Skip to content

Category: Culture

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

May 16, 2018 | 34 Comments

Don’t ‘Taizé’ Me, Bro!: The Attack On The Liturgy — Guest Post by Ianto Watt

Taizéd and dazed. We’ve gone to sleep. How did this begin to happen? And when was it we got Taizéd?

Have you ever seen those little inconspicuous signs outside of some mainline Protestant church, saying ‘Taizé Service’? Essentially, they mean ‘we have achieved nuclear parity’. It’s similar to what happened when Stalin exploded his first test nuke, back in August of 1949.

You first need to understand that revolutions don’t just happen by chance. They require planning. And dedication. And persistence. And hate. Hate, always hate. And they never stop, unless they are killed in the cradle. Which we failed to do to Stalin in 1949. Patton was right.

Just like the Russian nuke in 1949, the power to Taizé was a stolen power. Stolen by turncoats. That’s another word for Revolutionary. But that’s what history is all about. Who will betray whom. Ask Viriathus if you’re not sure.

The setting for this story (and it is a big story, which is why you’ve never heard of it) is the early 1800’s, in Europe. We have the Europeans still reeling from the Napoleonic revolution that set out to overturn every monarchy and re-create the world. But this time, in the image of Man. Or rather, the goddess whose name is Reason.

This destruction of the powers of the past had disrupted the people’s memory of the past, and all that was built upon it. The Europe everyone goes to see was not built by the Enlightenment. Sure, some sadists like to see the guillotine, but most would rather not. Who still understands what motivated those people who actually built the palaces and cathedrals that define our image of Europe? Europe, before the bloodshed?

The European people’s only authentic link with the past after the French/Napoleonic Revolution was the Church. Only Her doctrine and liturgy had survived this revolutionary onslaught. All the rest, the material stuff, was either razed or stolen. With the founding of the Solesmes Congregation in 1833 (in the ruins of the abbey demolished by the Revolution) a humble monk named Dom Prosper Guerangér began the second act of the Benedictine re-construction of Europe. And the first step towards this goal was the re-establishment of time. Forget Thermidor. Remember Advent. Guerangér’s masterpiece, The Liturgical Year was the beginning of this return to normalcy. It was a commentary on the saints and liturgy for each day of the year, wrapped in the norms of the ecclesial seasons. With this work Dom Prosper set about the task of re-orienting man towards his true work—his participation in the liturgy. The true worship of God.

What is this liturgy? Man’s public duty to God. It is not just the acknowledgment, but also the understanding of this duty that Gueranér sought to re-awaken. Because of this he is known as the godfather of The Liturgical Movement. And here we find the beginning of the trail of tears. The trail of Taizé. For it was from Taizé (a small village north of Lyon, in France) that the modernist ecumenical movement was unleashed upon the world. The original weapon of Mass destruction. The movement that will eventually rule all the world, if only for a time. And that ecumenical time is coming fast upon us.

I’m not saying that Dom Guerangér was the originator of today’s inversion of liturgical reform. But, as with all movements towards truth, there will be the inevitable spin-offs that, knowingly or not, will divert a good many men who begin their trek towards truth, but who end up ideologically turning right or left into the dead-ends of time. And it truly was absolutely necessary that someone should re-awaken mankind to the meaning of their public duty. Dom Prosper Guerangér was just the man for this job.

For otherwise the liturgy, attended by men who had forgotten it’s meaning, would continue in a meaningless repetition of ritual, devoid of intent. Any intent. Which is to say, worthless, to the practitioner. Rather like the worship Caesar demanded of his ‘citizens’. Why would Caesar demand that? Conditioning, my friend. Do what you’re told, I’ll do the thinking. Caesar was the first acolyte of B.F. Skinner. Or was it the other way around? But that is not what God expects of Man. God made man to think His thoughts after Him. He wants us to think. Before we act, however. So why should The Church expect anything less of Her children?

Now here is where the most important fork in the road to Liturgical reform was met. The next monk who had to decide which way to go was Dom Lambert Beauduin. A Benedictine monk, of course. But not at first. Born in Belgium in 1873, he first became a diocesan priest whose specialty was as a ‘worker’s missionary’. He was heavily involved in the education of the working people. Which, in those times, meant political and economic education. And he was good at it. Too good. During his gifted pastoral practice, he gradually lost sight of the true purpose of education. And the true source. What is that purpose? Adoration. The source? Informed adoration. Which is to say, a people in tune (and time) with the Liturgy.

