Skip to content

Category: Culture

The best that has been thought and written and why these ideals are difficult to meet.

August 21, 2018 | 4 Comments

Do Not Fear Being Called An Isolationist — Guest Post by Ianto Watt

Trotsky proclaimed that the world needed ‘permanent revolution.’ Stalin countered that the Party needed ‘socialism in one country’ in order to survive. It was the Fox versus Frankenstein. Or, as Isaiah Berlin said, Stalin was ‘a Hedgehog’. But Trotsky remained known as ‘the Fox’.

Now, the Hedgehog knows only one thing. But it is a Big Thing. For Stalin, it was socialism in one country. The Fox knows many things. On was that revolution is for everywhere.

This clash of vision was bound to produce war. Why? Because that’s what both men were selling. It was only their projected sales territories that differed.

That’s how the intra-Party war began after Lenin’s death in 1923. Someone was going to win, and someone had to die for that to happen. Miraculously, Trotsky lived (in exile) until 1940, when he was finally assassinated in Mexico on the orders of Uncle Joe. But while Trotsky died earlier than Joe, Leon’s work lived on. Joe lived longer and he killed everyone he could get his hands on, including his most enthusiastic supporters.

Who really won? Whose supporters rule the world today? And from whence do they rule?

Here’s a little rule that may help you understand the game of war; offense scores, defense snores.

These two revolutionaries were simply arguing about the best way to keep Bolshevism alive in the face of seemingly united Western opposition to the October Revolution of 1917. Trotsky wanted to play offense. Stalin said the safest way was to play defense. Both of them agreed that in the long run, the goal was to eventually subdue the world. But that goal would have to wait, as Joe beat Leon for the right to play against Adolph in the semi-finals. He got to play defense all right. And Russia was bled dry. Until distance bled the German supply lines dry. And Father Winter delivered the knockout blow. We all know that story.

The Great Patriotic War story. The story that lionized Stalin, and not the Revolution. Why? Because he was, as Trotsky truly understood, a Bonapartist. One who has hijacked the Revolution for the sake of his own cult of power. I would have said ‘personality’, but that is stretching the word. Power, raw power, will nicely suffice.

Keep in mind that from the time of Stalin’s ‘victory’ until the fall of the Wall, and even now to a great degree, Western Hedgehogs have been saddled with the task of defending the Stalinist legacy. There has been no shortage of ‘journalists’ and tenured knaves willing to do that. But apart from this elitist clique in their ivory towers, nobody’s selling or buying that bull.

There is something amiss here. It is that the Trotskyites never had to defend Stalinism. Why? Because they hated (and still do hate) him, and all that he has done.Were they aghast at Stalin’s crimes? No, of course not. They were simply jealous. Joe got to kill everyone they wanted to kill. No fair! I’m telling Mom!

The problem is, many people don’t understand the war between the Fox and the Hedgehog and label both as being generic ‘Commies’ or ‘Socialists’. But there’s a big difference between them. Stalin lives in the ivory tower, while Leon lived (until recently) in the White House.

What about now? Is Donald a Hedgehog? A Fox? Neither? To my mind, Vladimir Putin is neither. Why is that? Because the East and the West have traded places. If Vlad reminds me of anyone, it is Ivan The Great. ‘The Gatherer of All Russias‘. The first Tsar. Ask some folks who might have first-hand knowledge of Vlad. Let’s ask the Crimeans. Then the Chechens. And the Uke’s. And the Georgians. Anyway, Vlad is not the (immediate) problem today. No, my friend, the problem is with us.

Here’s why. The West is the breeding grounds of Trotskyism today. We are the ones espousing ‘permanent revolution’ Of course, we dress it up a little, as Emperor George did when he called for a ‘Global democratic revolution‘ in 2003.

George was the Trotsky of his day. But he wasn’t the first American Trotskyite. Nor the last, unfortunately. Emperor Obama furthered the cause. How many ‘color revolutions’ did he launch? Was he a witting agent, or a tool? The death toll remains unchanged under either interpretation.

