Wednesday 14 December 2011

Marriage as an Expression of the Culture of Death: If It's Not a Sacrament, It's a Scam!


I work in the Menswear business. Between April and September of every year I’m privy to observe the mass cultural practice of the contemporary wedding ritual. The main observation I’ve made is two fold. One: The wedding is incredibly expensive. Two: There is an attitude of unimportance of the ceremony and it’s importance as a central role of the whole cacophony of activity.

When I look back at the photos of my grandparents and the parishes of my neighbourhood I’m struck by the austerity and frugality of the participants. I grant that many where in the Depression of the 1930’s, but many photos go back to the late nineteenth century and we observe the same thing. Men and their friends in clearly different suits and the groom, in an occasional example of extravagance, sometimes in a visibly new suit. The brides are all in dresses of modest expense and in many cases non white, but brand new for the occasion. The guests are in their Sunday best and sometimes there are ribbons on the gentlemen’s lapels. The event seems very affordable and relaxed. It's as though the emphasis is on documenting something that has already occurred as opposed to something that is still happening. 


What I observe now is the ostentation and complete sense of entitlement in weddings today. What do I mean by that? I’m describing the over the top idea that everyone is entitled to a Disney wedding. Huge and plentiful dresses, tuxedos, magazine quality photos with accompanying moment by moment video documentary film, and a gigantic Godfather scale reception. I hear the laments of the participants in the burdensome expenses of these enterprises. Weddings are seen as a burden for all those involved. The gifts, the reception, the clothes, the venue, the decorations. The whole point of that reception scene in the Godfather was to show the overt display of extravagant wealth was to demonstrate the nefarious power of the Family, not to celebrate the married couple's union. But I digress...

The whole hive of activity has come to focus on ONE person; the bride. Everything, including the groom, is little more than a stage set and props for the bride and her splendour. Many may see this as romantic and sentimental, but in fact I’ve observed the toxicity of this. The event is in the mind of the culture, and more often than not the bride, all about her. It’s routinely expressed as “Her/My day”. It is turned into an ego centric exercise in self esteem and a foreshadowing of the overarching selfish behavior of the bride. This explains the inexplicable endorsement of weddings by all four of my feminist professors, but their simultaneous degrading and undermining of the institution and indissolubility of marriage. The statement of “it’s not about marriage anymore. It’s about princess for a day” was universally chanted by these professors as though to say, "you can still have your wedding as a feminist; but remember, it's really just a glorified Costume ball in your honour". So it’s really no surprise a feminist would endorse something that focuses entirely on the importance of the female to the detriment and exploitation of the male and their union. Indeed, with indoctrination like this, it’s no surprise then that these marriages are destined to fail. I’ve sat across from the domineering bride dictating the colours and styles of tuxedos as though her soon to be “life partner” were an accessory like a handbag, or the little dog that gets to sit in it is perhaps more accurate. I sit thinking, “Dude, this is the tip of the Iceberg”. If I could say one thing it would be "honey, your only a princess to your daddy. GROW UP!" But I belabour the point.

The ceremony itself is not even seen as the wedding anymore. When I ask “where’s the wedding” of the guests, I almost always hear some hall or legion named. To these people it’s not the wedding ceremony in the church or civic building that is the wedding, but the drunken revelry at the reception that is the wedding. Thus is it any surprise that the reception is seen given primary importance by couples, guests and marketeers? A wedding is really become no more than another reason to host another huge party for one’s friends and family. Indeed, is it any surprise the couple’s themselves see it this way. I’ve had many grooms openly acknowledge that the only thing they feel they have to look forward to on their wedding day that has them as an active participant is the reception… and I suspect many more are thinking it, for their actions and conversations infer those same sentiments. I fail to see how a wedding where the groom feels emotionally and culturally alienated from the whole ceremony bodes well for future success.

These narcissistic displays of decadence illustrate the problem of these cultural practices.  These events cost thousands and thousands of dollars and are focused on the material rather than the spiritual emphasis of marriage! Small weddings alone cost at least twenty thousand dollars. The contrast between my grandparents and my contemporaries is starkly displayed in that alone. A couple basically starts their union saddled with the immense debt that could have been used as a down payment of a house. Or more appropriately, the liquidity to comfortably welcome the addition of the great joy and blessing of children. Is it any surprise that people “can’t afford to have children”? Indeed, instead of the cushion of wealth to ease the couple into cohabitation and family, they are initiated into the friction and pressure of crushing debt. Debt that is the death sentence of many marriages. And each precious child cannot help as being seen as another heavy debit on the great ledger against them. Add to this an undercurrent of self centred resentment for the other do to a self esteem addiction and we're sending a divorce lawyers kids to college baby!

The social pressure to conform to this secular ideal is reinforced by the vampiric media and their corporate masters. There is a reason all commercials and television is geared to women. They know women spend more money than men. And they spend it therapeutically  to make themselves feel better about themselves. This is why the movies, television, magazines and advertising all emphasize the expectation to females... from the womb to the tomb. But what of those whom are unable to afford these extravagances. The poor are discouraged from marriage based on these false presentations of what a wedding is. The depression and sting of poverty are most strongly felt when marriage is mentioned to the young working poor. I acknowledge as a man of modest means, I don't even consider dating due to the looming financial expectation. So how can we seriously bemoan “shaking up” when we as Catholics do not condemn and resist the materialist wedding practices of the Culture of Death? "Shaking up" is, in a very real sense, the only affordable option available to these poor souls.