This is what Dom Guerangér understood and worked for. He understood that educating the people about the meaning of the liturgy would re-awaken in them the true understanding of life here on earth. This would make possible a true education that put all of mankind’s activity in the proper perspective. Which is to say, the eternal.

This story of revolutionary ritual is laid out very clearly in a little book by Fr. Didier Bonneterre, The Liturgical Movement. In it, Bonneterre charitably explains how Dom Beauduin went off the rails. Like most revolutionaries, he got his means and ends mixed up. He thought his mission was to educate his flock before he taught them the purpose of education.

Then he began to think that his real calling was not to educate the Catholic masses, but rather he would reach out to the pastors of his ‘separated brethren’. His Anglican, Lutheran and Orthodox friends, of whom he had many. Which, in itself, is not a bad thing. I know many Samaritans whom I like and love. Dom Beauduin thought, in his many ecumenical safaris, that there could be a way to rationally approach them on the question of the re-unification of Christendom. And he believed the way to this reunification was dialogue. Which is Hegelian, of course. Not Christian. And not necessarily rational.

Dom Beauduin failed to see that example is the best teacher. Work, not talk, is what impresses people. And if he had understood this, he would have seen that true ecumenism lies in the attraction of one side towards the other, based on the fruit of their work. Not some middling compromise that sullies both sides. Beauduin, an enthusiast of the Malines Conversations, was willing to accept an Anglican Church that was ‘united to Rome but not absorbed’.

Now within the Roman Church there are twenty-three distinct separate rites of worship. Being absorbed does not mean losing your personal identity. Each rite (and its culture) is distinct, each is authentic. And twenty-two of them are ancient. This is important. Remember that, as you try and restore your memory to what you were before you were Taizéd.

This concept of absorption was the lesson John Cardinal Newman learned in his epiphany in the institutional failure of the Oxford Movement. The Eastern Orthodox laughed the Oxford Movement’s ecumenist William Palmer out of town when he went to Moscow in 1840 to peddle that Three Branch hokum.

The Orthodox knew that giving in to Anglican claims of authenticity (and, ergo, autonomy) would lead directly to the need to admit the authenticity (in any fashion) of Holy Rome. In fact, Patriarch Nikon’s musing, during his deposition in 1666 by Tsar Alexi, that he should appeal his removal directly to the Pope was what sealed his fate.

The true personal fruit of the Oxford Movement was not the mutual recognition of autonomous equals. Rather it was the conversion of Newman and Palmer and numerous other Oxford Brethren to the centricity of Holy Rome. Conversions are what advance true ecumenism. Why? Because that is the only thing that produces true unity. Forget the Left. Forget the Right. The bullseye is always in the Center. No matter what you aim for.

In Dom Beauduin’s eagerness to seek rapprochement with his separated brethren (and in his frustration with Anglican reluctance), he became even more enthralled with the Eastern-most of these separated brethren, the Orthodox. Enthralled to the point of founding ‘The Monastery of Union‘ at Amay in 1925. The monastery that included (and celebrated) all forms of ‘Christian’ belief. Even contradictory ones. This, in spite of the fact that one of the most profound results of the Amay movement was that numerous Catholic monks were converting to Orthodoxy.

Guess who Beauduin became fast friends with there? Guess who would declare, in 1958, that ‘the method of Dom Lambert Beauduin is the right one’? Would you believe, Msgr. Angelo Roncalli? The future Pope John XXIII. The pope who convened the Ecumenical council known as Vatican II. The Pope that Taizéd us. And the Center began to move. Not, as Yeats had said, that ‘the centre cannot hold’ in his seminal work The Second Coming. No, rather it was because the centre would not hold. The falcons were abandoned by the Falconer. As the gyroscopic poles began to move, the world that spun around it began to wobble. And then everything flew apart. Literally, everything.

#########################################3

Now we are getting to the end of the story. The story of how the modernist New Mass supplanted the time-immemorial Latin liturgy of Pius V in the late 1500’s. Which liturgy Pius got from Pope Gregory the Great, around 600 AD. And Gregory got it, undisturbed, from the Apostles. Guess who they got it from? No, not Caiaphas!