Now Stalin, in his frenzy to cleanse the Party of Trotskyites, caused many of them (including Trotsky) to flee for their lives. Think about all those ‘red diaper babies’ whose parents fled Stalin’s rule before WWII, and where they landed. Right here, Komrade. Where we take in every sort of refugee. No questions asked. Until recently, of course. And guess who’s screaming about that? Yep. The children of the Red Diaper Brigade. Trotsky’s spiritual grandchildren. Today, we call them Neo-Cons. The New Conservatives. Here’s a pretty accurate description of the term, straight from Wikipedia:

Historically speaking, the term “neoconservative” refers to those who made the ideological journey from the anti-Stalinist left to the camp of American conservatism during the 1960s and 1970s.[2] Neoconservatives typically advocate the promotion of democracy and American national interest in international affairs, including by means of military force.

They traveled from ‘the anti-Stalinist Left…to Conservatism.’ What is it that they are busy ‘conserving’ now? Their Trotskyite traditions, of course. Not all of these Foxes were actually born in Russia. Many were home-grown, although there was usually an Eastern European (or Russian) ancestor in the family tree, and much of their original political exposure came from these relatives. But at bottom, a large number of these Russian and East European immigrants were favorably disposed to Trotsky and his vision of permanent revolution. Well then, how was it that they became what many naively consider to be the exact opposite, a conservative?

For simplicity’s sake, let’s use Old Conservatives (or more properly, Traditionalists), and New Conservatives. That is, NeoCons.

What is it that separates ‘New Conservatives’ from Old Conservatives? Their religion. Or, as some would say, their lack of it. NeoCons do have a religion. They believe in that chimera known as Judeo-Christianity. But that’s like saying Romulus loves Remus. Yet people continue to equate Judaic Talmud beliefs with Protestant American Exceptionalism. Which isn’t stupid. But neither is it Christian. These Neo-Cons do worship someone. But it ain’t Jesus.

We have to understand Hillel to understand Shammai. Today, the followers of Hillel are the Hedgehogs, and the followers of Shammai are the Foxes. These Neo-Con’s follow Shammai. And as any Talmudic believer knows, just obey your Rabbi (any Rabbi) and you’ll make it to Heaven. You can bring your Goyim servants along as well. Cheney, Buckley, Rove, Bush, Hillary, Axelrod, all of them. Just keep them in the servant’s quarters, OK?

Let’s start with Irving Kristol. And his son Bill, too. How about Abraham Bellows. And his son, Saul. And Julius Podhoretz. And his son Norman. We could go on if you’d like. And on, and on, and on. Obviously, not all NeoCons were direct geographical descendants of Russia. Many were home-grown ‘liberals’ who mixed with the immigrant revolutionaries and their children. People like Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle and Paul Bremer. But all were Trotskyite in their beliefs. And they are still Foxes in their actions today. They all still advocate Global Democratic Revolution. Just like The Fox taught them.

How is it that these crafty fellows have merged so easily into the American mainstream? What magic talismans do they possess that has given them the camouflage they need to carry forward their dream of worldwide revolution? Three things, actually. One is Jingoism. Just beat the Patriotic War drum and you’ll be mistaken for an American Conservative. New-style, of course. The second lucky charm is their belief in their real religion: Democracy. A religion we were supposedly bequeathed in 1776. But I can’t find that word anywhere but in the Soviet Constitution. The last bit of magic is their most powerful one today, a word that evokes unbounded (yet unfounded) fear at its every appearance: Isolationism!

Let’s look at these three things and see how they fit together. Jingoism is easy after a hundred years of American military preponderance on the world scene. It wasn’t always this way. Before the Civil War America was relatively peaceful, apart from our despisal of Mexico. But things would change, once we changed our thinking. Changed from revering our Republic to adoring our Democracy. And once we were sold on this switch of identity, by Eddie Bernays (the nephew of Sigmund Freud) in his seminal work entitled Propaganda, we were well on our way to Imperial power.

Here’s a great quote from Eddy: “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.”