It’s clear to me that the Church has and continues to fail to challenge this attack on the family and Sacrament of Marriage. It is as though the Church is so concerned with attempting to convince people of the importance of marriage in general that it has feared or neglected to recognize the poisonous initiation into it! To break the Culture of Death’s hold upon the wedding the Church must break the materialism and feminist egoism that has infected it so thoroughly. Weddings of modest means must be celebrated as role models of joy; and the honourable and beautiful reasons for them extolled from the pulpit and during marriage preparation. Clearly this alone will not save the Sacrament of Marriage, but I firmly believe that it will contribute to it’s protection and growth. The time has come to see that the Culture of Death is not just a bioethics issue or, God forbid, some ludicrous eco theosophy; but a whole pattern of behaviour that imbues every aspect of the Christian life without rigorous instruction.

If anything I hope this has demonstrated why my maxim of “if marriage is not a sacrament it’s a scam” is completely Justified.









Wednesday 9 November 2011

Why I Refused the White Ribbon Against Pornography



For the first time in the last four years, I refused to wear the white ribbon. In the previous years I’ve been proud to wear the white ribbon against pornography that was graciously offered by the Catholic Women’s League of my parish. I wore it strait through the week on my suit at work as a testimony to the real problem of pornography in our society. This year however, I was not offered a white ribbon against pornography, but a white ribbon against internet bullying.

“Internet Bullying?“ I asked, “I thought the white ribbon was against pornography?” “Oh it’s the same thing if you think about it” came the quick response of an aging hipster at the door. At this point I became so frustrated and enraged that I broke with my usual decorum in Church and actually blurted out “what kind of feminist nonsense is that?” But being a man of faith, I at least when to know when not to push my extra-religious ideological views on others and took my pew.

Yet this incident has continued to bother me. And it really is an extension of a previous blog I’ve posted regarding the Feminist misandry against male sexuality in the Catholic Church at the moment ( http://durstonia.blogspot.com/2011/06/man-bashing-as-catholic-mainstay.html). In fairness I do not know if this new association regarding the white ribbon is actual or the personal tack on of that particular woman. However that’s not the point.

The point is that at the door of the church, each and every man was presented with a ribbon that said if he was struggling with a sex addiction or struggling with internet pornography, he was not just struggling with unrestrained sexuality, but he was somehow being violent toward women. For let’s be honest; when one says bullying, one’s immediate mental picture is of violence. And contrary to feminist belief, Men are almost exclusively the primary consumers of pornography. So now men, whose natural sexuality is inclined to gain sexual attraction and excitement visually is not only the sin of  promiscuity, but violence as well. This is a hateful demonizing of male sexuality that permeates our society.

This incredibly mean spirited and vicious attack against men who come to Christ with their struggles is reprehensible and inappropriate. I proudly wore the white ribbon against pornography because pornography negatively effects everyone who participates in it, regardless of sex or relation. It’s a protest against those that are exploited by pornography, and those who exploit it. But the fussing of internet bullying to pornography now excludes the main victims of pornography and emphasizes the minority victims. That is to say, it creates a female privileged position in the campaign that moves the issue from universal victimization of pornography, to the users of pornography being violent victimizers themselves.

Only a complete moron would suggest I am supporting or excusing the viewing of pornography. However, if one looks rationally at the relationships within pornography we will see that men are the most negatively effected; not women. Women are paid to make pornography. Except for a small number in production, men pay for pornography. Men become addicted to pornography, and men demonized for it. Pornography is marketed and targeted at men with a ruthlessness that women cannot even come close to conceptualizing. And when a man succumbs to this barrage of psychological marketing, and his natural sexuality, he is to be presented as an internet bully for slapping his pork sausage alone in a dark room with a glowing computer monitor? Really? That is how the Catholic Women’s League is to deal with the issue? To say pornography victimizes women by breaking up marriages and negatively effecting the self image of women is simply to ignore that the other half of those scenarios are intrinsically linked to the exploited men involved and only supports the point I'm making. Men suffer proportionally more than women by the victimizing of pornography.

Is it any surprise male participation in Catholic observance is diminishing when they are intentionally singled out and psychologically victimized for an attack they have supposedly committed, simply by being exploited themselves. It’s ironic that if I were to say a woman was raped because of what she wore; I’d be strung up as a bigot and misogynist. Yet if a man is sexually exploited by a well organized and efficient pornography industry, he’s said to be an internet bully… and there is no outrage at this.

If I appear to be defensive about this issue it is because I am. I, like many if not most men my age, struggle with the temptation and pervasiveness of internet pornography and sex addiction. And to be told my failing in the execution of the resisting of sexual sin is also an act of violence is demeaning and insulting to the magnitude of the struggle I, and many others, grapple with every day. Pornography is a blight and evil. Those that are a victim of it are to be supported and helped, not vilified and condemned by politically driven feminist opportunists trying to win cheap political points at the Church's expense.


I hope to wear the white ribbon against pornography next year, assuming it is a ribbon against pornography and not the exploited victims of it.