What was this New Mass of Vatican II? Essentially, it was identical to the pre-existing Eucharistic Liturgy of Taizé. The Mass created by the experiments of the mad liturgical scientist, Dom Beauduin. And which experiments were recorded by Brother Roger, the ecumenical Protestant saint of The World Council of Churches (WCC). He, and his buddy, Max Thurian (Reformed Church pastor). Take a minute and read this liturgy, from 1959. Now compare it to the Mass of Vatican II. It’s actually better in a lot of ways than the New Mass of 1969.

Where did Thurian and Brother Roger get this new liturgy? From Dom Beauduin, and his People’s Masses that he had been experimenting with for a dozen years in his treks across Europe between The Great Wars. All the elements of Taizé (and later, the new Mass, delivered at Vatican II) were there. Including the most important, from their combined perspective; that the People were equally as important as the Eucharist. Fools. Poor fools.

There is only one word for this bi-polar thought: revolution. The ‘reformers’ (on both sides of the ecclesial divide) said that the liturgy, which was basically unchanged from the night of The Last Supper till WWI, actually stood between the people and their faith. The Ancient Church said that the liturgy is, in fact, the people’s acting out this faith. It was the linkage of the people and their faith. After all, if the liturgy is the public duty of man, then it is simply the expression of his faith. If God is unchanging, why shouldn’t the liturgy remain unchanged? But that answer never satisfies the revolutionary. He wants change, at any and all costs. As long he isn’t the one who pays the tab. And if the only way to change things is to destroy what currently exists, guess who pays?

Let’s get back to a previous point about revolutionaries. We’ve seen Beauduin, and Brother Roger. And Msggr. Roncalli. Now let’s look closer at another of the Komrades. Specifically, Max Thurian. This is the same Max Thurian who was secretly ordained as a Catholic priest in 1987, with no abjuration of any of his anti-Roman beliefs. How was it that he and Brother Roger (a close friend of all Popes since John XXIII) could write (and more importantly, celebrate) something equal to the reigning liturgy of the Catholic Church today? How can a man claim to believe everything the Catholic Church believes, and to act upon that belief, liturgically speaking, without publicly becoming one with Rome? How can autonomy be reconciled with unity?

Now I ask you, why was Max secretly ordained? And have there been any secretly consecrated Bishops? Ugly questions. Uglier answers. Ugly, but rather simple. Counterfeiting is basically a very simple concept. Substitution always seems to work. Some (most) people will buy something based on the hood ornament, regardless of what’s under the hood.

Yes, the Taizé liturgy appears (to my un-ordained mind) to contain the essence, the Canon, of the Mass, whether it be the old or the new form of the Mass. On paper, the nuclear parity of sacramental power appears to have been achieved. Canterbury and Augsburg could now (theoretically) rival Rome. Everyone could have their own atomic weapons now. If there were any real Anglicans and Lutherans left, that is. If there weren’t enough of them to accomplish the reunification of Christendom (through compromise), was there was another way to achieve the numerical parity this new Protestant-cum-Catholic liturgy needed in order to succeed?

Well, if you couldn’t rally enough men to your own side, then perhaps you could reduce the other side’s forces? Perhaps the other side could be persuaded to engage in some unilateral disarmament? Some pleasant form of suicide, perhaps? By the way, isn’t it funny how the semantics work out? The old Latin form of the Latin Mass now has an English name, the ‘Extraordinary Form’, while the new English Mass has a Latin name ‘Novus Ordo‘. Is it any wonder the people get confused? Back to the plot. For it is a plot, you know. Why? Because there is no need for secrecy if this ecumenical ordination of Max Thurian was truly licit. You know. Legal. Sure, it’s valid, it’s effective. But was it legal? Well, what revolution is ever legal?

Here’s the heart of the plot. Let’s assume the Taizé liturgy has the crucial magical (canonical) elements that would constitute a true Mass (the form and substance of the consecration). If so, there’s only one thing missing here in order for this liturgy to actually result in the confection of the Eucharist. What would that be? A real priest, of course. One who was actually and effectively ordained into the Apostolic succession of the priesthood. There has to be apostolic succession here in order for the celebrant to be able to make the words of the liturgy bring alive the act of transubstantiation. The change of the bread and wine into the Real Presence.

