Mark Steyn and the flight from reality

I’ve read Mr. Mark Steyn over the years, and have found his commentary on Islam particularly helpful.  However, I disagree with his radical free-speech agenda.  Mr. Steyn believes that speech should be essentially un-restricted, and that truth should be decided in a “marketplace of ideas.”  This assumes that truth is subject to a majority vote, and that the masses, when confronted with a multitude of ideas, will always make the right choice.  Yet it is apparent that speech can be dangerous.  Free speech and the marketplace of ideas have been used to promote horrible totalitarianism, as is being done right now.  I believe in strict regulation of the press by government, but there is a caveat here.

Right now, our government is in the hands of Communist/Atheist psychopaths.  In the current situation, I support free speech, but simply as a means to an end.  Eventually, when the Church regains its sanity, and we are able to bring about a true Catholic government, then, and only then, should speech regulation begin.  This will protect the people from the likes of those who have recently been promoting the nonsensical idea of transgenderism.

Mark Steyn sees this as the problem:  “Obama’s ideological enforcers are telling you that there’s only one correct viewpoint on transgendered issues…”  Actually, Mr. Steyn, they happen to be correct.  They just happen to have the wrong viewpoint.  There is only one correct viewpoint, and it is the one which corresponds to objective reality.  Men are men and women are women.  A man cannot be a woman.  A woman cannot be a man.

Tolerating foolish ideas such as transgenderism does no one any good.  I hope, after society collapses, and it will soon, that we can shut down this marketplace once and for all.

The end is near

Back when Mrs. Loretta Lynch Hargrove was proposed for Attorney General of the United States, I had a discussion about her nomination with my father.  “Obama could have appointed a lot worse,” my father said.  “She seems solid and reasonable.”  I’m often amazed how so-called conservatives are so easily deceived by the progressivist army, and so willing to capitulate.  I knew immediately that anybody appointed to any major position by Barak Obama would have to be a psychopath, especially a woman lawyer.

And so, here we are, a short while later, and Mrs. Hargrove is being praised by the Los Angeles Times and Slate magazine for her speech in support of letting boys use the girls room and vice versa.   We are told that her speech is “rousing” and “powerful”, and that it represents the “I Have a Dream” moment for the so-called trans movement, a movement of recent invention by deluded narcissists who are bored with homosexual (sodomy) rights and need to move on to something else.

Mrs. Hargrove (Lynch), our Attorney General:  “…none of us can stand by when a state enters the business of legislating identity and insists that a person pretend to be something they are not…”  (Emphasis mine.)  This is exactly what trannies are doing when they impersonate the opposite sex.  Could there be a more apt description of a so-called transgender person?  A boy who goes around in girls’ clothing, aping the mannerisms of the female sex is, as a matter of fact, someone pretending to be something they are not.

As I have often stated on this blog, the idea that a boy can be a girl is so ludicrously out of touch with objective reality that it is impossible to argue against.  It is like arguing with someone who thinks 2 + 2 = 5.  Once you establish that they are not a foreigner who perhaps has the word for five mixed up with the word for four, but that they actually believe two objects joined to two objects yields five objects, what can you say?  How do you even begin to argue?  If they plainly disregard what their very eyes show them, they are crazy or delusional.

Here is a little thought exercise.  You are walking down the street and you encounter a man who says he wants to ask you a question.  You start talking to him, and he says, “I am an employee of the CIA, sent here by inter-galactic aliens to collect samples of super-intelligent mold and I’d like to see your bathroom.”  Chances are, you would immediately recognize that this is a person totally out of touch with objective reality.  You would most likely beat a hasty retreat, realizing that as stable as the man seems now, he has the potential to snap and possibly be violent.

It used to be that when you saw a man coming down the street in woman’s clothing, you got out of the way.  Parents would guard their children.  Obviously, the guy was nuts.  Like the schizo, he was totally out of touch with reality, and hence an unpredictable person.  Now he gets to use the little girls room with adulation.