Sunday 18 September 2011

Prolife Gender Privilege: How Feminism Poisons Everything

There seems to be a tacit surrender to feminist argumentation amongst many female Prolife advocates. Or perhaps it is intellectual desperation to get Feminists on board the Prolife side. Either way, it is a betrayal of the dignity of the human person to engage or validate a slogan such as the one above. Although Prolifers are generally very pro family, it becomes very apparent how many female Prolifers will close ranks with the feminist "Sisterhood" when it comes to a man's input in the discussion of the reproductive act. The misandry imbibed by Prolife women in the Postfeminist culture is clearly evident in the discourse I had just recently of Facebook regarding the posting of this image. Indeed, push come to shove, they will take our money, celebrate our attendance at protests and protection against intimidation at those protests; but when it gets down to who really calls the shots in reproduction... men can keep their mouths shut! Now I have to make the obligatory caveat that "not all Prolife women are like that", but enough are to have me post this discourse. I understand that this person is sincere and arguing based on what a Feminist would say, but look at the quick allegiance to what sex is a priority in all of the discourse. The intrinsic value of boys or the input of men is not even affirmed in passing. Only the importance of Women and the privilege of their position in the discourse is asserted. i leave you to make your own observations from the discourse bellow.



Kyle- I think I find this offensive because it buys into the feminist idea that somehow females are of more value than males... that is to say, unborn girls deserve priority over unborn boys...

Kristi- ‎Kyle, the reason why such a saying exists is because all the pro-choicers believe in "Women's Rights"!! So, this statement is saying: What about the rights of the UNBORN women?

Kyle- I understand, however it still buys into the feminist conception of female privilege. If anything, aborting children is the only issue that feminists really do believe in gender equality... either way, this sets up a priority list for who shall be saved from abortion and boys are at the bottom of that list. Abortion is human rights issue, not a gender issue. This slogan is a big step in the wrong direction!

Kristi- ‎Kyle, I disagree with you because abortion is never viewed as a "Man's Right". Men can never have children. It's all about the women, in this case.

Kyle- I beg your pardon? Men have children all the time. In fact I have two myself. Again, abortion is a HUMAN RIGHTS issue, not a gender issue. This splitting of the child bearing act is what got abortion legalized to begin with. This is why Mens Rights Activists are now demanding that men be able to legally FORCE women to abort children Men don't want because the child is half theirs! BOTH these positions are erronious and false because it is irrelevant who is bearing the child, who made the child and or who wants the child. The HUMAN Child is the Subject of discussion, not gender privilige.

Kristi- ‎Kyle, my mistake, sorry. I mean to say that men cannot conceive children and carry them for 9 months. Only women can.

Kyle- Even if that is true, this does not validate the argument, nor does it pay to buy into the ideological framework that forms it. For it still presumes "unborn women" are of primary importance in the antiabortion issue. What if girls were not the majority of aborted children? Are we to now accept the argument that we must reduce the number of female abortions so as to stop the fetal oppression of women? you see, we are no longer discussing the dignity of Human Life, but on which sex is more more worthy of consideration and concern. This is the nature of Feminist argumentation and why we must not even rhetorically buy into it to score cheap points in abortion exchanges.

Saturday 17 September 2011

JUDGE DEFENDS INFANTICIDE BY COMPARING IT TO ABORTION


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/canadian-mother-strangles-newborn-gets-no-jail-time-and-judge-defends-infanticide-by-comparing-it-to-abortion/

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2011/09/09/edmonton-effert-infanticide-suspended-sentence.html

Well it seems as though the inevitable logic of violating the dignity of the human person by way of state sanctioned murder is finally working it’s way out in the Canadian legal system. That is to say, none is safe from being liquidated due to inconvenience or lack of interest. There are several issues that are of concern here.


1) The horrific murder of a new born infant by his mother is expunged because there “is no abortion law in Canada”. Obviously we are not discussing an abortion as the child has been born… but that is irrelevant if it is not the dignity of the child that is of concern, but the dubious thinking of the Mother. Indeed, in this case we are far beyond the “glob of tissue rape product” argumentation. This is a child consciously brought to term and then murdered. But that is irrelevant under the feminist rationale of a judge not bound by law, but ideology alone. For the fact that there is no abortion law for a child in the womb does not somehow remove the law of murdering a child outside of it. We are to believe that after nine months this woman suddenly decided she didn’t want a baby in a country with no law or stigma against abortion on demand? Following this logic when can a Mother not commit infanticide… or outright murder of her children?

2) This ruling is a back handed attack on men by creating two laws; one for women and one for men. Within the Western Tradition of Law, at least following the “Enlightenment”, all equally must be subject to the Rule of Law and be Equal before the Law. This judge offends this principle based on nothing more than ideology. For, although a woman can murder a child due to some dubious claim of stress, depression, or whatever excuse can be plucked from the top beak Mount Improbable, a man cannot. So a man who does not want a baby and strangles it with a pair of underwear is a murderer; but a woman who does the same act, under the same circumstances, is legally blameless. This seems to be a replaying of the Handmaid’s Tale in a Star Trekian alternate universe; AKA the Dominion of Canada. A little known legal maxim that has existed for some time goes like this: Murder is Murder no matter who commits it. But I belabour the point.

