Saturday, December 13, 2014

On not being a Vatican-watcher, and more

  • From Gabriel Sanchez: What goes on in Rome is "not important" to the layman, except when we say it is. Actually much of it isn't important, but here's a reason not to read neocath blogs. "Neocath" means defending tradition only since Vatican II. "Don't pay any attention to that man behind the curtain," now that Pope Francis is an embarrassment, when for decades under St. John Paul the Overrated they told Catholics to do just that. They mean well (mode since Vatican II: rally round the Vatican vs. your Modernist parish or diocese) but they're distorting our teaching about the papacy. I invented or spread the moniker "Benedict the Great"; I loved and miss "my German shepherd" (Alsatian dog to Brits; guess it's World War I anti-German — Catholic doctrine's guard dog for many years at CDF as well as Pope) too, but JP2's reign (bad bishop appointments, Assisi, the Koran incident, and altar girls) disabused me of that personal cult of the Pope. That's right: traditionalists are not Gallicans or conciliarists (council > Pope) but we are papal minimalists as Jeff Culbreath says. Before modern media, Popes probably believed and said all kinds of goofy things; blessedly it never affected the church. Because doctrinally it doesn't (not ex cathedra). Fun fact: by pre-Vatican II standards, Ratzinger isn't conservative; in the '60s he was a "progressive" but a barely orthodox one. But good enough.
  • Yo, Jersey! How's that "renewal" working out for youse? As enrollment numbers plummet, Catholic schools across New Jersey continue to drop like flies.
  • Traditional Anglo-Catholic Mariology. Non-papalist, like the Anglican Catholic Church this comes from. Basically Catholic Mariology with a few ecumenical pro-Eastern and semi-Protestant hesitations about our doctrine but no denials of it.
  • Roissy: Shocking report: feminist "facts" don't line up with facts. A new report on sexual assault released by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) officially puts to bed the bogus statistic that one in five women on college campuses are victims of sexual assault. In fact, non-students are 25 percent more likely to be victims of sexual assault than students, according to the data. And the real number of assault victims is several orders of magnitude lower than one-in-five.
  • Dalrock:
    • UVA rape hoax: "Jackie" may have been telling a big fib to get a boy to like her, like a twenty-teens "I Love Lucy" harebrained scheme backfiring. (On the Web, the kids call it "catfishing": creating a character and even supporting characters to post, email, IM, and text people.) It suspiciously reads like this girl's fantasy: so hot she had all those popular, handsome boys all for herself. (Performing for 20 minutes at a time? Please. We're talking about hypothetical 20-year-olds.) Some say the anti-fratboy campaign is displaced anger at black-on-white crime (in the left's distortion of Christianity, blaming the historically oppressed is verboten); white boys are a safe, indeed preferred target in leftist doctrine. The lefty — Cathedral or Media and Government, MAG — hierarchy of truths, as far as I can tell: anti-white (actually, liberal whites trying to obliterate conservative whites), closely followed by anti-Christian so Mohammedans get away with murder, then the gays (anti-straight), then the girls (anti-men).
    • Bad idea: women aboard our nuclear submarines. You see our last-ditch nuclear deterrent; feminists see an underwater frat house. Who else is reminded of a service comedy (movie and TV) set during World War II, Operation Petticoat? (Cary Grant and Tony Curtis in the '59 movie; John Astin and the lovely Melinda Naud on TV.) Actually our last-ditch deterrent are land-based ICBMs (split between Army and Air Force control in interservice politics) but anyway. What conservatives didn’t understand is that to Social-Justice Warriors (parody of Christian white knights), sexual assault and misconduct aren’t bugs, they are features. As we have witnessed, if SJWs can’t find verifiable claims of horrific abuse to justify a full rework of the system, they are quite happy to go with unverifiable claims. And feminizing our front-line forces makes them better fighters, uuuuuuh, BECAUSE, OK? Recently watched a documentary about Rickover (a brilliant engineer, not a combat admiral); he would have carpet f-bombed this tomfoolery. (Great moment in Cold War and Navy history, now almost forgotten: our first nuclear sub, the Nautilus, reaching the North Pole underwater, under ice, in '58. The captain, William Anderson, turned out to be an old Southern gentleman of the moderate left, even though he was career military, as a Democratic congressman in the late '60s.) West Pointer Brian Mitchell left the Army to warn people in the '90s that putting women in combat is a bad idea (damaging discipline and morale, and sabotaging missions); ridiculous since women are reproductively more valuable while men are civilizationally more so (Roissy's Fundamental Premise).
    • Celebrating divorce by denying its existence. No-fault divorce and contraception ruined our society, even hurting conservative Christians as Leif Erikson found out ("conservative mommy bloggers" frivorce/eatpraydump too).
  • By the way, regarding "I don't care how we extract information from terrorists," all the American conservative talking heads showing pictures of 9/11 victims (jumping from the World Trade Center) to justify CIA waterboarding are dead wrong according to decency including the Catholic Church. Are they serious? Or are they really a liberal false-flag operation to try to discredit conservatives? We executed some Japanese officers for waterboarding; the Cold War, while a noble cause in itself, turned us into our enemy.

1 comment:

  1. General rule: if a state feels it must stoop to torture in maintaining order, it's probably doing something else it shouldn't be doing in the first place.

    Torture, mass wiretaps, and other shady "Big Brother" surveillance tactics are necessary to maintain the "Invade the world, invite the world" consensus so beloved by America's elites. If we weren't simultaneously bombing Muslim countries for no good reason and inviting Muslim deadbeats to come live in prosperous American cities, the threat of terrorism would be pretty negligible. The deadly cocktail of multiculturalism and foreign adventuring makes conflict practically inevitable, with torture and covert snooping tacitly encouraged to patch the holes. Much like large-scale police corruption or bad customer service, torture arises because front-line workers and middle managers are handed mutually contradictory policies and impossible-to-attain goals by the higher-ups. When they get caught, the suits then blame the peons for responding to the incentives that the big-shots themselves created.

    The damage to the truth is one of the worst aspects. OF COURSE waterboarding is torture; I wish the architects of these programs had the luxury of ditching the self-protective hypocrisy and saying what they're really thinking: "Yes, we tortured these men, and we intend to continue doing it, because it's a crude and inaccurate but nonetheless quick and simple means of completing our assigned mission of protecting Americans." If they did, voters might see that the policies of their elected officials are directly encouraging immoral and inhumane brutality. Instead of asking the real questions like, "Why are we encouraging the CIA to torture people?", we get bogged down in a stupid semantic debate over whether obvious torture deserves to be called "torture", or argue whether something obviously immoral under normal circumstances might be theoretically permissible in some kind of totally imaginary nightmare scenario that bears no relationship to reality.

    ReplyDelete

Leave comment