Yes, this is an act of magic. True magic. An act that requires a true magician. One who has been given this power. You can’t just achieve it. Or take it. Or buy it. Ask Simon Magus. It must be given. By Who? By the One who owns it. The One who gave it to a particularly chosen group, and to be passed on by them, in an orderly way. Holy Orders. Sorry guys (and gals), The Last Supper was invitation-only. Discrimination in its best form.

That’s what all these liturgical revolutionaries (in both camps) recognized. They knew that even if the Protestant denominations had valid claims that their liturgy, on paper, was congruent with Catholic belief, there still had to be a legal driver for the car. Someone with an actual valid license. A celebret of some type. Otherwise, he’s driving without insurance.

Here’s the logic driving this whole thing. The current Catholic hierarchy wants re-unification, at seemingly any cost. The Protestant hierarchy wants the real liturgy, at almost any cost. Any cost but bending the knee to Peter. Forget the current occupant of that Chair for a minute. Focus on Peter. That’s what the other side has done. That’s what we have forgotten to do.

How do we accomplish this, Komrade? First, if we can get the Catholics to act Protestant, then maybe we can get the Protestants to act like Catholics. If the one disappears, how can the other mirror it? Unless they both disappear. Which is apparently what’s happening. And that’s how the Revolutionaries did it. They changed the old form of the Mass into the newly proclaimed Protestant form, and called it a tie game. And everybody began to leave. They all went home for a nap. A long nap. Check the figures for Mass attendance since 1969. Same for Mainline Prot churches. Every one was selling short.

The Ref that called this tie game was Fr. Annibale Bugnini, the head of the Commission for Liturgical Reform. Another friend of Dom Beauduin. And Msgr. (Pope) Roncalli. Shazzam! Annibale. Hannibal. ‘The grace of Baal‘. The everlasting enemy of Rome. Imperial or Holy, it makes no difference. Who was vetting these vocations?

After Pius XII died in 1958 and Msgr. Roncalli became Pope John XXIII, the way was clear to make the big move. That’s when Fr. (soon to be bishop) Bugnini used the Taizé liturgy as his blueprint, knowing the Protestants would accept it. Because, after all, they had already accepted it! So, monkey-see, monkey-do. Turn the altar around and make it a buffet table. Speak in the vernacular instead of the sacred. Treat priests like waiters. And treat everyone else like a priest. Maybe a priestess? Then, sneak the Canon of the Mass (complete with transubstantiation) into the Protestant form of ritual and turn it into a Catholic liturgy (but without a lot of public chatter about what’s been done). Abracadabra. Presto-change-o.

If they can somehow inject a valid (though possibly illicit) priesthood into the Protestant side, then they can say their Taizé, then liturgy produces exactly what the Catholics have. The Eucharist. In other words, Nuclear Parity. They can be just like Holy Rome. And, by the way, just like the Orthodox, too. Same dogma, same rites, same priesthood as Rome. The Three Branch Theory, fulfilled! All without having to bend the knee to Peter. Thus, we have the conditions for an eternally extended Mexican Standoff. Even better than peaceful (but still uncomfortable) co-existence. It’s Amnesty!

The Orthodox aren’t buying this scam. They shouldn’t. But they have their own separate agenda. The agenda of continued separation, that is. Their own refusal to bend the knee. While the Eastern Orthodox maintain a presence in the World Council of Churches, they are aloof to it. They sneer at it privately, because to them Moscow is the true Third Rome. And the center is moving towards Moscow, Komrade. The one pole that will not move.

Why not let these Teutonic Lutheran and Anglican idiots think they’ve swiped the Holy Grail, literally? The Orthodox are certain they are the only true possessors of it, now that the grip of Rome has loosened. Let these silly Protestants think they are the equals of Holy Rome. Too bad they don’t realize both Rome and Canterbury have both apostasized, in the Orthodox view. So, let them trade costumes, who cares? The result is the same. Forget that stupid Three Branch theory. We told Palmer that publicly in Moscow in 1840. No need to repeat ourselves, eh Komrades?