Eddie, by the way, is known as ‘The Father of Public Relations’. And public relations, if you didn’t know it, is part of the J-School curriculum. I know this from personal experience. And this is why so many Hedgehog ‘journalists’ are really just useful idiots for the Foxes. They are part of ‘the invisible government’ he spoke of. But there is a Civil War going on within the Invisible Government. The Hedgehogs are still alive, but now the Foxes have taken the upper hand. And they are on a mission.

What, according to the Foxes, is America’s divinely ordained mission here on earth? Why, to spread this new religion across the globe. Once we got a taste of blood in Cuba and the Philippines, which our media moguls gladly glamourized, Eddie had an easy time selling us on our mission in life. Make the World Safe for Democracy! How shall we do this? Simple: ‘Go forth, and subdue all nations, baptising them (in blood), in the name of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity.’

This is the New Revised Version of the American NeoCon Bible. In care of the French Revolution. Which, if you know your history, was the dream of Leon Trotsky. The dream of spreading this revolution all across the globe. His dream is now the Imperial American Dream.

There are people out there who seem opposed to this utopian dream. Troublemakers who resist the inevitable logic of ‘progressive’ thought. People who don’t seem to care if someone, somewhere, dies before we have brought them the right to vote. Like in Chicago. We have decided we can’t let that happen. We have to save the village. Even if we have to destroy it.

Isolationism is a magic word that conjures up the vision of being a leper, a pariah, a loner shunned by all the world. It’s worked so well, so many times before. WII, Korea, Vietnam, The Middle East, Kosovo, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Syria…We are hearing it again. Who are we supposed to save/destroy this time? Russia, of course. Is it because she is she is still selling her Revolution? No, that franchise was sold quite some time ago. The Western Universities that produce our MSM ‘journalists’ own that copyright now.

Is this frenzied opposition to all things Russian due to the fact that Russia is still persecuting the Church? Apart from the Jehovah’s Witnesses, no. In fact, Vlad and Patriarch Kyrill appear to be best buddies. Is it because the Russian Orthodox Church is foisting a predatory homosexual hierarchy upon Russian youth? Wait, I’m sorry—that would be here, right? Is it because Russia has somehow infringed on Western markets? Is she undercutting us on silicon chips? On fake Dooney & Burke purses? Kate Spade knock-offs? No, that would be the Chinese.

Have the Russians expanded the Warsaw Pact to include Quebec? There is no Warsaw Pact anymore. Just NATO. An ever-expanding NATO (but soon to be without Turkey: write that down). Maybe it’s because Russia has troops in 177 different countries around the globe? Whoops, that’s us, again. What about Syria? There’s Russians there, right? Well, there you go. Warm up the jets!

Really, apart from gas and oil, where do the Russians compete with us? Arms? Yes. But I thought we were the ones proclaiming competitive markets were the hallmark of a Free World.

You think I’m being so anti-American in all of this, correct? But that’s not true, if you’re speaking of America as a nation, and not an Empire. Truly, I do believe we need to be strong enough that no one wants to tangle with us. But I think the Russians may feel exactly the same way about their homeland. Why wouldn’t they? Do we really need to provoke a war of any size with them? We need to understand that peace is something you build at home, not abroad. We’ve had a hundred years of proof that our wars have not changed anyone for the better. If other nations want to fight, let them. But for once, please God, keep us out of it.

Let’s think a minute about that word Isolationism’ again. Does it mean no one will ever come to see America again? And that Americans will never travel abroad again? Or that no one will be allowed to buy American products or services again? And that we won’t buy theirs? That we won’t be invited to the Olympics? Or that we won’t go even if we’re invited? Does it mean we’ll disconnect our phones and the internet from the rest of the world? Just who is it that could enforce such things? How ridiculous.

So just what does this word mean? It means something. And to figure it out, all you have to do is think like Eddie Bernays and look at who it is used against. Like the words ‘anti-Semite’ and ‘Fascist’, it means anyone who doesn’t agree with the opinions of our Foxy Overlords. The purpose of all these pejoratives and their constant use is to instill some deep confused fear in the listener. A fear of being seen as different from everybody else. This is especially effective against women, by the way. Go ahead and call me sexist. But it happens to be true, regardless of how you wish to characterize anyone bold enough to say it.

