Ramadan.  I could swear we covered this just two weeks ago.  Oh yeah, I did.  And basically, I said that we are governed by a generation of cowards who fear to be ruthless and cold when necessary, and that terror of this magnitude is the new normal from now on.

Jack Black, author of
"Fuck Her Gently"
I really like how Barnhardt has been covering the Ariana Grande side of things.  That little lady (Grande) is rather filthy.  I knew that we could count on Barnhardt to lay out this angle of things for us, and man, she doesn't disappoint.  For me, one of the most memorable things she says of Grande is that "Grande is a product of the odious Nickelodeon children’s cable channel machine, second only to Disney in its perversity and aggression in its attack on children’s souls."  And how true.  A stint on the Mickey Mouse Club or some Nickelodeon pre-teen show is a guarantee for a future in some sultry, kinky, hyper-sexed, MTV media future.  Barnhardt also lays it on in this article, as well as this podcast.  I highly recommend Barnhardt's commentary, so check it out.

I am also amused with how some folks have lately been keeping track of the "death score" for this Ramadan.  Prime Minister May's response i to the London Bridge attacks is typical.  She blames this not on Islam, but Islamist extremism.  She wants to defeat extreme Islamist ideology to make them understand that British pluralism is a superior value.  She wants to end safe spaces online for terror planning.  She wants to take the fight to the enemy "over there" (worked out great for us, lemme tell you).  And she wants oh-so-tougher prison sentences.  That'll REALLY make a difference.

The problem is, of course, Islam.  Not just extreme Islam.  Pluralism is a joke.  Rather than focusing on online safe spaces, the Prime Minister should focus on actual spaces--in Britain.  And extensive exposure to prison only breeds more Islamists.

Liberals and cuckservatives will cuck their way through life--all the way to the moment of their death.
Literally on the floor, during a terrorist attack, and one Brit scolds another for being Islamophobic about it all.
First guy: "Fucking Muslims cunts!"
King of all cucks: "Don't shout that. Fucking idiot. It's not Muslims."
"I'm happy to deliver beat down to Donald
Trump--and also to Barron.  You know a
lot of comics are going hard for Donald, my
edge is that I'll go direct for Barron.  I'm going
to get in ahead of the game."
(Barron Trump is Donald's 11-year old son.)
Such a level of denial gives way to true insanity.  CNN has actually tried to stage anti-ISIS protests.  CNN host, Reza Aslan has publicly called our president a "piece of shit" for declaring the London Bridge attack as an act of terror.  London's Muslim mayor, Sadiq Khan, wants Donald Trump banned from Britain. And emboldened by the chaos of Westerners, Islamists then proceeded to set up camp in front of Trump Tower so that they could start praying their Ramadan prayers, letting the Westerners know just how emboldened they were.  The modernist post-Christian West hates themselves and their Christian past more than they hate the terrorists.

As The Bechtloff rhetorically asks: "Why should I be taking this seriously?  Because it's pretty damned apparent that no one else is."

This is just a song and dance.  This will continue to happen in Britain, France, Germany, Sweden, America--and every Western nation that has opened its borders and allowed MILLIONS OF HOSTILE ALIENS INTO THEIR LANDS.

Like The Bechtloff, I simply cannot go through the motions any longer.  There's a meme circulating on Facebook.  It's a 10-step emergency plan in the case of an emergency terrorist attack.

1. Tearful cartoons
2. A Facebook filter
3. Crying on TV
4. Light up buildings
5. Candlelight vigils
6. More refugees
7. Call those who want to stop it bigots
8. Wait for the next attack
9. Repeat
10. Do nothing

I cannot work myself up over this any more.  I cannot have pity for Britain any longer.  I cannot have pity on the West any longer.  This is not September 11, 2001.  The "new" has worn off, and the glamour of being horrified is old hat.  I'm at Level Jonah. This generation of people in the West deserves to be marched around in the desert for 40 years until it dies off.  There is no one to root for.  No one to support.  I have no vested interest in any major player in this geopolitical disaster.
"I am supposed to care.  And I can't.  I can't care anymore.  I don't have any emotional reservoir left to care about this anymore.  What needs done could not be more clear...Don't dare call this a tragedy, people of London.  How dare you call it a tragedy.  It's nothing more than what you chose."  
-The Bechtloff
Ladies and gentlemen, The Bechtloff has joined me on Level Jonah.  Is it a healthy place to be?  Of that, I'm not so sure.  But it's real, it exists, and we're here.  Resign yourself to the fact that most of the world is too afraid to deal with actual problems.
Everything's fine.