This is how they herd all of the sheep into one pen. Without any unnecessary bleating, of course. Stay calm and carry on, they tell us again, as we continue down the chute into the common killing fields. We appear to have no choice. Either we go with the currently relaxed Cat/Prot liturgy of the secularized West, or we embrace the rigid but vacuous rituals of the Orthodox East. Yet both, in the end, owe their continued existence to their refusal to bend the knee to Peter. To Peter, who appears to be abandoned by all.

Who is this ‘they’ I refer to? Does it matter? The deed is done. Whether by Kabbalah or its pale Gentile version known as Freemasonry, or both in concert, the deed is done. The sheep are scattered, the wolves are loose. It’s every sheep for himself. Baaa!

What is the faithful man to do? Where can he find support? What is the right response to this Mongol strategy of deliberatively contrived confusion followed by exhaustion and collapse? Well, in war, the correct response, as always, is to attack. That requires guts. And guts require faith. Both are in short supply today. That’s the point.

We haven’t paid attention to what Dom Guerangér tried to teach us. Because we have shifted the focus of the liturgy, our public duty, from God to Man. We have forgotten the need for contemplative adoration. Both words, together. Liturgy, with ancient understanding. That is the key to enlivening our faith. Only that will give us the guts we need. The guts to do our public duty to God. To do it the way it was intended. The way unchanged from the time of Peter till now. That, Komrade, is the best means of attack.

My friend, if you want to live, wake up. Shake off that Taizéing. Remember your past. Reverence your origin. Give your personal thanks for the conscious opportunity to die in the Faith. Then you will live again. Just keep the Faith. That’s all you have to do.

Oremus.

May 12, 2018 | 3 Comments

Insanity & Doom Update XXXIII

Item Noname talks trauma, transitions and Telefone

It’s a few weeks before the Women’s March, and Chicago rapper Noname (aka Fatimah Warner) is explaining how the song Bye Bye Baby, off last year’s debut project, Telefone, is about the idea of abortion as an act of self-love. The inspiration came from knowing many women who had gone through the experience and realizing that there wasn’t really anything in music that recognizes that reality.

“There are very negative connotations around having an abortion, that it’s a selfish, hateful act. That’s not what I see,” she says. “I don’t think that abortion is without love. Sometimes having a kid is not the chase. For a woman to make a decision that’s about her needs is about self-love. Women’s right to have freedom and agency over their bodies is important.”

Here is the video with lyrics. The lyrics are crude and child-like—“My tummy almost got ready; For biddi-baby spaghetti”—which is not a surprise. We are not dealing with a major intellect.

But notice the truth in the article. Abortion as an act of self-love. This is accurate and precise. of course, women (no more than men) do not have complete “freedom and agency over their bodies”, and in any case, the baby is not the woman’s body. It is its own body.

And the women rapper admits this in the song title. Bye Bye Baby. She knows, as all know, that they are killing a person. But they do not care. Self-love comes first.

Item Alfie Evans and the Experts

In each case, the doctors and judges had plausible medical arguments that the limits of treatment had been reached. (Although in the case of Evans, their expertise was undercut by the boy’s refusal to swiftly die, as predicted, when his breathing apparatus was removed; he lived for five days before expiring.) But in each case that judgment was deployed for wicked ends, stripping parents who were not unfit of their ability to act as parents, denying them the ability to choose not only last-ditch treatments but even where and how their ailing children died.

It is easy see the relevance here of Aviv’s story about Jahi McMath, a teenager from Oakland declared brain-dead after a horribly-botched tonsillectomy, whose family managed to spirit her away to New Jersey, where religious-freedom laws allow families to reject a “brain-death” ruling and keep a loved one on a feeding tube indefinitely.

Since then Jahi has survived for years despite confident medical predictions to the contrary, and she now gives pretty decent evidence of retaining some form of consciousness, some ability to listen and respond. In California her status as a dead person is under litigation; in a small apartment in New Jersey, in the care of her mother, she is very much alive.

How can you, a new parent, possibly know what is better for your child, or your father, than the all-knowing most beneficent government, staffed as it is with credentialed experts? Answer: you cannot. Surrender. The State is Mother, the State is Father.

Here, incidentally, is the link to the ruling in the Alfie Evans case. Depressing.

Item California Schools Force Students into Gender Sensitivity Training, Say Parents have No Say

A Facebook user named Stefanie Duncan Fetzer recently posted a memo she uncovered from the Orange County Department of Education explaining to their employees that parents have no right to oppose what the schools decide to teach their children.