3) The Judiciary as the revelatory voice of the People. Nowhere in the Constitution of the Dominion of Canada does it say that the Judiciary’s responsibility is to speak for the people of Canada or to express their will. I know because I have actually read it! The Judges comment that “while many Canadians undoubtedly view abortion as a less than ideal solution to unprotected sex and unwanted pregnancy, they generally understand, accept and sympathize with the onerous demands pregnancy and childbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support” is fine. Many Canadians also prefer vanilla ice cream to chocolate; yet that really doesn’t resolve the issue of if it’s lawful to suffocate ones child in a 2 gallon bucket of ice cream. However, problematically the judge transitions into what ALL Canadians believe when she goes on to state: “Naturally, Canadians are grieved by an infant’s death, especially at the hands of the infant’s mother, but Canadians also grieve for the mother.” Do they? ALL Canadians grieve for a mother who “chooses” to strangle her newborn with her panties?! Apparently judges have a mystical connection to the emotional and moral sensibilities of every Canadian citizen. Because if that is not the case, she would be going far beyond her finite caporal duties as stated in the Canadian Constitution and the laws of the observable universe and basically acting as though she was omnipresent. But this "legislating from the bench" is a recurring problem in Canada. Gay marriage, so called Child Abuse via spanking, so called Hate Crimes, and a host of other infractions against the Natural Law politicians won’t touch with a ten foot pole have been foisted on the Canadian public without their consent… oh wait, judges clearly DO know what Canadians consent to by virtue of the occult nature of their office. I’d forgotten.

Just these three issues are enough to cause any thinking person concern for their own safety and the very nature of the judiciary that is supposed to protect and uphold the Rule of Law. If the judiciary can drop laws it is supposed to uphold due to the sex of the offender, none is safe… except baby killing women of course. The only redeeming quality I can see from this sad sully into madness is that there is now a public recognition of the correlation between abortion and infanticide that must now be publicly and legally resolved. At least,although this does not validate abortion, laws governing that murderous act most probably will now come due to this horrendous situation.

Friday 1 July 2011

A Reflection On the Claims of the “Community”





                                                 
Many claims and demands are founded on this non-descript group. The X community needs this, the community must protect Y, this is the responsibility of the community to do Z. The main problem with this idea is that it is regularly used by politically interested and invested in the outcome (Z) to emotionally shame and brow beat large and divers groups with competing and conflicting interests into the idea that there is a cohesive group that is “the community”. In small cases, parishes and villages, this may be possible. However, in large polities this works out in practice to mean government coercion through FORCE of law. Thus those that are do not agree with X,Y, or Z are portrayed as outside the community. The fact that this community is an artificial construct is lost on most politically indifferent people. Moreover, it is irrelevant if the suddenly “outside” group is the majority or not; let alone if they are right. For the community is always fluid. It may be steel workers, children, homosexuals etc. The point is that the community, and inclusion in it, are what is really important. Certainly not individual

thought, critical thinking, debate or tolerance. Ironically, Diversity is the opposite of tolerance as it is a movement onto itself. Although Diversity would suggest tolerance, and is the main battle cry of these tactics, yet they always seem to push laws that suppress the individual authority, sovereignty and free speech of others. “Others” being those they disagree with and not ensconced in the “community”.  And all the while this group is always more and more subtly oppressed and needs more “community” action in it’s defence. This is because the “community is being created by a group that has a financial interest in the creation, propagation and execution of the very government programs that are to be instituted to address these issues. Issues that may or may not have been issues to begin with.


Thus the “community” is code for special interest groups seeking financial gain. But this is always obscured and justified by pictures of battered women, drug addicted teens, pregnant rape victims and impoverished children. For only Monsters are critical of groups promoting the redress of such ills. Therefore individuals are discouraged from pointing out legitimate moral issues regarding the financially interested groups political agenda and ideology. What is most dangerous is that this cycle ends and festers in government control and legislation. Most honest people can only practice political activism part time because they have to work in

the private sector and raise families. But the Group described above creates for itself the ability to be politically active all the time and paid by the political system for the pleasure at the same time. Thus honest families are pushed out of the political process by sheer economic pressure. Therefore a claim for “community” action is really a call for publicly funded political activists, unaccountable to that very public, to institutionalize it’s ideology.  A call for “community” is therefore a call for the destruction of any pretence of community at all.

Monday 27 June 2011

What's the difference? Catholics Don't Count

 On the left are things that are repellent and condemned as hateful and completely inappropriate.

On the right are the apparel and activities I see at school and resteraunts and have to see the confused hurt and fear in the eyes of my children. But that's OK, the Human Rights Tribunal in Canada said Christians aren't a threatened group so we're safe from hatred...




Would you be allowed to wear this patch to school? Jut add a cross and its "freedom of expression". Only irrational superstitious people can't handle a little criticism...

Defacing this sign is clearly hateful and terrorizing. But if they're Christians with a sign saying "Marriage is 1 man + 1 woman" you can feel free to deface it with impunity. It's OK, they don't live or act like you do...


Just remember, CATHOLICS ARE NOT AN ETHNIC GROUP; THEY DO NOT HAVE COMMON CULTURAL PRACTICES, TRADITIONS, MORALS AND RELIGION THAT MAKES THEM NOTICEABLY DIFFERENT AS A SEGMENT OF THE REST OF THE POPULATION... LIKE JEWS!