Meanwhile, the so-called “conservative” Catholics have surrendered without a fight.  The fake-conservative San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone capitulated immediately to a male-impersonating female teacher at a Catholic school, saying that he has “respect for personal decisions affecting one’s life,” and that decisions about these delusional individuals must be made on a “case-by-case basis.”  His Excellency has made a habit of doing nothing about any of the dementia in his city, and the immediate surrender of the supposed defender of “traditional” marriage (i.e. “marriage”) will bolster the movement to deny reality and embrace utter insanity.

If you think Donald Trump will take care of things, then you are as delusional as a girl in a tuxedo.  Trump, a pathological liar and a fraud, has been quite supportive of the trannies.  I also happened to read an interview Mr. Trump did with the sodomite journalist Anderson Cooper.  Cooper asked Trump’s daughter about what it is like to have children, stating the he himself was considering having a child.  Neither Trump nor his family batted an eyelash at this sodomite suggesting he wants to “have a child” with his gay-predator-bar-owning anal buddy.  Anybody with the least bit of moral backbone would have told him that someone with his perversion shouldn’t be let anywhere near children.  But Trump and his family just smiled and pretended like it is entirely normal for some gay-bar owner to want a child.

The destruction of society is proceeding at an unimaginable pace.  Between the hedonistic LGBT-whatever movement, the mass importation of murderous Mohammadans, the debased and immoral black culture, the total disenfranchisement of normal thinking individuals, etc., one cannot expect America to survive much longer.  I recommend stocking up on arms, food, and gold.  I have never been a conspiracy guy or a “prepper” but bad news is ahead.  Believe me.  If a middle-aged, married, corporate career guy is saying this, you should be worried.  I don’t live out in a swamp with alligators and listen to country music.  I’m a white collar professional, and I’m terrified.

Meanwhile, I certainly agree with Miss Ann Barnhardt that you should pull your children out of public school.  (Warning:  Miss Barnhardt uses language that is not appropriate for a Catholic lady in her piece.)  If you see a man try to enter a ladies room, take matters into your own hands and stop him.  I’m not advocating violence here, just block him.  Ladies, carry pepper spray if you can, but if a man shows up in the woman’s room, call on a man to help you evict him.  It’s time to put a stop to this.

Remember, there is no democracy in the United States any more.  We live in a tyranny.  Did you read 1984?  What was O’Brian obsessed with?  2 + 2 = 5.  Not because he particularly cared what two and two equal.  No, he needed to make Winston question the very basic foundational ideas of reality, so that reality could be substituted by the Party.  That is exactly what is happening here.  We all know that boys and boys and girls are girls, but the totalitarians like Mrs. Hargrove (Lynch) want to beat you into submission until you deny that fundamental reality even exits.  All that will matter is the state.  And then all hope is lost.

Adopting the enemy’s language

Mrs. Amanda Prestigiacomo writes in the Daily Wire:

Blasphemy was committed on a Catholic university campus: An employee at the “Catholic” school stated her belief, rooted in Catholicism, that there are only two genders.

Mrs. Prestigiacomo no doubt meant to point out the irony here, of a Catholic at a Catholic university being investigated for a hate crime for stating a Catholic belief.  However, her language betrays her surrender to the enemy.  The belief that there are two genders is not particularly rooted in Catholicism, or any other religion.  It is simply rooted in reality.

Human beings exist in one of two genders:  male or female.  Our gender (or sex) is determined at birth, and cannot be changed.  Until quite recently such an idea would never be challenged by serious people, but only by the insane.  We now live in an age of insanity, where many have been persuaded that their gender is a matter of choice.  As I have pointed out, this is ultimately the (il)logical conclusion of the existentialist dementia which afflicts our world.  Existentialists believe that existence precedes essence, and hence we can define what we are regardless of how we came into the world.  The manifest absurdity of this is that existence is the act of realizing essence, so it is impossible for something to exist unless its essence is defined.  You may care less about such matters, and view philosophical ontology as a pseudo-science, but even so, you should be able to see how, as Richard Weaver says, Ideas Have Consequences.

Male and female, as I have often said, are fundamental concepts in the order of reality, reality which is objective and external to us.  In saner times, people accepted that we have far less control of external reality than we would like, and hence have to simply accept certain things as reality.  I may wish my grandfather didn’t die suddenly, but I have to accept that he did.  I may even wish to be a different sex, but alas, my sex was determined for me before I was born.