The situation started when Orange County School District told their parents that they would soon be teaching their children material that discussed gender, gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation. Some parents objected and told the schools that they’d prefer to pull their children out of these lessons, so the school checked with the government and learned that, thanks to California’s fascist laws, they could force the students to take the class…and the parents couldn’t do anything about it. (Other than move out of California that is.)

Ellipsis original. The memo spoken of is embedded at the link.

Again, State expertise trumps parents’ wills over their own children. This is tyranny. You may try homeschooling, which is still legal. But experience in Germany shows that once it reaches a critical threshold, in numbers or in distance of parents’ from State beliefs, the State moves in to close it down. We’re going to run out of places to hide.

Update Victory: Outraged California parents block radical elementary sex ed

Concerned parents have successfully fought against the implementation of a controversial new sex education program for elementary school children.

After a marathon meeting, with testimonies and discussion stretching until 2:30 AM Thursday, California’s Fremont Unified School District board voted against the controversial sex ed curriculum.

May 10, 2018 | 21 Comments

NRO UPDATE: “The Conservative Case For…” Giving in to the Left

This article originally appeared on 28 February 2018, but given National Review’s latest foray, it warrants an update.

The conservative case for…Time for a Compromise on Transgenderism

At present, it feels we’re still in the immature, demagogic phase. In some quarters, it remains fashionable to act theatrically repulsed by transgender people, emphasize their weirdness, and make populist appeals to the preposterousness of women asking to be called “him” or surgeons amputating penises and so forth. Yet this seems more cathartic than anything, in the same way that showy judgment of gays did a generation earlier. As with homosexuality in the 1980s and ’90s, the loud revulsion of critics conceals a fading interest in actually attempting to “solve” transgenderism, as even those most offended by it seem to quietly regard purported cures as quackish and authoritarian…

Part one of the compromise will be borne by cultural conservatives and traditionalists. It asks for broad tolerance for the reality that transgender men and women exist, and are entitled to basic human dignity, just like everyone else. This does not mean having to morally endorse behavior many may believe runs contrary to God’s plan for a just and healthy society, but it does imply that acts like ostentatiously calling people by pronouns they don’t want, or belittling their personal struggle, are boorish and petty.

Update to the Update: NRO contra NRO.

Somewhat amusingly, we’re now reliant on progressives to make the conservative case. Pace The ‘gay cake’ fight: why the bakers had a right to refuse this order.

In 2014 Gareth Lee, an LGBT activist, asked Ashers bakery in Belfast to make a cake decorated with images of the Sesame Street puppets Bert and Ernie, together with the slogan: “Support gay marriage”. Ashers declined the order as the message ran contrary to the owners’ Christian beliefs.

The Equality Commission, to whom Lee took his case, sued Ashers for discrimination. The courts found the bakery to have unlawfully discriminated against Lee on grounds of sexual orientation and religious belief or political opinion. Last week, the supreme court heard Ashers’ appeal against that decision. It’s not expected to deliver its verdict for a few months…

“Although I strongly disagree with Ashers’ opposition to marriage equality,” the veteran LGBT and human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell has observed, “in a free society neither they nor anyone else should be compelled to facilitate a political idea that they oppose.” He is right.

Here, of course, the left will brook no compromise. You must not only bake the cake, but decorate it. It’s as if progressives don’t believe there really are such things as non-progressives, that they are real people, and that their feewings might be hurt (yes, it’s a joke, in anticipation of comments that might be made).

Perhaps we ought to have a search and discover which progressive point has not been adopted by conservatives. I can’t think of one. Can you?

Original article begins here:

Do a search for “The Conservative Case For…” (we met this phrase before). Know what you’ll find?

Almost exclusively, articles about how to graciously surrender to the left. About how progressive positions can be seen, if viewed in just the right light, as conservative after all. About how if we capitulate the culture wars gracefully, our progressive masters will love us and speak well of us.

Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.

A few recent examples (all emphases mine).