This Is What Goes For Religious "Tolerance" In A "Pluralistic" Society?

 “UCC should be at the forefront of promoting religious tolerance in a pluralist society. Those in charge of UCC should reconsider whether or not it is appropriate to permit this exhibition to take place on its campus without affording others the opportunity to present an alternative and balanced point of view.”


http://www.corkstudentnews.com/news/controversial-exhibit-to-open-in-ucc-tomorrow-21261

The saying "noting is sacred" really does apply. Whereas reasonable people say this as a lament, cultural revolutionaries see it as a badge of honour justifying any action as "progressive". We Catholics are supposed to be tolerant and accepting of homosexuals, radical feminists and pornographers; yet this is what we are to tolerate and accept as expressions of diversity.

You see, we are not to express our deep and fundamental objections to the immoral and counter-cultural activities and beliefs of the above mentioned with sarcasm or disgust. Those values and activities are considered sacrosanct and too deeply personal to offend. However, our most sacred and deeply held beliefs are to be "deconstructed", "reinvisioned" and "subverted" in the name of diversity and sexual "equity". Which basically means social degeneracy. These are all things we know already. But I just figured I'd share what I feel is a relevant, extended, quote from Joseph Addison's contribution to the 18th century 'Spectator'.

"No. 23
Tuesday, March 27 (1711)

There is nothing that more betrays a base ungenerous Spirit than the giving of secret Stabs to a Man's Reputation. Lampoons and Satyrs, that are written with Wit and Spirit, are like poisoned Darts, which not only inflict a Wound, but but make it incurable. For this reason I am very much troubled when I see Talents of Humour and Ridicule in the Possession of an ill-natured Man. There cannot be a greater Gratification to a barbarous and inhuman Wit, than to stir up Sorrow in the Heart of a private Person, to raise Uneasiness among near Relations, and to expose whole Families to Derision, at the same time that he remains unseen and undiscovered. If, besides being witty and ill-natured, a Man is vicious into the bargain, he is one of the most mischievous Creatures that can enter Civil Society. His Satyr will then chiefly fall upon those who ought to be the most exempt from it. Virtue, Merit, and every thing that is Praiseworthy, will be made the Subject of Ridicule and Buffoonry. It is impossible to enumerate the Evils which arise from these Arrows that fly in the dark, and I know no other Excuse that is or can be made for them, than the Wounds they give are only imaginary, and produce nothing more than a secret Shame or Sorrow in the Mind of the Suffering Person. It must indeed be confess'd, that a Lampoon or Satyr do not carry in them Robbery or Murder; but at the same time, how many are there that would not rather lose a considerable Sum of Mony, or even Life it self, than be set up as a Mark of Infamy and Derision? And in this Case a Man should consider, that an Injury is not to be measured by the Notions of him that gives, but him that receives it." (the Spectator reprinted 1964, p. 69-70)

Granted, he was decrying the theatre of his day, but I feel the sentiment can be applied to all derogatory art that is expressed to insult rather than inspire.What more and apt commentary is needed. The contribution of this image is supposedly considered "promoting religious tolerance in a pluralist society" and "an alternative and balanced point of view"? Does anyone of good will really see this image as a genuinely reasonable reflection of those words over those of Mr. Addison above?

The image of the Immaculate Mother of Christ, known as our Lady of Guadeloupe, is the model of Chastity, Modesty and Virginity is here maliciously turned into an image of perversity, licentiousness and lust that is designed to illicit a sexual response from any man who looks upon it. In any other instance this would be decried as unacceptable and mean-spirited. This can only be seen as an attack upon another's deeply held religious and cultural beliefs; AKA the OPPOSITE of religious tolerance and BALANCE! But as with all Ethnic Cleansing, the victims are deemed unfit for the dignity of public respect for their cherished cultural beliefs.
Yet if one even respectfully criticizes the actions of the very people that make this kind of cultural terrorism, there is a visceral outcry. I submit the following video commentary upon the immediate action taken by such victimized cultural vanguard. The question is... Why is our Catholic outrage completely dismissed under the same regime of pluralism and tolerance? To simply ask the question is to answer it...


http://www.youtube.com/user/pinegrove33#p/u/1/zD_R9sFmfc8

Sunday 19 June 2011

Feminist Lunacy on the Sexulization of Children and a Christian Response

I have finally seen a rational and obvious assessment of the sexualization of Children on public television by Peter Hitchens. It follows a fantasy riddled, post modern, anti male Feminist interpretation of the issue. What is more likely, a father kissing his daughter goodnight is a sexual act that creates the psychological necrosis of Girls wanting to be found sexually desirable and interacted with during their childhood; or the institutional sex "education" and media (film, t.v. music etc.) constantly and incessantly promoting a girls value and power through sexuality alone? I always find it amusing how feminists will one moment say everything is behavioral and due to social pressure, then suddenly when it's an issue of their revolution causing the exploitation of children, children suddenly have the superior moral intellect to understand and decide being sexually exploited isn't "cool" anymore. The response of the mob, there is no other word for a mindless mass of irrational rabble, is reminiscent of the response I get when I challenge Homosexualists based on data. No response to evidence, just boos and hisses because it makes one feel morally superior.