The problem is that an irrational fear of something that has been planted at the subconscious level for the purpose of ‘engineering consent’, as Eddie would say. A consent to do things that are not actually in our true best interests. Personally, and as a nation. They have given us a false choice: Imperialism or Isolationism. One is sold as a great and glorious thing but which is actually deadly to our sons, our neighbors and our nation. The other is sold as a dreaded social disease of failing to embrace the ethos of Empire. But the truth is, it is an empty threat. Why? Because in truth, there is no such thing as Isolationism.

So there is the answer. We need to speak the truth. And to speak it boldly. We don’t need to force the world to do the right thing. We need to do it ourselves, here at home, before we look to take the supposed splinter out of our neighbor’s eye. We need to stop trying to be ‘great’ and instead try to be ‘good’. Let’s quit singing God Bless America and start singing America, bless God. That would be a good beginning. Towards a greater end.

August 18, 2018 | 7 Comments

Insanity & Doom Update XLVIII

Item Decline in the Fall (or Late Summer, Anyway): by Fred Gibbon This is Fred Reed at his curmudgeonly best.

Item The Next Woman To Try Playing In A PGA Tourney Came Up Considerably Short

…there was some unique excitement taking place at the Barbasol Championship, where LPGA star Brittany Lincicome was teeing off against the men. Unfortunately for her, when the end of Friday’s round came along, Lincicome didn’t make the cut to play on into the weekend. In fact, it wasn’t even close. (USA Today)

Despite shooting 1-under-par 71 in a strong second round Saturday, Lincicome finished 36 holes in 5-over par 149 and failed to make the cut for the tournament’s third round.

“It was cool just to be inside the ropes with the guys, and it’s been a dream come true playing in this event,” Lincicome said. “A lot of people don’t realize how good (LPGA golfers) are.”

Then again, a lot of us do realize how good LPGA golphers are. Which is that they are, God bless them, worse than PGA golphers. This is a hate fact.

It is also a hate fact that only rank sexists would insist that males and non-males compete in any sporting (or military) event separately. For to insist on separation is to insist there are fundamental ineradicable non-ignorable consequential important differences between the actual sexes. (There are also non-actual sexes, as when a man pretends or is deluded into believing he is a woman.)

No feminist can henceforth—I decree it!—be taken seriously unless she insists males and non-males no longer compete separately. There is no other way equality can be achieved!

Let’s hold them to the fire, boys.

Item Jimmy Carter: Jesus Would ‘Approve’ of Gay Marriage, Some Abortions

Regarding whether he thinks Jesus would approve of gay marriage, Carter replied “I don’t have any verse in Scripture,” but added, “I believe that Jesus would approve of gay marriage.”

“I think Jesus would encourage any love affair if it was honest and sincere and was not damaging to anyone else and I don’t see that gay marriage damages anyone else,” he said.

This is older news. What concerns me is that I like peanuts and that I eat a lot of them. My favorite are the salted kind roasted in shells you have to peel off.

My hope it is that the eating of them that drives one mad, but that it is the pesticides or other chemicals used in farming them.

Item Artificial intelligence, immune to fear or favour, is helping to make China’s foreign policy

The programme draws on a huge amount of data, with information ranging from cocktail-party gossip to images taken by spy satellites, to contribute to strategies in Chinese diplomacy

Diplomacy is similar to a strategic board game. A country makes a move, the other(s) respond. All want to win.

Artificial intelligence is good at board games. To get the game started, the system analyses previous play, learns lessons from defeats or even repeatedly plays against itself to devise a strategy that can be never thought of before by humans.

It has defeated world champions in chess and Go. More recently, it has won at no-limit Texas Hold’em poker, an “imperfect information game” in which a player does not have access to all information at all times, a situation familiar in the world of diplomatic affairs.

Several prototypes of a diplomatic system using artificial intelligence are under development in China, according to researchers involved or familiar with the projects. One early-stage machine, built by the Chinese Academy of Sciences, is already being used by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

I’ve never come across a satisfactory spelling of Twbbpppt! But you know what I mean.

Last week we learned Everything Is Already In The Simulation. “Researchers” won’t find anything in their “solutions” from artificial “intelligence” that they themselves didn’t put there.

