Skip to content

Author: Blonde Bombshell

January 4, 2018 | 7 Comments

Why People Seek Out Alt-Media — Guest Post by The Blonde Bombshell

Imagine that you are a passive “consumer” of news, to use the preferred industry lingo. The use of “consume” is telling, admitting news itself has a shelf-life of a bag of chips, and does not necessarily contribute to the core of knowledge that our descendants will call History.

Imagine that you turn on the morning TV shows and are not revolted by the pablum incessantly interrupted with commercial messages, and barely notice that some of the pablum itself is commercial in nature. Radio is also infected with this virus. Even shock-jock personalities are incredibly mundane and do not tread from the sanctioned path.

Perhaps you have a newspaper subscription, rare these days, or like to visit a mainstream news site when you have your morning coffee or glance at when you have a spare moment at the office. It barely registers that the articles and opinion pieces have been carefully colored and curated to communicate a particular narrative. It hardly matters, since after digesting the headlines, you click over to the sports scores or the gossip section for a palate cleanser before retreating into your everyday existence.

Imagine that you like to settle down with a beverage before dinner with the televised Evening News. Because you are not curious, you don’t click on rival stations to hear the same news packaged in almost the exact same way, with the exact commercial breaks, often hawking identical products. Maybe before bed, you will watch a self-styled comedian delivering news and commentary disguised as entertainment, hammering home the same messages you heard since daybreak.

One of the more popular themes of what purports to be be news is how terrible Donald Trump is, what an awful person he is, and how dare he be president. Take one example of Trump’s allegedly reprehensible nature. He talks a tough line against immigrants. What he means are those “immigrants” who have an actual home somewhere else or who may not be able to substantially contribute to the US economy. He is not against all immigrants, or all immigration. In fact, two of his wives are immigrants. He was able to somehow see past this black spot on their characters and set up housekeeping with them.

If the media had any sense at all, they would take pains to report on this fact, and examine Trump’s policy proposals in the light that he is obviously not against all immigration, but is opposed to a very specific type of immigration that has the potential to rent the fabric of US society. There should be an active and ongoing public debate about what we value and wish to preserve as a nation and this debate should not be shut down by the media’s refusal to report.

If you are a passive consumer of news, you are likely not aware of other sources of news, as these sources—if recognized by the mainstream media at all—are roundly ridiculed. falls into this category, and to a certain extent, The Drudge Report. Infowars is the brainchild of Alex Jones, who is the well-intended if bombastic host. He runs through headlines from the mainstream media around the world and opines on the coming of the “New World Order.” If you have not heard of this, recall the words of President George Herbert Walker Bush. He did not invent the NWO, but he was and is and ardent advocate of the one world everything.

A personality like Alex Jones is easily laughed off as being an uneducated buffoon. Youtube, for instance, demonetized the Infowars channel and the channels of its contributors. Demonetizing these stations (and others that do not hew to the official narrative) means shutting down their advertising revenue. To make up the lost revenue, Infowars sells tee-shirts and vitamins, and for this, the entire enterprise is further delegitimized in the eyes of mainstream media. But the activities of the mainstream media are in large extent underwritten by Big Pharma. Ironic, no?

The Drudge Report also falls into this category. People who have been steeped in the musings of NPR and its for-profit three-letter counterparts disdain The Drudge Report, although it is a coup to be linked on the famous black-and-white website. It has been suggested that both Drudge and Infowars are “controlled opposition”—that they are allowed airspace to offer an outlet for the crazies. Whether this is true is open for debate, but there are trending stories that both sites skirt or ignore entirely.

If you are a passive consumer of the news, you may not know that there are innumerable websites and Youtube channels that rank below Infowars and Drudge that report on matters widely ignored or otherwise untouched by the mainstream media. One such sensational avenue are the posts made by one “QAnon” on 4chan and 8chan. New York magazine reported that QAnon is a conspiracy theorist. The term “conspiracy theory” was weaponized by the CIA as a largely successful attempt to shut down skeptical inquiry in the days following the release of the Warren Commission report that cemented the single-shooter narrative for the assassination of a sitting president.

QAnon offers an alternate prism to interpret modern current events, from the mysterious shooting incident in Las Vegas, to the Saudi roundups, to the mysterious flights that may or may not be heading to Gitmo. Every bit of what Q reports is curious, and if Q is not real or the output of a particularly fervid imagination, the public would like to know. Commentators who have kept up with Q story are Lionel and Tracy Beanz. Drudge is largely mute on these subjects, although Infowars covers it.