Saturday 18 June 2011

Ethnic Cleansing: Catholics Are Radical Subversives



On my last blog I made, what sounds to many, as a ludicrous claim that Catholics are undergoing a concerted campaign of ethnic cleansing in North America. http://durstonia.blogspot.com/2011/06/is-coren-blind-to-to-ethnic-cleansing.html

I asked the serious question, "what would ethnic cleansing look like?" Up until several years ago, I would have said it would look like the United states in the mid 1800’s, the Balkans and Rwanda in the 1990’s or 1930’ - 40’s Germany and Ukraine. But those are the climactic ends of Ethnic Cleansing, not the slow build and process of Ethnic Cleansing.

What do I mean by that? What I mean is that in order to have a population act out in such violent and inhumane fashions toward their neighbours and fellow man, they have to alienate and dehumanize them first. They must create fear and suspicion of this population; and in the case of an indigenous or assimilated population, make them appear subversive and foreign.

If a group or Government were to do such a thing, what would they do? How would they go about demonizing an established people? Like in Germany and the rest of the lot, it will happen through legislative and institutional fashion. You make laws that cannot be followed. And if they are broken, you have a "subversive" group that refuses to obey the law of the land. You will perhaps see this more clearly in the article here: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/analysis-how-christian-militants-might-b

It is worth quoting at length,

“Rep. Lee then said, “As we look to be informational, we should include an analysis of how Christian militants or others might bring down the country. We have to look broadly, do we not?”

Dunleavy answered:  “I don’t know that Christian militants have foreign country backing or foreign country financing.”

Lee then said, “I don’t think that’s the issue. The issue is whether or not their intent is to undermine the laws of this nation. And I think it is clear that that is the case. So it’s not -- your distinction is not answering the question.””

What group of Christians could be construed as 1) having foreign backing 2) “militantly” organized and 3) wish to undermine the laws of the land?  I don’t think it takes much thought to see the answer. Catholics are

1) supported in spirit if not by influence by the City state of the Vatican. This is an old American prejudice with pedigree. That is the accusation that “Catholics have no real loyalty to their native land but to their pope in Rome.” If only it were true…
2) “militant” in that we are openly catechized as being the Church Militant and are highly organized to act upon our informed consciences through the hierarchical authority of the Church; that as you recall is headed in Rome. We have highly organized and motivated groups like the Knights of Columbus, Society of St. George, the Catholic Womens League, TFP, and others that actively, publicly and vocally lobby and protest against immoral laws and activities imposed by the State. Clearly these can be construed as “radical organisations” given the dominant Culture of Death.

3) And as Catholics we do wish to undermine laws that allow abortion, Euthanasia, undermine the sacrament of Marriage, subvert the dignity and integrity of the Family and utilize the State to impose ideology rather than good governance upon it’s people. Basically any political action that has it’s source in the Gospel as guarded and guided by the Catholic Church is seditious activity based on this definition.

But what is most chilling is that this is not Jack Chick and his hooky comic strips, this is a Congressional Hearing that forms Government policy. I’m not even going to touch the “Human Rights” Tribunals in Canada that have defined Christians as “as an unthreatened group” when it launched a suit against a punk band that released a song called ‘Kill all Christians’ but crushed (through litigation) a Catholic Priest that published innocuous magazine articles against homosexuality.

Now based on this discussion, how does Archbishop Timothy Dolan’s pious and orthodox statements look as sympathetically reported by Life Site News?  http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/america-or-north-korea-new-york-archbishop-issues-stinging-gay-marriage-reb

Fits the criteria above quite comfortably doesn’t it?

Friday 17 June 2011

Is Coren Blind to the Ethnic Cleansing of Catholics?


I’ve been reading, and enjoying, Michael Coren’s book Why Catholics Are Right. Thus far it is very approachable, accurate and erudite as is his stated intention. I heartily recommend it.

However, the problem I have with Michael Coren’s portrait of Anti-Catholicism is that he sets Catholicism up as an ideology in his introduction. Many may not see this as an issue, but I think it’s important to know what words actually mean and thus get upset when the wrong ones are used. In fact, it will completely change the view and understanding of the real nature of the bigotry against us Catholics in the latter text, as well as in our day to day lives, as it’s in the introduction; and introductions are intended to guide readers as to how to understand the body of the work.

Sadly Michael Coren falls off the rails in artificially putting a barrier between anti-Semitism and anti-Catholicism,

"Anti-Catholicism is fundamentally different from anti-Semitism. It's not racial or ethnic and, outside of fundamentalist Protestant circles and Islamic extremists, not even especially religious. Very few people dislike Catholicism because of its theology but many oppose it because of the moral and ethical consequences of its teachings.” ( Why Catholics Are Right, p.4)

Now let’s look at the dictionary definition of Catholic,

World English Dictionary

ethnic or ethnical  (ˈɛθnɪk)

— adj
1. relating to or characteristic of a human group having racial, religious, linguistic, and certain other traits in common
2. relating to the classification of mankind into groups, esp on the basis of racial characteristics
3. denoting or deriving from the cultural traditions of a group of people: the ethnic dances of Slovakia
4. characteristic of another culture: the ethnic look ; ethnic food