  • The conservative case for a carbon tax in Canada.” Author admits conservatives are “nearly unified in their opposition to the implementation of a carbon tax, or carbon pricing.” But by surrendering to the left, “Conservatives can show that they really are interested in conservation and sustainability, opening up the Conservative brand to a wider range of the voting population, while not being forced to abandon their principles.” Except the principle of avoiding unnecessary and confiscatory taxes.
  • Conservative Case for Gay Marriage“. From a Senior fellow at the Brookings Institute comes the argument that because some (public) conservatives disrespected their own marriages, therefore so-called same-sex marriage “is part and parcel of a re-commitment to family values, not a flight from them.” Thus “Same-sex marriage is socially conservative.” Never mind that sodomy is a sin that cries out to Heaven for justice.
  • The Conservative Case for Women’s Issues.” Author says “The culture war is over and we lost.” Which is why conservatives should support “policies addressing family medical leave, paid parental leave, workplace discrimination, gender wage discrimination, an earned income tax credit, childcare incentives and food tax reform.” Conclusion? “There is nothing to fear and everything to gain for conservatives to pursue the quest for happiness for everyone.”

There are many, many more. “The conservative case for single payer,” “The Conservative Case for Unions,” “The Conservative Case for Overturning Citizens United,” “Paul Ryan and the conservative case for President Trump to keep DACA,” “The conservative case for SSM,” and on and on. Try it yourself.

It isn’t only conservative-case-for keywords that signal retreat. There are many ways of advertising submission. The most common is to feign exhaustion. To claim the tide is so overwhelming that there is no use in fighting. Best to abandon the cause and save our energy for another battle.

A great demonstration of this from a (said-to-be) conservative author is in the article “It’s Time for Legalized Prostitution.” This was in Slate, where the author then played the same role as does David Brooks does now at the New York Times.

This is Lent, so go to Confession, repent of your sins, and if you are not ready to thrown in the spiritual towel, you can click here to finish the fight.

May 8, 2018 | 62 Comments

What Do Sex Cults, Spirit Cooking, Cannibalism, and Will Ferrell Have to do With Each Other?

Would you agree to stand nude in front of a group of strangers while I, clad in black and masked, stood behind you and slingshotted a plateful of raw chicken hearts at you until they raised painful welts?

No? How about gizzards?

You philistine. You obviously have no appreciation for art.

Marina Abramovic appreciates art in ways you would never think of. It was her namesake foundation that thought up the chicken-heart art, about which more below.

Spirit Cooking Redux

Remember Abramovic? She became a brief household name during the election when it was revealed she invited Hillary campaign chairman John Podesta to a “spirit cooking” dinner. Spirit cooking is mealtime art. Recipes include mixtures of pain and bodily fluids.

The name of this avant-garde chef popped up again recently after the arrest of NXIVM sex-cult actress Allison Mack. Mack recruited, and attempted to recruit, famous women for the cult. Before her performance as prisoner, Mack without explanation intriguingly tweeted a headshot of Abramovic.

It’s Pronounced Nix-ee-um

So Abramovic who preaches pain is tied to Mack who is tied to NXIVM. The latest news about NXIVM is that its resident doctor, Brandon Porter, has been charged with conducting illegal human experiments.

One woman complained Porter made her “watch disturbing rape and dismemberment videos for a ‘fright study’.”

“He continued to film my reaction for at least 10 minutes as I just sat there, dry heaving like I was going to puke and crying very hard,” Kobelt, a Canadian actress, said in the complaint to the Health Department, adding that Porter began showing her the violent images without warning.

Porter reportedly did this to “as many as 100 people.”

He is accused of showing “human subjects an actual video of the horrific and brutal murders and dismemberment of four women by machetes; and violent film clips, including a male African American being viciously stomped by a Nazi; a conscious male being forced to eat a portion of his own brain matter; and a graphic gang rape.”

He is also charged with violating state law for improperly conducting studies on obsessive compulsive disorder, Tourette’s syndrome and one monitoring the brain waves of those who attended Nxivm programs.

Does This Taste Funny to You?

Cannibalism, as you can see, is another persistent theme. Of course, eating people can be very artistic. All the best people think so.

The singer Katy Perry does. In her popular video Bon Appétit the little-clothed Perry is peeled, peppered, powered and prepped by a team of chefs as a party of dinner guests watches in anticipation. The twist is that as the guests are about to dig in, the chefs release Perry and dismember the guests (blood flies everywhere) to serve to Perry!

If that’s not art, then you should click here to read the rest.

(I can’t take credit for last paragraph.)