Below the activity of these citizen reporters and opinionators are those who offer a mishmash of UFOlogy, arguments supporting the existence of reptilian bloodlines, and wild but elegantly reasoned flat-earth theories. While Infowars can be ridiculed, those who offer completely alternative viewpoints are not even allowed to sit at the big-people’s table. While a sane person may repudiate the far-out websites, these websites offer the legitimate alt-media cover to continue the discussion with their followers unmolested and untrammeled by the mainstream media, which is why people are seeking these sites out. If some loony-toon is lumped in with Alex Jones and Lionel, so much the better. If everyone is colored with the same tainted brush—everyone is left alone.

At the nub of the alt-media is the search for truth. The truth is known to be elusive and wily, but the truthseekers do not care. They are willing to turn over every rock and follow every lead. They are willing to formulate and theorize and be wrong. They are willing to self-correct. They are willing to consider new evidence. They are willing to ask questions. They are willing to learn. They don’t insist on degrees and credentials. They take honest interest at face value, and anyone is welcome to join the battle, fight, movement, or discussion.

People want what the mainstream media used to do, and these alternate sites seem to provide it. The mainstream media have lost their reportorial chops, but they are skilled in delivering mealy-mouthed half-truths. They don’t think much of their audience—who passively consume the tripe they have on offer. But perhaps, they are made for each other.

May 16, 2017 | 22 Comments

Married Priests And The Impending HR Disaster — Guest Post by The Blonde Bombshell

The so-called vocation crisis has been reported on here, here, and here.

The irreligious press has an answer. Of course, they say, the Catholic Church has to get with the times and either allow women to be ordained or let male priests marry. Translated from media-speak, “let priests marry” is “let them have sex”—which nicely dispatches with that troublesome vow of celibacy. In the media’s current narrative, of course priestly men will marry women; but one could very well expect to see male priests with blushing male “brides”.

The atheistic media is off to bad start in offering their (unasked for) prescription to combat the declining number of priests. They succumb to the temptation to equate “vocation” with “job” as in “vocational training.” In the religious sense, a vocation is related to God’s calling to direct one’s life in a particular way in the service of the Church. Lost in the debate is that marriage itself is a vocation. What the secular press is suggesting, if not demanding, is that a man have two vocations—two callings—two directions for his heart.

There are some who have slipped into the Catholic priesthood through the Anglican backdoor. The fact that there are exceptions doesn’t mean that the rule has to be changed. Additionally, the permanent diaconate offers a path to ministry for married (or single) men over the age of 35. It is categorically false that married men are being shut out from serving ministerial roles. In fact, if the crisis is so crippling, this is an avenue that should be more thoroughly investigated.

With these considerations set aside, imagine that starting tomorrow married men can enter the church to serve as priests, and by extension, brothers. Of course it would be discriminatory to allow priests to marry but not the friars. Things to consider:

1. Wages. The Bureau of Labor Statistics lumps in all clergy, with a median salary of $45,740 (2016). Salaries for Catholic priests can fall about $10,000 behind, in part because they are not expected to support a family. It is potentially much more profitable to be a rabbi or Protestant minister, but less so for imams.

2. Housing. Catholic priests can live in the rectory, or if they are brothers, in a priory. Adding a wife and children to the equation is going to strain Church resources, and small children necessarily interrupt a life of meditation and prayer. Will they live communally? Will other arrangements have to be made?

3. Healthcare. Having a wife in most cases means having children, and childbirth costs in the United States are more than anywhere else in the world. Someone is going to have to pay for it.

4. Education. Some provision will have to be made for educating the children of the priests. At the very least, there should be tuition relief for Catholic schooling, from K-12, and perhaps even at the college level.

5. Moving costs/change of station. If bishop says, “Go”, the priest can no longer put his belongings in a modest bag and catch the next bus, but he will have to fold up his marital assets (i.e., worldly possessions) and incur the expense of moving house and home, which will be billed to the diocese.

6. On call/time off. The priest or brother doesn’t have a “weekend” as most people do, and even on a day off, a priest know that an emergency can arise and he will have to flee to someone’s bedside or hold someone’s hand. Ah, the secular press will cry out, but do not Protestant pastors have to juggle family needs with that of the flock? A Protestant can happily die without last rites, but for a Catholic to pass beyond the velvet curtain without the extreme unction is a completely different matter.

7. Marriage during seminary. If priests can marry, maybe they will when they are at seminary. Before seminary? How will the female factor affect the formation, not only of the man but also of his cohort?

Married priests will be a substantial drag on the Church’s purse almost immediately. To cope, more land, buildings, and treasure will be have to be sold at a much faster clip than they are now to cover these (perfectly avoidable) expenses. While there may be a net increase in the number of priests, there will be fewer actual churches for them to serve in.