— n
5. chiefly  ( US ), ( Austral ) a member of an ethnic group, esp a minority (emphasis mine)

Catholics are a common group bound by a common trait of their religious background and cultural traditions (included are those shared morals and their shared ethical consequences) therefore, by definition they are an ethnic group… just like Jews. The fact that many are not especially religious is irrelevant as many Jews are not religious, yet they are still considered Jews. I fail to see the distinction. Especially as the Church is the New Israel that enfolds all nations under it’s tent as it were. Why are we not an ethnicity? Because many of us in North America are Caucasian? Because we don’t look different from the other non-Catholics around us? Again, these same claims can be said of Jews and yet we Catholics are not given the same standard... Even by our own like Michael Coren. But why? Because we are Catholics we have suffered mass murder, persecution and alienation by dominant groups throughout history and the world just like the Jew and yet, we are somehow treated as completely different. Coren acknowledges clear a double standard, but not this most significant one.

Coren himself seems to be quasi aware of the artificial nature of his distinction when he basically outlines members of the Catholic Church as an ethnic group.

“In North America some of the Anglo-Celtic prejudice still exists - the Catholic Church is, in popular and sometimes even cultural circles, regarded as the “denomination of foreigners, immigrants, the poor, and undesirables” - but the bulk of modern contemporary disdain comes more often from the secular liberal who feels intellectually and aesthetically superior but would never dare feel such contempt for a member of a more fashionable minority group.” (p. 6)


This is the problem that I think most Catholics have with the issue of anti-Catholicism. And indeed I sincerely believes it castrates any ability for real resistance and cohesion in the Church to unite and address what is not really bigotry, but as E. Michael Jones points out, the ethnic cleansing of Catholics from North America.

I have to admit, I have not read Dr. Jones book The Slaughter of Cities: Urban Renewal as Ethnic Cleansing, but I have listened to several of his lectures based off his research on CD and DVD and am convinced that there is substantial weight to his argument. Especially compelling is his research on how the Ford Foundation covertly and systematically broke up and displaced Catholic neighbourhoods so as to dilute the Catholic vote and undermine Catholic identity and strength.

It makes sense if as a Catholic I simply change the subject of my experiences from “my  faith” to my ethnicity. As a thought experiment try listing all the negative things you as a Catholic experience, and the Church, then insert Gypsy or Jew instead of Catholic. Indeed, there are Catholics that are Irish, Italian, Mexican, German etc. But the pan cultural and religious bond is their collective ethnic identity as Catholics. That is the bond that is aggressively trying to be broken. This is the bond Pope Benedict XV tried so desperately to point out and renew in his pleas for peace and reconciliation before and after World War I.

I think Michael Coren is a pious and orthodox Catholic striving for holiness. Like I said, I think his book is exceptional. Yet I think he is in denial. I know what it’s like to try and merge ones Catholic Faith and the Secularism around oneself in order to survive and be accepted. I think this is why Coren unconsciously buys into this artificial separation by making the Catholic Faith a discriminated religious persuasion rather than a persecuted ethnic population in the heart of the West.

Can’t we see it happening? The exclusion from public discourse regarding abortion, homosexuality, patriarchal hierarchy, the necessity of the Male clergy; these are all outlined in Coren’s book exceptionally. The only problem is that Coren, and therefore his readers, don’t realize he is describing the manner and ripe environment for the ongoing ethnic cleansing of the Catholic population from the entire Culture.

Wednesday 15 June 2011

Man bashing as a "Catholic" Mainstay


The poison of feminist activist "research" has spread through the Catholic post-feminist bog world already. But it is an interesting comparison to see the fundamental differences between the portrayal of men as a group and women as a group. Before going on I suggest reading my very brief critique of the "study" here: http://durstonia.blogspot.com/2011/06/men-really-do-see-half-naked-women-as.html

Now before I tear these lists apart I want to strenuously point out I believe Chastity and practicing Custody of the Eyes are valid and incredibly important and holy acts. I believe the people involved are not malicious and are quite sincere in their efforts. What I am pointing out is how anti-male sentiment has infected the Church to make it an inhospitable and demeaning environment for men to occupy.

Let us first start with Top 10 Reasons Men Should Practice Custody of the Eyes: http://marysaggies.blogspot.com/2011/06/top-10-reasons-men-should-practice.html

10 and 9 are neutral pious and orthodox advice, but then keep in mind that is the bottom of the list! 8 to 3 are downright offensive and demeaning.

"8 - Custody of the eyes builds up chastity.
Chastity helps us to properly order our sexuality. If we do not have custody of the eyes, it means our sexuality is dis-ordered toward objectification - not love - and needs to be healed."

Big problem here is the idea that male sexuality is inherently "dis-ordered." that is to say, corrupt. Homosexuality is also a dis-ordered sexual state but the difference is that one heterosexual visual arousal is natural, homosexuality offends nature and Natural Law. Biologists have conclusively shown that males are visually stimulated. The visual stimuli that attract men are young, attractive, flat stomached, hour glass figured women is in fact the markers of the optimal parameters in a mate to create a healthy child with the lowest probability of defect. This is on all levels a positive good, and indicator of the brilliance of the divine creator in formulating our natural impulses to the greatest good. Finding women attractive to look at is not the same as making them objects; that is a feminist myth with no scientific support. Now to lust after a woman and to look at a woman with attraction are two different actions. It's as my Priest quoted of his spiritual director in seminary, "the first look is free." That is a positive acknowledgement of healthy male sexuality and the difference of which I am speaking.