The danger is always scientism, perhaps here better labeled computerism. If the advice from the AI system says “Nuke ’em!” we wouldn’t want Chinese politicians to say to themselves, “Well, the result did come from a computer. With artificial intelligence. Therefore it has to be right.”

The faith people have in statistical models, which is precisely what artificial intelligence is, brings tears to your eyes.

August 17, 2018 | 43 Comments

On Israel’s Jewish New ‘Nation State’ Law

I am probably the wrong man to ask about Israel being named as an official Jewish state. My idea is that at least Jerusalem should be Christian. After all, Our Lord sacrificed himself there for all mankind. Christianity began there by men who saw the light, men who realized the Old Covenant(s) found its fulfillment in the New, an act made painfully clear even to unbelievers in the razing of the Temple in 70 anno Domini.

Interregnum Pope Benedict has recently published a paper on this general subject; it being written about in many places. But not many have or can read the paper, since it is in German. If anybody can translate or knows of a translation, please tell us. In this paper it is reported Benedict acknowledges that the re-founding of Israel was a political and not theological act. On that, see also this on Hal Lindsey.

Jews, of course, do not believe in the Divinity of Christ, and all that follows from that ultimate truth (though some Jews, calling themselves a race, call themselves Christian). They are thus in error on these fundamental points. They are not, again of course, alone in these errors. These errors are shared by people the world over, even by those who were once not in error. But there is practically speaking—and here is our third “of course”—a world of difference between ex-Christians and never-were-Christians.

Never mind all that. Israel has as little chance of turning Christian as do hot dogs with ketchup tasting good. Let’s deal therefore with things as they are, not how they should be.

Israel passed a law they’re calling the “nation state” law, which says “that Israel is the historic homeland of the Jewish people, and that ‘the right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people.’ It establishes Hebrew as the official language of Israel and downgrades Arabic to a language with ‘special status.'” This “special status”, we gather, will be the same as that accorded traditionalists on American college campuses.

Well, Israel is its own country and can decide things however it wants. If they want to say Israel is the historic homeland of the “Jewish people”, that’s their business, as things stand. Of course (another one!), to do that they’ll have to decide who gets to be Jewish and who doesn’t. And Jews seem confused about that.

At times the term appears to mean a Jew is a person who adopts one of the several branches of Judaism, and that’s fair enough. Be born or convert, as the apostate daughter of our president did, and you’re a Jew. Whatever rules govern such conversions can decide.

But Jews also say they are a race, to which even those who reject Judaism can belong. The linked article above mentions a “Jewish diaspora”, for instance. That means the black lady rabbi I saw a reformed temple boasting about in print is of the same race as, for instance, Bill Kristol or Harrison Ford. And so, then, is Trump’s daughter of the same race (as long as she met the criteria for membership in the religion). And so are the many Ethiopian Jewish converts from times past of the same race. And so are the Arabs who converted, and so on and so forth. The Jews after all did pretty good at proselytizing after the Temple’s destruction.

But if that’s the demarcation of race, it means folks who have lived long enough with calling themselves a race are that race. Well, self-identification is the norm now. And Jews seems to recognize each other just as Christians do.

If all that is true, then are European and American Christians a race? If so, it means the Israeli government, and the Israeli-American dual-passport holders who are in our government’s and the media’s employ, ought to support with vigor a law here which states that the United States of America is unique to Christians (if Jews are a religion) or, say, blacks (if Jews are a race) in the same way Israel is a Jewish State.

We don’t need to stop at the USA. Austria can get in on this, too. And Poland. And a few other obvious candidates. English for the USA, naturally, German for Austria, and Polish for Poland, all other languages being designated as special status.

What do we make of this idea? At the best, (if Jews are a religion) it would acknowledge that when a designated official Christian country deals with Israel, she does so knowing that Israel denies the divinity of Christ, and is therefore in error on that and many associated points, points which would be by definition of prime importance to the official Christian country.

Israel (yet another of course!) would think the opposite. That is, they would think the official Christian country is wrong about the divinity of Christ, and Israel would deal with that country with that understanding. It’s an all-cards-on-the-table approach that is bound to pay off diplomatically.