What is missing from this debate is God. What is God’s plan? Recall the words of one Joseph Ratzinger:

From the crisis of today the Church of tomorrow will emerge — a Church that has lost much. She will become small and will have to start afresh more or less from the beginning…Undoubtedly it will discover new forms of ministry and will ordain to the priesthood approved Christians who pursue some profession. In many smaller congregations or in self-contained social groups, pastoral care will normally be provided in this fashion. Along-side this, the full-time ministry of the priesthood will be indispensable as formerly. But in all of the changes at which one might guess, the Church will find her essence afresh and with full conviction in that which was always at her center: faith in the triune God, in Jesus Christ, the Son of God made man, in the presence of the Spirit until the end of the world. In faith and prayer she will again recognize the sacraments as the worship of God and not as a subject for liturgical scholarship.

Vocations are declining, except for orders like the Dominicans, who openly embrace tradition. One solution to the crisis is to look backward and not forward, and to try to recapture and revive what has been drowned in the backwash of contemporary culture. It would be a costly and foolish mistake to do otherwise.

January 21, 2017 | 19 Comments

How Quickly The Popular Mind Forgets — Guest Post by The Blonde Bombshell

Was it only four short months ago that Donald Trump was excoriated by the press for suggesting that he may not wholeheartedly embrace the election results? In answer to a question posed by Chris Wallace during the last presidential debate asking if he will concede if he loses, Trump said, “I’ll keep you in suspense.” Objectively, this could mean yes, but it could mean no. The public and press would have to wait until the time came for Trump to act.

Trump’s glibness in answering the question may have been in partial response to the DNC’s successful efforts from to steal the nomination from Bernie Sanders a mere three months before. Trump’s non-answer was greeted with howls not only from Hillary Clinton (“horrifying”) but also:

Finley: Trump’s noncommittal to outcome the last straw (In retrospect, quite amusing.)

Donald Trump trashes our democracy (For heaven’s sake, who is the “our” in this statement.)

Is Trump the first-ever candidate not to say he’ll accept election results? (Why is “ever” gaining popularity as a headline word?)

The ridiculous comparison of Al Gore to Donald Trump (Al Gore once owned a television network, and Donald Trump has been on television.)

John Oliver offers Trump his Emmy in return for accepting election results (Why was not a similar offer extended to Mrs. Clinton? The hubris embedded this stunt is breathtaking.)

The “I’ll keep you in suspense” remark caused so much blowback because of course Mrs. Clinton would win, and of course Trump would have to concede, and of course he would have to grovel at Hillary’s feet. Only an idiot would have imagined that Trump would be, well, triumphant. All the angst was focused on the potentiality of Trump not accepting the election results. None of it considered Mrs. Clinton’s, the DNC’s, or the Democrat rank and file’s inability to accept the election results.

The list of people not accepting the election results and/or not attending the inauguration grew by the day. There were singers who did not perform at the inauguration—once an honor—because of “death threats.” (Enough of the death threats on both the right and the left. What do the death-threaters hope to accomplish, besides showcasing the depth of their ignorance? Every responsible gun owner knows that one does not point the gun unless they plan to pull the trigger. The corollary is not to make a death threat unless you personally plan to go through with it, and in the process to leave as much evidence for law enforcement as possible to pin the dirty deed on you.)

Well, the election did not go as planned, and the DNC and their fellow travelers are confronted with a Republican President, a Republican Senate, a Republican House, and a majority of Republican Governors. Instead of working to forge middle ground, and make a few strands of gold from a heap of straw, those disappointed by Trump’s win plan took to the streets and tried to cause as much childish disruption as possible. Woe to those who think that this will end at midnight of January 20th. We are in for four years of the constant buzz of protest accompanied by the soundtrack of never-ending gay dance parties.

This, I submit, is the result of thirty years of “everyone gets a trophy” public education. This is what happens when children are not confronted with failure. Without learning to fail, one doesn’t learn to overcome and to make the best of a bad situation. These poor souls have not yet learned that they are not the center of the universe, and no one cares about the lint in their navel that they can spin into thread and commission someone to knit into a sweater for their dog.

Trump has a hard job ahead of him. Not only does he have to be leader of the free world and contend with an actively oppositional spy apparatus, but he also has to reinforce his legitimacy as president of not only the millionaire celebrity class (hello, they make their living by repeating words other people wrote and many of them haven’t graduated from a conventional high school, let alone college, and we have to listen to their endless lectures on climate change? And what is this about Chinese interests owning the major studios?) but also the less well-off professional activists, who may or may not be on the payroll of Mr. Soros.