In our age of atheism, the mere suggestion that some of our reality was defined in advance for us is seen as hopelessly oppressive.  “How dare I be a man when I want to be a woman?!  How dare you tell me who I am?”  Well, too bad.  We all have to live with realities we may not like or want.

The confused student in the above story is so clearly an existentialist, I wonder if he actually realizes it.  When he is confronted by the employee who points out that he is really a man, and not of a fictional neutral gender, the student tells her she has no right to deny his existence.  In other words, existence requires essence, which is, in the existentialist mind, defined after existence begins.  Therefore, to deny the student’s self-constructed and ficitonal essence is to deny his existence.  Priceless!  Never does it occur to him that if the employee denied his existence, she would not actually be talking to him.

Back to the first sentence of the article.  Of course, Catholicism teaches that there are two genders, but even atheists wouldn’t seriously deny this in times past.   Such a reality is grounded in the external observable world, and is a matter of fact so firmly established that to deny it is simply insane.  However, the authoress, Mrs. Prestigiacomo, like so many now, couches objective reality in the language of subjectivism.  The employee’s belief is rooted in her Catholicism.  “Believe what you want, just let me believe what my religion teaches!”  Uh, no.  Reality is reality is reality.  It may be ironic that a Catholic school would persecute someone in this situation, but it’s stupid that any school would.  Let’s not make this subjective.

Arguing Sedevacatism

I have followed with great attention the debate on sedevacantism which has been taking place of late.  Interest in sedevacantism has grown considerably with the papacy of Francis.  It seems to me that while Francis is more outrageous than his predecessors, his theological positions continue the general line of thinking that emerged after the Second Vatican Council.  Still, with each pronouncement that comes out of Francis, we see more and more consternation coming from the traditionalist movement.  I suspect that, had there been a blogosphere during the pontificate of John Paul II, we would have seen much similar commentary, but information moved more slowly then and publishing our thoughts to the world took time and reflection.

The cacophony of the traditionalist blogosphere has in many ways added credence to the sedevacantist argument.  We have bloggers such as Ann Barnhardt calling the pope a “heretic” and “faggot.”  Mundabor shows a picture of an evil clown with the words “Heretic!  Heretic!! Heretic!!” as his headline.  And so forth.  The sedevacantists look at this and say:  how is it that you possibly believe this man is the pope?  How is it that you consider him to be validly the Vicar of Christ on Earth?

Meanwhile, The Remnant has unleashed a team of lay, amateur theologian/canonists to take up the cause of anti-sedevacantism.  For some reason, they gravitate towards lawyers in their anti-sedevacantist crusade.  Now, lawyers are usually well educated and intelligent, and also experienced in research.  There is no reason a lawyer cannot understand the issues and make arguments on one side or the other.  However, it must also be noted that lawyers have a lot to overcome.  They are trained in a sort of sophistical style of argumentation that may be appropriate for a courtroom, but not for issues of such gravity.  They are trained to ignore evidence that might be a disadvantage to their clients.  In the extreme case of a criminal defense attorney, a lawyer who finds out that his client is guilty and did murder that child would be required by professional ethics to drop that evidence and continue his defense.

When arguing in pursuit of the truth, and not merely taking a position as a professional in the employ of a client, the principle of charity in argumentation must prevail.  This principle requires that even when one’s opponent fails to make his argument correctly, one must correct the argument and even make it for the opponent before refuting it.   (Cf. Harry Gensler, Introduction to Logic.)  My own occasional failures on this blog in applying this principle are not a refutation of it, but merely a sign of my own weakness.

Aside from their training in argumentation, civil lawyers also lack any training in the first principles of the sciences of theology and canon law.  They can certainly obtain such training, but if they don’t, or if they do so incompletely, they risk applying the first principles of civil law in circumstances when such principles do not apply.