If Jews are a race regardless of religion, and Israel is their home that all must recognize, then that country would and should support other countries that want to designate themselves official homes for various races. Right? It can’t be that Jews are the only race that get to call themselves a race that gets to make rules for itself and keep outsiders out. Can it? Israel is alt-right (I’m supposing the media’s definition of that term) and Jewish supremacist, and would seem to be obliged to support alt-right status for other nations.

There are difficulties of declaring Jews a singular race, though. There will be some race (if we use the older, commonsense definition of the word) among Jews which is at least a plurality, some race who has the highest count. I haven’t done this counting, but it looks like those of East European descent, perhaps Russian. Or maybe Kahazar/Turkish? Or even white. Whatever it is, it is something. It would not be a mistake to say that this numerical winner is “the” Jewish race; that would be up to Israel to decide. But it would follow that those of other races who consider themselves Jews are in official error, or are of secondary status.

Same goes for the Christian race. Some race is number one—maybe it’s Nigerians or Brazilians. It could even be Chinese (67 million Christians in China). I don’t know. Whoever is tops would then be “the” Christian race.

Rules for commenting: Let’s agree with the Encyclopedia Britannica that the first one to use the misnomer “anti-Semitism” loses, because not all Jews are Semitic, and not all Semites are Jews. If you mean “anti-Jew” say “anti-Jew.” Unless, of course, all non-Semites are declared by law non-Jews, and all Semites are thus declared Jews, regardless of their religion. Or maybe, if we accept self-identification, anybody who declares themselves a Jew becomes a Semite.

And then if Jews are an official race, by whatever rules Israel decides, and Israel must be seen as the official Jewish homeland, then to criticize Israel would by definition be criticizing Jews. That’s a win-win for them.

It’s all very confusing.

August 15, 2018 | 83 Comments

Priests Oriented Toward Males & The New Crisis — Updates

There are no such things as “gays”. There are no such as “heterosexuals”, either1. There are men who have properly ordered sexual desires or, at times or for long periods, have intrinsically disordered sexual desires—of every kind, not just toward other males.

There does exist in our culture a subculture of “gays”, with its own tropes, customs, and habits, including the use of preposterous accents when the occasion suits, but the existence of this subculture is not to say there are “gays” in the same sense there are (procreative) males and females. And it is not to say that the people who enter into this subculture remain rigorously within its bounds at all times. They can and do stray.

Even scientists, poorly trained as they are in philosophy and metaphysics, though you would have thought they would have grasped the fundamentals of reproductive biology by now, are finally coming around to this view. (This is only one reference of many: see footnote.)

Allowing the use of the terms gay, lesbian, or any of the other dozens upon growing dozens of terms that describe non-procreative sexual desire as if these terms describe in an essential sense a category of people like male and female leads, has led, and will continue to lead to a certain painful and false judgment.

That judgement is the on-going abuse crisis in the Church is due to a misuse of “power”.

That is false at its core, though power is misused by bishops covering up crimes and by priests and bishops in choosing their victims. Power would not have been abused, and the crisis would not be with us, if it were acknowledged there are no such thing as “gays”. Recognizing men who self-identify as having intrinsically disordered sexual desires as being “gay”, having men who are told to identify as having these desires, can only encourage them to act on these desires.

And they have acted upon them. Repeatedly, often, and in every place these misconceptions are promoted.

Would you trust your teenage son to be alone with a priest who self-acknowledges the desire to have sex with your teenage son? Even if the priest says he will not act on these desires?

The answer, given by common sense and by all human experience, is obvious.

You’d give the same answer were you to substitute your wife or daughter into the question. But you never hear of priests asked to self-identify as men who desire sex with parishioner’s wives and daughters. Yet, as for the latter, even now there is a clamor for recognizing pedophilia as an “orientation” (in the same sense as “gay”). If the priest stood up and said “I am gay”, he is almost congratulated, if not actually celebrated, and nothing untoward is thought of it. But if a priest said, “I find the women (or girls) of this parish sexual desirable”, he’d be ousted.

