Thursday, August 07, 2014

Unions personal and ecclesiastical, and Berdyaev on conservatism

  • From Roissy (language not for the squeamish): Signs that a woman is cheating in her heart. Mainstream relationship advice is lies.
  • Never the twain. Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon from 1996. Long story short: they're schismatics and some of them really sound like it. He and Fr. Alexey Young are ex-Catholics, Young a pretty vicious one; I think Reardon was a Catholic priest – at least he's long not been liberal anymore. Point we actually have in common: we don't rally around John Paul II, Benedict XVI the Great, or Francis; rather, we rally as the church around the true faith, of which the office, not the man, of the Pope is a unique guardian. (Rallying around the Pope's person has been a conservative Novus Ordo Catholic mistake since Vatican II, not a traditionalist one.) Interesting how Franky Schaeffer in all his iterations, left and right, has remained anti-Catholic.
  • We do these conversions quietly but this thread is interesting.
  • From Rod Dreher: I missed this quote from a Putin speech, citing the philosopher Nikolai Berdyaev: “The meaning of conservatism is not that it impedes movement forward and upward, but that it impedes movement backwards and downwards — to chaotic darkness and the return to a primitive state.” I had not thought about it that way: conservatism as a negative force for progress. Progress as anti-regress. Stated that way, that is pretty much the kind of conservative I am. If you believe, as most Americans do, I think, that history is moving in one direction only, and that is the way of progress, this doesn’t make sense. Conservatism is only an inhibiting force for progress, in that it restrains and even blocks the unfolding of history in a progressive direction. But if you believe that history is not fated to move in the direction of things getting better and better for mankind, that civilization is fragile, and we could easily lose the gains we have made, conservatism (broadly speaking) makes sense as a way to defend the goods we have. The trick is to know when we should advance (and what constitutes advance), and when we should hold pat, or even retreat in the name of the Good. Of course that raises the question: what is the Good? You can’t measure progress, or regress, without reference to an idea of the Good. From here. Echo of Burke. Dreher may really be preaching a high-church, high-culture sort of dhimmitude (fits his church historically - fine with him as long as it doesn't make waves like a Russian Hezbollah), maybe not, but he's smart enough to quote good conservative ideas at least for credibility. (A Serb writes: Rod Dreher is a classic wolf in sheep's clothing. I wish he would leave my denomination so people can stop associating that PC sissy with my Church!) The difference between a false flag and defeatism is the difference between Fr. Gabriel Kostelnyk, the Judas of the Ukrainian Catholic Church in 1946 under Soviet rule, and acting Metropolitan Volodymyr (Sterniuk) (pictured), who ran an entire traditional Catholic church in a modern country, completely underground, then resurfaced when Communism fell. A candidate for canonization?
  • More evidence in the false-flag accusation: Dreher says to trust Archbishop Diarmuid Martin, who hates traditionalists. Whenever the media wants a prelate to talk down to the Catholic Church, they call on him. Dreher says he left the church because of the gay underage sex scandal with priests. (As he puts it, he lost his convert faith in particularly Catholic teachings as a result of it.) The whistleblowers for that weren't the liberals like Archbishop Martin, like the narrative now claims. It was the same Wanderer-reading sound Catholic laity, Novus Ordo conservatives and the traditionalists in the official church, who complained to the bishops and to the Holy See about heresy and liturgical abuses. They noticed that Father was acting funny with the altar boys. (The movie Doubt, set earlier, gets the sides right.) At the time, around the 1970s, the left, including the secular left, was almost OK with sex with kids. So the liberal bishops, in a perversion of defending the brotherhood of the priesthood, just like with these Catholics' other complaints, blew them off, telling them to mind their own business.


  1. John, I have to ask you whether you actually follow Roissy's advice. The more I read CH material, the more I am convinced that as some level it isn't meant to be taken seriously. Or perhaps a better way to put it is that this "advice" is meant to be read by men who cannot act upon it.

    1. Yes. As the man says, game is as simple as attitude: a look in your eye, a smirk on your lips, and a little swagger. In short, power by using social skills, coming from confidence. It's not about reciting pickup lines or using/bedding lots of women. How you act on it depends on you and the girl. He's obviously not writing for natural "alphas" but for the majority of men – nice guys, romantics, Christian white knights, "betas" – who need help in "the jungle" of fallen human nature. Because again mainstream relationship advice is wrong: it doesn't work for them. "At some level it isn't meant to be taken seriously": sure, hyperbole. A joke with a message. Here, in this post from him, what I just wrote: do the opposite of the advice columns.

    2. Well, that's not what I read in Roissy, but in any case I never had an interest in the kind of woman who might be easily (or even at all) manipulated by rather transparent attempts at making them jealous of other women, real or pretended. The kind of women I pursued would have spat out a man who tried that kind of trick, if they didn't just deck him.

      I really couldn't tell you what mainstream advice is, because I after all am way out of the mainstream. But I would assume it's not what Roissy says it is, because they are self-serving liars rationalizing treating women badly.


Leave comment