These things being said, I have many times repeated that sedevacantists need to be treated with charity and respect.  They are Catholics who have advanced a position that should not appear incoherent to any traditionalist, and in fact, many of us have considered as an explanation for the present crisis.  I have not yet been persuaded by the sedevacantist thesis, owing to some difficulties that I hope to enumerate later.  Even if the sedevacantists themselves are uncharitable, mockery and lawyerly “gotcha” tactics are still inappropriate.

Let’s look at an example of the John Salza/Robert Siscoe style of argumentation, from their “Sedevacantist Watch” site (the below are all quotes):

• In his article…Derksen tries to cajole his followers…
• And this fact gives us yet another opportunity to publicly reveal the dishonesty
• Sedevacantists have been claiming, to their own embarrassment
• Setting aside the fact that Derksen and his colleagues have completely misunderstood Bellarmine’s Fifth Opinion
• So why did Mad Mario remove the Second and Third Opinions? [Mario refers to Mario Derksen, whom Salza/Siscoe claim is the author of the NovusOrdoWatch.com site.]
• This…should tell you all you need to know about the integrity of Mario Derksen and the trustworthiness of his website
• he figures if that didn’t work for Anthony, it won’t work for Mario either. (Father Anthony Cekada is referred to here as “Anthony”, despite the fact that, sedevacantist or not, he is indisputably a priest.)
• it’s difficult to believe that even Mario Derksen would make such an unfounded argument
• Lane doesn’t have a clue what he is talking about.
• his [Derksen’s] lack of knowledge is as stark as his dishonesty.

And so forth.  While I do not intend to imply that they only use these sorts of attacks as the basis of their argument, the above give a good example of their tone.  One could argue that Novus Ordo Watch and Fr. Cekada also use a similar tone, and in fact at times they do.  However, I think a side-by-side reading of those sedevacantists and Salza/Siscoe would at least show that they attempt to take the Salza/Siscoe arguments seriously before refuting them.

This, Salza/Siscoe do not do.  The most obvious example is their claim that N.O.W. somehow hid the second opinion in St. Robert Bellarmine’s list of opinions on a heretical pope.  Novus Ordo Watch clearly did not do this, as they show here.  This would appear to be a typical lawyerly game of “gotcha”, an attack and not an argument, and a lack of charity to be sure.

A final comment on the Salza/Siscoe approach.  They seem obsessed with using the length of their documents as proof of their veracity.  For example:

• …three long and very weighty chapters…
• …we spend a great deal of time, over three lengthy chapters…
• …the 1450+ footnotes in our book…
• …we issued a 25-page, point-by-point refutation of his inane arguments…
• …he doesn’t have the time to respond to our 700 page book…

And so forth.  To this I would respond with a quote from Fr. George Rutler’s recent article on Amoris Laetita:

Not only is verbosity indicative of muddled thinking, it is the rhetorical indulgence of the modern age. The documents of the Second Vatican Council are wordier than the extant records of all the other ecumenical councils combined. The recent apostolic exhortation, Amoris Laetitia, is nearly two-thirds the length of all the Vatican II promulgations.

Precision and succinctness are a better indicator of the strength of one’s arguments than length.  It would be nice to see The Remnant and the attorneys in their orbit take note.  It would be even nicer if some trained theologians and canonists weighed in instead of leaving it to the lawyers.

Keep up the war!

Rolling Stone, a liberal magazine, has just published an article on the “War on Planned Parenthood” by a Mrs. Alex Morris.  The title is fair enough;  those of us who oppose abortion are certainly at war with the largest provider of it.  Many, if not most, of her points have been discussed over and over again, and I try not to add redundant commentary when I can avoid it.  A few points, though, about her article:

1. Mrs. Morris needed an abortion to, essentially, clear out a miscarried baby.  A miscarried child is dead by definition.  No one who is pro-life should have a problem with aborting a fetus which is already dead by natural causes.  How the law actually needs to be framed in this case is debatable.  Obviously an exception for dead fetuses has potential for fraudulent abortion of living babies, but true medical necessity in the case of a dead child is a reasonable cause for the procedure.
2. Mrs. Morris is totally misleading when she refers to the “passage of Roe v. Wade.”  Passage?!  Roe v. Wade was not a piece of legislation that was passed, it was a Supreme Court decision.  Surely she isn’t that ignorant.  Roe was a declaration by a group of oligarchs whose only qualification for office was attendance at elite law schools.  It was not a law that was passed through the democratic process;  it was a thwarting of that process.  As for her tiresome repetition of “choice” as a constitutional right, I would challenge Mrs. Morris, or any abortion supporter, to show me where in the United States Constitution such a right exists.  Guess what!  You can’t!  It’s simply not there.  Abortion is not a constitutional right, despite what some lawyer may think the constitution is emanating at any given moment.
3. I have spent many hours outside of abortion clinics.  While I have never been to the particular clinic she visited, I have never, ever, seen pro-life protesters shove cameras in the faces of people entering the clinics.  I’ve never seen harassment like she describes.  Does it happen?  I’m sure it does some places.  Should it happen?  Of course not.  How often does it happen?  I don’t know, but I’m not convinced her experience is representative.  In my time in front of our clinic, I have, however, been verbally harassed, my wife has been sworn at, an old lady praying her rosary was spit upon, our table overturned, etc., etc.  Fine.  Emotions run high outside the clinics.  (For the record I only pray outside the clinics, and never interact or argue with anyone.)  That’s not really what the debate is about, is it?  It’s not about the subjective question of how badly people on either side feel.  It is about the objective question about whether killing a living child is wrong.  As to why tensions are so high, see #2.
4. “The majority of American women who have abortions are Protestant or Catholic, using contraceptives and are already mothers.”  Sigh, no.  A woman who has an abortion, willingly at least, is not exactly Catholic.  Yes, she is entitled to that appellation by baptism, but if she rejects some of the most basic tenants of the faith, how can she be called Catholic?  If she’s using contraceptives, she might be Protestant, but not Catholic.  And the evil of abortion is so fundamental that I would argue that to deny it obstinately constitutes heresy.
5. If she is correct, that 1 in 3 women have had abortions, then we have a terrible problem.  Mrs. Morris falls for the fallacy that because a lot of people do it, therefore it is morally acceptable.  This is, of course, the error of making morality subjective.  If 100% of women had abortions, abortion would still be evil.
6. Mrs. Morris, like most women who were born around 1979, shows her Marxist colors with her vocabulary.  (“Racist and classist.”)  This just goes to show how clever the revolutionaries were in seizing control of educational systems, and using them to indoctrinate generations of young.  You can thank Plato for the idea, another reason I prefer Aristotle.
7. Jesus said nothing about abortion.  Look, if you buy into the Protestant line of thinking that scripture is the only infallible guide to faith, you can spend your time debating exegetical ways to show abortion is wrong.  Obviously it starts with “Thou shalt not kill/murder.”  If killing an innocent is not murder, I’m not sure why we should even bother practicing our religion.  Anyway, the Catholic Church has been clear about this, going back as far as the second century.

I have made the point, rarely made by pro-lifers, that abortion won’t go away as long as our society adheres to the egalitarian tenets of  the Revolution which has been destroying the West for quite some time now.  (I really date it back to the Protestant Revolt, but the last 50 years the pace has truly accelerated.)  As long as we have women lawyers, doctors, corporate executives, construction workers, train engineers, etc., we need to be very focused on preventing and stopping pregnancy.  If you are pro-life, but accept the underlying assumption that this sort of “progress” is good, well then, you are a part of the problem.  If you think women should be wives and mothers instead, and only do work that is suited to their nature, good luck trying to convince anyone else of that.  There is a long road ahead to stopping this totalitarian slaughter of innocents, and it has to start with the fundamentals.

We do have to discuss it

Peggy Noonan has always been one of the more thoughtful political commentators, even if I disagree with her on many points.  But I lost a lot of respect for her upon reading today’s column, in which she scolds Donald Trump for saying women should be punished for procuring illegal abortions.  A woman procuring an abortion, she says, is dealing with “fear, disappointment, confusion and sadness.”  You see, “she has already been gravely and tragically penalized,” because of the emotional turmoil, and that’s punishment enough.  That we even have to discuss this, Mrs. Noonan says, is absurd.