Virtue is tough, and men slip. Perfection is impossible and cannot be expected. But it must always be aimed for. Allowing those with self-identified intrinsically disordered sexual desires to be priests tosses perfection out the window, not as something unattainable, which is admitted, but as undesirable, which is insane.

(The latest hip “orientation” is asexual, which is no sexual attraction at all. Which proves even the non-religious understand that this is possible.)

Allowing priests to call themselves “gay” says, implicitly at least but sometimes also explicitly, there is “nothing wrong” with the priest. Which is false. What is wrong with him is his intrinsically disordered sexual desire. Bolstering his self-identification as “gay” can only lead to the false and heretical belief that God created gays, that gays have certain gifts and qualities the rest of us don’t. That when gay desires are acted upon, which they will be for some, that they is not that bad, and certainly not a sin that cries out to Heaven for vengeance. All of which, as readers know, was exactly what happened.

So now we have the latest revelations, which fit into the same pattern as earlier revelations. Victims were mostly male, mostly teens (“One priest was willing to admit to molesting boys, but denied reports from two girls who had been abused; ‘they don’t have a penis’ he explained.”) As was also found in the John Jay report. The details are so sickening that the least punishment is booting all malefactors from the priesthood and the cashiering of all involved bishops. Though stringing up the worst is preferred.

I’ve seen estimates of anywhere from 20-50% of the priesthood self-identifies as having intrinsically disordered sexual desires. The population numbers are around 1-3%, growing higher in millennials (maybe up to 15%). Allowing self-identification as sexual desire causes subcultures to thrive. The subcultures cause the abuse. The abuse causes the cover-ups.

Pope Benedict recognized this and, believe it or not, so does Pope Francis, or so reports say.

According to various Italian news reports following a closed-door session with Italian bishops, Pope Francis on Monday [in late May 2018] said that men with “deeply rooted” homosexual tendencies, or who “practice homosexual acts,” shouldn’t be allowed into the seminary.

A report by Vatican Insider says Francis told the Italian prelates: “These tendencies, when they are ‘deeply rooted,’ and the practice of homosexual acts, can compromise the life of the seminary beyond that of the young man himself and his eventual future priesthood.”

Pope Francis’s judgement is correct. And borne out by events. The priesthood has been compromised grotesquely (in the West, and most especially the USA). It must be uncompromised. It must be purged.

If it isn’t, then what came out of Pittsburgh will continue to come out.

Addendum I do not agree with the grand jury that the statute of limitations be eliminated for criminal sexual abuse. This would effectively remove having to prove crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. And false accusations do occur, especially when money is involved.

Update All parishioners in New York this early evening received an email from Cardinal Dolan (which is why I thought it important to respond to Kent below) in which Dolan says, Boy, isn’t the Church doing a great job with abuse now?

I believe that the recent case involving Archbishop Theodore McCarrick, as gut-wrenching as it was, exemplifies the progress that has been made in dealing with such cases. When the Archdiocese of New York received the complaint, we followed our normal protocol as we would for any priest, and everyone involved — from the Vatican on down — agreed that we must deal with the case openly and honestly. It is hard to imagine that such would have been the case 30 years ago.

Bullshit. The Church was dragged screaming and scheming to acknowledge McCarrick, where it was revealed “everybody knew”. And that everybody probably included Dolan. “And while the Church in the past may have been an example of what not to do, today I believe it is a model of what to do to prevent sexual abuse, and how to respond when an accusation comes to light.”

Yes, just look at the list of complicit bishops who have resigned since McCarrick and Pittsburgh came to light. Where there’s, um, and there’s, ahh, and, well, yeah, the Church is doing a great job accepting responsibility.

Update Look at this nonsense from Cardinal O’Malley. He actually wrote he has to spend more time with his family.

UpdateWe are deeply saddened“. But not so sad that we’ll resign or do anything more than issue yet another strongly worded press release.


1I have a much longer essay on this subject in my new forthcoming book (which is almost done! and still in need of a publisher). The terms homosexual and heterosexual are recent additions to English, added about a century ago originally to classify those with excessive and aberrational sexual behavior and the objects of those behaviors.