Good luck, Mr. Trump. If anyone can prevail against these odds, it will be you.

Editor’s note Russia’s plan comes to fruition!

November 8, 2016 | 15 Comments

There Is No Such Thing As The GOP — Guest Post by The Blonde Bombshell


There is no such thing as the GOP, in the sense of an opposite party to Democrats. And there hasn’t been since Ronald Reagan left office. Reagan himself never was supposed to be the candidate, and he was never supposed to win the 1980 election. To blunt his independent spirit, he was assigned George H.W. Bush as vice-president. That way, in case of emergency, the country would be in the tested hands of a man who could well open the door to a New World Order.

The case can be made that Papa Bush was not an operative of the Republican party, but rather of something else. The substance of the “something else” can be debated, and there isn’t room for that discussion here. It can be said that whatever this entity is, it is not Republican and not birthed by the Party of Lincoln.

It is no small point to note that Bush 41 has gone on record to assert that he will not be voting for the Republican nominee. His GOP bona fides have been officially revoked.

Enter Mr. Clinton. His party loyalty was and is nominally to the Democrats, but as the evidence continues to show, his loyalty—then and now—lies mostly to Himself and Herself. While he could cry crocodile tears and “feel your pain“—his actions ultimately exacerbated the pain for countless citizens, as they watched factories close and jobs go south, exactly as H. Ross Perot predicted, with a “giant sucking sound.” That comment was met with much mirth and merriment by the establishment media; and in the video the tittering of the crowd is audible.

Bonus: Perot nicely sums up the incestuous relationship politics has with industry in this clip. To be perfectly fair to Mr. Clinton: NAFTA could not have been passed without Republican congressional support.

To maximize personal gain and profit, Mr. Clinton had to forge an alliance with the “something else.” Fortunately for him and later for Mr. Obama, progressivism and the “something else” are largely the same, except the “something else” is infinitely more devious, watchful, and determined than the clueless rank-and-file members of the Democrat party.

Then…surprise! Bush II is elected. A Bush boy was up for office, but it was supposed to be the sober, hardworking Jeb. In a cruel twist of fate, we were gifted George Junior. On his own he was likely harmless enough. He could cut ribbons and read books to schoolchildren, as if that is the important work of a president. And it is, if “something else” is calling the shots. Bush II led the United States to war, and War is usually in the purview and the privilege of Democrats, giving further credence that Bush II was never really, fully, sincerely a Republican.

There has been an acknowledgement that Republicans do not always act in the interest of the people (see NAFTA). Republican In Name Only (RINO) is a real phenomenon, and senators and congressmen sent to Washington under the banner of the GOP routinely attend the same parties as their friends across the aisle. Sooner or later, GOP lawmakers find that they have more in common with the Democrats than the rubes back home, and legislate accordingly. The GOP gave up on itself, long before anyone seriously considered Donald J. Trump to be a contender for the presidency.

There is a great deal of handwringing about the “future of the Republican party.” See here, here, here, here, here for starters. Why are Democrat-voting reporters are obsessed with reading the (yet to be extruded) entrails of November 9th when they don’t seem interested in investigating the facts of:

  • The existence of a server that illegally stored top-secret material in someone’s house
  • The murder of four Americans in Benghazi
  • The sale of fetal tissue by an organization that widely supports the Democrats, and vice versa
  • Admitted voter fraud, which resulted in at least two resignations
  • A mysterious transfer of $1.2B to a bank account in Qatar
  • Satanic rituals and child abuse involving members of the ruling elite
  • The baffling death of Seth Rich
  • The unusual of uranium deal with the Russians
  • How one family—not born to wealth by any stretch of the imagination and never involved the production of any material object—is able to attract and control staggering wealth.

Shall I go on?

Obviously, the stories are in the news, and there is reporting, in the academic sense, but there is no urgency to get the nitty-gritty of what really happened. If Woodward and Bernstein took such a cavalier approach to the Watergate break-in, there would have been no impeachment, no arrests, and no jail time for anyone involved.

The legacy media prefer to be fed stories than going out and doing some real reporting. It isn’t just reporters whose interest is not piqued by these events, but GOP lawmakers are reluctant to examine the shenanigans related to Herself. Trey Gowdy and Jason Chaffetz are willing to enter the fray, but they aren’t getting the tactical support they need to do battle with such an enormous beast.

The party formerly known as the GOP is dead, and there is no one blame but the elected officials who deliberately, knowingly, and willingly turned their collective back on the American people. The charge that the current “GOP” nominee is holding the bloody knife that killed the party is grossly unfair. The party sacrificed itself on the altar of the “something else” a long time ago, at the expense and the everlasting chagrin of the American public.