I occasionally make the point that it is absurd we even have to discuss something.  Usually this is in reference to the fact that someone born male is, in fact, male, and can never, ever, be otherwise.  It it so patently obvious a fact that to deny it would be to deny reality.  However, Mrs. Noonan’s opinion on whether or not women who kill their babies should be punished does not fall into the realm of non-discussion issues.  Nor does my opinion, for that matter.  Reasonable people may differ.

That said, let me take issue with her reasoning.  In the first place, many women do not, in fact, suffer regret, fear or disappointment.  As I pointed out yesterday, I once talked to a woman who was proud of her two abortions.  Anyone who has spent time outside the clinics has been confronted by women who are in your face about what they are doing.  Mrs. Noonan seems to agree abortion is a crime that needs to be punished, but she is saying that fear and disappointment are punishment enough.  OK, but what if the woman never experiences either?  Is it ok for her to get off scot-free?

Now, let’s take another hypothetical.  A woman has a baby, but suffers from postpartum depression.  In the throes of her emotional upset, she drowns the child in a bathtub.  Should we not punish this woman?  After all, she probably regrets the drowning.  She probably feels a sense of loss and is penalized by losing someone who would love her during the course of her life.

I don’t know anyone who would seriously argue that we should give postpartum killers a blanket exemption because of their emotional distress.  Now it may come to pass that, in a sentencing hearing, a judge finds reason for leniency.  That can be decided case by case.  As with abortion.  Yet we should never issue a blanket exemption for all women.

Whatever other forms of dementia Mr. Trump may be suffering, I hope that his “misstep” will at least bring up an important discussion that we need to have for the days when, God willing, abortion is outlawed in this country.

Depose the pro-life leaders

I have avoided commenting on the Trump phenomenon here, because it seems that most everything that needs to be said has been said.  It goes without saying that one should look at the moral character of the candidates one votes for, but doing so in this election cycle tends to lead one to despair.  I’m tempted to agree with Miss Barnhardt’s axiom, that running for office in this country is de facto proof that one is not suited to hold such office.  Trump, of course, raises some important issues, although all he does is raise them.  The man is so inarticulate he makes George W. Bush sound like Winston Churchill.  As to whether Trump believes what he says, I couldn’t hazard a guess.

Still, the latest anti-Trump salvo is baffling.  He said that if abortion is made illegal, which it should be, then, well, someone who violates the law should be punished.  This includes the doctor as well as the woman procuring the abortion.  In other words, if a woman, against the law, goes to some underground doctor and has her baby chopped to pieces, she needs to be prosecuted.  This is totally reasonable.  How would anyone expect the law to have any effect if violators were not prosecuted?

Immediately Trump was excoriated by Left and Right.  Whenever the newspapers say that left and right agree on something, rest assured it is a compromise on our side.  Now I have prayed outside of abortion clinics and I have also had much direct involvement with the pro-life machinery.  But I didn’t realize that we had all agreed to a blanket exemption for woman baby-killers.  Anyone who is of a certain age remembers Susan Smith, who drowned her two children–I don’t remember anyone saying she should be granted simply because she was a woman, and was depressed!  What’s the difference when a mother kills a child in her womb?

My great disappointment with the pro-life movement is that it has become too much of a movement.  Major pro-life groups have become professional organizations, with focus-group-tested messages everyone has to parrot.  Look at the Walk for Life in San Francisco.  Their banners always read:  “Abortion hurts women.”  Sure, abortion hurts women, especially the 50% of abortees who are female and have their limbs ripped off and their brains suctioned out.  I’m sure it hurts real bad.  But the WFL insists on making its message about the women who procure abortions and their pain, not the murder of the infant.  They flat-out refuse to let anyone show pictures of aborted fetuses, one of the most powerful and direct messages about the horror of abortion that one can send.

By doing this, the leaders of WFL have sent abortion into the realm of the subjective and removed it from the realm of the objective.  Murder of an innocent child is, in the objective moral order, a grave crime and sin.  But instead, we just hear about how women feel bad after killing their child, and how miserable they are, and how they regret what they did.  Pure subjectivity!  Well, a lot of women feel great about their abortions, including one woman I sat next to at a party who, when she found out I was a Catholic, told me that she had aborted two children and would gladly do it again.  And we’re not supposed to prosecute her?!