"7 - It is what every gentleman should do.
No woman who respects herself wants to be lusted after or looked up and down. No real gentleman would dishonour a woman by doing so."

Ah it’s the old feminist “A Real Man” shame tactic; because if you don’t agree with them you clearly not “A Real Man”. Catholics can try and cover this up by saying “A Real Gentleman” instead, but the fact remains it’s a shame tactic rather than a rational argument. It’s designed to shame men into agreement rather than have to actually demonstrate your point. Clearly the author can’t support the point above so they have to use shame instead.

And in a rare case, it’s actually turned on a woman to which I also disagree. It’s perfectly natural for a woman to want to be looked up and down. That is the reverse aspect of the point made above. If men naturally look for certain physical features it would naturally follow that women would naturally want to emphasize and display these. There is nothing evil or demeaning here. It is HOW these are emphasized and displayed that is ordered or disordered not the behaviour itself as is being suggested here. So you’re not “A Real Man’ if you look; and you’re not a “Real Woman” if you like being looked at. Let us Catholics just adopt the Burka and be done with it then?

"6 - It helps a man to see the whole woman, not just parts of her body.
When most men see an immodestly-dressed woman, their brains automatically start to objectify her. Thus, men need to be able to see the truth about who a woman is - not just to break her down into objects he can use for his selfish pleasure."

This pseudo science is addressed above in my previous blog

"5 - It avoids scandal.
Think of King David. If he would have practiced custody of the eyes he might have been able to avoid much worse sins - adultery and murder. Now think of what happens when a man is caught in a lustful look toward a woman."

And the misadristic perceived  fruition of positive male sexuality is demonstrated here: Rape, Adultery and Murder! What a load of garbage! “Don’t look at the girl walking down the street Tommy, it may lead to you murdering her family and raping her in the blood of her butchered family members.” The clear message here is men are inherently evil and if we allow a slight crack in our defences, we’ll turn into the monsters we really are. Think of how a young boy entering puberty or a man attempting to experience the Faith fully feels being told this is how he is seen. Or the girls and women that are supposed to want to marry and submit to these “monsters”.  Positive no doubt.

So much for Men being made in the image and likeness of God. The God who looked upon His creation and said it was GOOD! We are not Calvinists. We do not believe in the Total Depravity of Man from the Fall.

“4 - It helps fight off temptation.

Men suffer from sexual temptation frequently. To have custody of the eyes helps a man to fight off an even stronger temptation of lusting after a woman after he ogles her."

Now we get to decide if even the natural look is akin to fondling with ogling. True, men do suffer from sexual temptation frequently, but the answer here is that all looks and natural male sexuality is deviant, sinful, behaviour. And mortal sin deadens the will and intellect to resist further sin that is true. But based on the list thus far, basically just being a Man is an Occasion of Sin so I fail to see how he could stop it if he tried.


“3 - It helps our sisters not feel objectified.
If for no other reason, we should witness to the dignity of a woman by controlling our passions.”

Help our sisters not feel objectified? I’d say it’s difficult to make them not totally terrified after seeing the portrait of men in this List!  To “feel objectified”? What does that mean? How can anyone reasonable guard against how an indoctrinated post-feminist victim monger would “feel” after reading this anti-male tract? Clearly Men need to walk on pins and needles around women lest they offend their delicate emotional states by just looking at them with our “sexually dis-ordered” attraction!


Now let us contrast that with the same blog’s list for women: Top 10 Reasons Why Women Should Dress Modestly. http://marysaggies.blogspot.com/2011/06/top-10-reasons-women-should-dress.html

Now I don’t even have to address the list directly as I actually like it in most ways. Women are treated generally in a positive way, if not angelic that is problematic when compared to the previous list. Why is it problematic? I’m glad you asked. The difference is that males are bad and girls are good. Girls are angels, Boys are devils in disguise. Women are victims men are victimizers. This is the diametrically opposed views of the sexes when comparing these two lists.

People wonder why boys and men are not participating or drawn to the Church? Here’s why! Who wants to be subliminally told they are evil, potential murders who’s every glance at the opposite sex is an adulterous affair that metaphysically ravishes and victimizes some poor girl.  What the Catholic Church needs is to give TRULY POSITIVE portrayals and examples of manhood that respect their dignity and value as human beings, fathers, boys and MEN. Until this happens, I don’t see any reason why a man would want to become a practicing Catholic.

Let's look at the difference of the portrayal of men by a Church Father on the subject. Observe how he assumes the strength and dignity of Catholic men. He assumes they're acting in such a way and by this way he is admonishing and exhorting them to the higher ideals and grandeur of Manhood. Catholics today can take a page out of this random quote from my notebook.

"Christians have the commandments [of God] engraved upon their hearts and observe them in the expectant hope of the world to come... Their men keep themselves from any illicit union and from any manner of uncleanness. They observe the commandments of their Christ with great care and live chaste and holy lives as the Lord their God commanded them." (Apologia, 15)

Aristides, in his apology [explanation] to Antonius Pius