Anyone who has stood outside of clinics is well aware that many, many women are driven to the clinics by their boyfriends, husbands, and even their parents.  Most of them could have carried the child to term if they really forced the issue, but women are the weaker sex, and having an abortion under duress may well be a mitigating circumstance.  This is why we have courts.  A woman who is forced into it can be shown leniency by a judge.

Meanwhile, Mr. Trump, who allegedly speaks the truth and doesn’t worry about staying on message, backpedaled when he had an opportunity to make a stand on principle.  Too bad.  And our pro-life “leaders” are quickly circling the wagons and acting like nobody thinks women are responsible for their actions.  When you compromise your principles, rest assured you will fail.

Super Bowl Sunday

Did you, my fellow Catholic, spend your Sunday watching the SuperBowl?  Did you go to Mass?  Even if you did, was your mind more on the game than God?  Did you enjoy Beyonce’s Half Time Show?  Did you turn a blind eye to her half naked performance, her jiggling of her back side on TV?  A performance embarrassing and degrading, and yet celebrated as brilliant?  Did you revel in the violence, the giant degenerate boy-men gloating over tackling each other, men with tattoos and dreadlocks and speaking a sub-literate form of English?  Did you look a little too long at the hard bodied cheerleaders, with their bare midriffs and tan legs?

Allow me to remind you of what the great Dom Gueranger said in his entry for Quinquagesmia Sunday (i.e., yesterday):

Let [Christians] now remember that we are now in that holy season when the Church denies herself her songs of holy joy, in order the more forcibly to remind us that we are living in a Babylon of spiritual danger, and to excite us to regain that genuine Christian spirit, which everything in the world around us is quietly undermining.  If the disciples of Christ are necessitated, by the position they hold in society, to take part in the profane amusements of these few days before Lent, let it be with a heart deeply imbued with the maxims of the Gospel…Above all, let them not countenance certain dances, which the world is so eloquent in defending, because so evidently according to its own spirit;  and therefore they who encourage them will be severely judged by Him, who has already pronounced woe upon the world…while all these frivolous, and often dangerous amusements are going on, there are countless souls being tormented in the fire of hell, on account of sins they committed on similar occasions…that there are thousands in the agonies of death, while all that gaiety is going on;  that God and His angels are attentively looking upon this thoughtless group;  and finally, that life is passing away, and death so much nearer each moment.

An allegedly devout Catholic friend of a friend posted on Facebook (which I do not have, but my wife told me about) that the dancing was great and that it was a fun show.  She would do well to think of Dom Gueranger’s words, but then again, she told me that my intensely atheistic grandfather was surely in Heaven, because he was a nice guy.  She may be nice, and she may do many corporal acts of mercy, but helping people to Hell offsets the good she does.

Lest I be accused of self-righteousness, I sat mute at a relative’s party while the SuperBowl was playing.  I had little interest in watching it, but I couldn’t help being confronted by the images on the massive screen.  I should have registered my objections and left, but I knew they would say I was an old fuddy-duddy and make fun of me.  I will pay for my own cowardice after I die, but I implore you, Catholic, to consider your own.

Islam Redux

And so, despite all the showy resolve of the Parisians, despite the myriad “Je Suis Charlie” signs, despite the posturing by the political class, less than a year after the Charlie Hebdo attacks, we have another, even more bloody attack on the great city of Paris, this time with at least 120 dead.  They tell us that this is the biggest death toll since World War II.  Somewhat ironically, most of the dead were participating in a “concert” of a “rock group” called the Eagles of Death Metal.  Indeed, the Eagles of Death descended on the concert-goers, although not in the way they expected.   The heavy-metal fascination with death and hell was made real to the fans of these degenerate, disgusting fake musicians, and it certainly was less pleasant than the fantasy.  May God have mercy on the souls of all the departed.

Meanwhile, as I said back in January, nothing has happened.  And nothing will happen.  We will have the same platitudes about Islam as a “religion of peace”;  the mass immigration of Moslems into the US and Europe will continue.  As I’ve pointed out many times, I never ever saw a woman in a headscarf here in my neighborhood before 9/11, before the Moslems killed 3000 Americans on US soil.  Now I see hordes of headscarfed terrorist sympathizers every day.  They infest this country like a plague.  And don’t think that they won’t come for us, citizens of the Great Satan.  Our soft targets are ripe for Islamic terror, and it will happen.

The viable solution is as follows:

1.  Stop immigration to the US and Europe from Mohammaden countries.
2. Round up and deport all non-citizen Moslems.
3. Close down mosques.
4. Put any Moslem citizens who fight back in internment camps.

You won’t see such a radical plan from Donald Trump or Ben Carson, or Hollande.  Nothing remotely like this will happen.  They will continue to tell us to honor this peaceful religion, and not to take it out on innocent Moslems.  Well, they are all a part of the jihadist system unless they can prove otherwise.  Americans and Europeans need to wake up.

I’m sure in the coming weeks, we’ll hear tributes to the Eagles of Death Metal.  We’ll be told how sensitive they and they’re fans really were, and how they really weren’t as harsh as they seemed.  There’ll be celebrity-studded concerts held to honor them and their fans.  There’ll be marches honoring our most important, bedrock principles, like the freedom to make “death metal” and be degenerate bums like the Eagles of Death Metal.  And nothing will be done.  Nothing will be done.  Nothing will be done.  And Mors Sanctorum will be back here writing about the next Islamic incident in a few months.

The West is weak and near death.  It is a victim of its own licentiousness and permissiveness.  The only solution is the real and true Roman Catholic Church, which successfully fought Islam for centuries.  We need to fight.  Not to roll over and do stupid rock tributes.  Only when the Church is rehabilitated from its current idiocy can we expect to have any hope against the Islamic onslaught.

Ahmed’s Bomb Clock

Well now, lest I be accused of being a little harsh on a poor 14-year-old American (sic) boy, I direct my readers to the following article on young Ahmed Mohamed:

Reverse Engineering Ahmed Mohamed’s Clock… and Ourselves.

The author does us a favor by reverse engineering Ahmed’s clock, which is not an original creation at all.  Instead it is retail alarm clock disassembled and placed into a “pencil case,” which really looks like a hard suitcase.  It is 100% certain that this Moslem did not build a clock at all, did not invent anything, and has not displayed any engineering prowess by doing this.  All he managed to do was to take the thing apart.  In fact, his electronics knowledge would seem to be questionable, given that he placed a transformer right next to the snooze button.  For those of you who don’t work with electricity regularly, a transformer is an electronic component that either steps voltages up or down (or isolates circuits).  In a power supply, one side of the transformer will have household AC line voltage, which is why you don’t usually place this component out in the open.

Ahmed didn’t build anything…

One has to wonder the motivation for doing this.  I knew a youth back in 8th grade who did a science project on lasers, and claimed he built a laser using his mother’s ruby ring.  He had no pictures or documentation whatsoever. It is actually impossible to build a laser from a ruby ring, and anyone who knows a little about lasers can tell you that.  The poor lad came from an unstable family and couldn’t come up with a science project, so he presented a delusional fantasy instead.  Perhaps young Ahmed thought that he could pass this off as his own clock.  Or perhaps he thought it would be amusing to bring in a fake bomb and scare the pants off of his fellow students.  Who really knows?

Meantime the police and school administrators would seem to have done the reasonable thing.  And as I said before, when you see Moslems carrying suitcases of electronics, get out of there.

Of course, the larger question of why there are so many Moslems in heartland America is left ignored by this author.  It is the same question I asked when the Chapel Hill attacks took place.  Why are there Mohammadens in Chapel Hill anyway?  Why are they in Irving?  And what are they doing?

If you want the answer, just listen to this Imam.  This isn’t bigotry or racism.  It comes straight out of their own mouths.  They are here to conquer and to build a new Caliphate.  And the man in white says, “take ’em in.”  Grand times we live in.