Skip to content

Category: Culture

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

October 4, 2018 | 18 Comments

Insanity & Doom Update LVIII — Special Midweek Doom

There is more Doom that we can shake a holy-water-doused crucifix at. Maybe we should have both Saturdays and Wednesdays Doom devoted.

Item How three scholars gulled academic journals to publish hoax papers on ‘grievance studies.’

Such hoaxes are unethical, and The Wall Street Journal doesn’t condone them.

Good grief, what effeminacy. But of course we all remember the effect of the Sokol hoax. That’s right: beside a few giggles, none at all.

Item The Senate Should Not Confirm Kavanaugh: Signed, 1,000+ Law Professors (and Counting)

The left is now screaming like sissies that Kavanaugh reacted angrily after being hit. This is more effeminacy. I pray you see that. Anyway, that “professors” are against him is, these days, a sign he must be a good man.

Item California, working hard, discovers a new way to destroy culture, industry.

“CA Gov. Jerry Brown signs bill requiring corporate boards to include women, saying despite flaws in measure “recent events in Washington DC– and beyond– make it crystal clear that many are not getting the message” on gender equality.”

It’s one small step from mandating the testosterone-deficient be given board memberships to mandating, say, trannies join the club.

Item Britain’s most senior female bishop says Church should stop calling God ‘he’ because it can put young people off religion (Thanks to reader Mavis Emberson for the tip.)

Britain’s most senior female bishop said the church should avoid referring to God only as ‘he’ after a survey found young Christians assume God is male…

The Bishop of Gloucester, the Rt Rev Rachel Treweek, the Church’s first female diocesan bishop, told The Telegraph: ‘I don’t want young girls or young boys to hear us constantly refer to God as he,’ adding that it was important to be ‘mindful of our language’.

It is not the first time Rt Rev Rachel Treweek has made these claims having said: ‘God is not to be seen as male. God is god,’ in the past.

In 2015 Rev Treweek refused the title of ‘right reverend father’. She has now claimed that non-Christians could feel a sense of alienation from the church if the image of God is painted as solely male, and public announcements are made in only male language to describe God.

Of course, after re-re-re-…-re-acknowledging God is not a man nor woman, a fact which nobody denies, we’ll have to toss out all references to God the Father, and forget the painful fact that Jesus was a non-female. The real question is: who could have foreseen putting a women in charge of religion would have resulted in her calling for the purging of male metaphors?

Item Mormon blogger says men are ‘100% responsible for unwanted pregnancies’ in powerful Twitter thread (Thanks to reader Kunzipjn for the tip.)

A blogger from Oakland, California has become a viral sensation after sharing her views on abortion on Twitter, in which she argues that “all unwanted pregnancies are caused by the the irresponsible ejaculations of men”…

Blair points out that biologically, men cannot impregnate women without experiencing an orgasm and therefore concludes that “getting a woman pregnant is a pleasurable act for men.”

Yes, we have long passed the point at which banalities and idiocies are passing for wisdom. But this is real bottom-of-the-barrel stupidity. A foolish woman discovers that sex can lead to pregnancy, is shocked, and conveys her shock to Twitter, whose readers also convey shock.

We began, as a species, with the full knowledge that sex was for procreation. We eventually came to the idea that sex was for pleasure and procreation an inconvenient side effect, one that could be cured by harmful drugs or by killing the side effect. But this foolish woman, and the explosion of myriad “orientations”, signal we are reaching the point where pregnancy is becoming a mystery. “I have no idea how I got pregnant,” said Thot One. “Did you have sex?” asked Thot Two. “Yeah,” replied Thot One. “But what’s that got to do with it?”

Item Pedophile’s Decapitated Corpse Found On Judge’s Doorstep After Bail Hearing In Aurora, Illinois

William Smith, 28, from Aurora, Illinois was discovered in the early hours of Tuesday morning, decapitated and slumped against the front door of the judge who had granted him bail in August.

Smith was arrested last month following allegations by his then girlfriend that he had raped her 8-year-old daughter.

After a police investigation in which Smith was found in possession of child pornography, he was arrested on two counts related to child pornography and one count of child molestation.

After being charged, Smith walked free from the court after the judge controversially ruled that he did not pose a threat to the local community, and he raised the $30,000 bail required to trigger his freedom…

Aurora police say they are currently “following leads” but have yet to make any arrests for the murder.

Note carefully that this was the perp’s corpse and not the judge’s. This is a case of the government not seen doing justice. We wonder how this judge will rule on the next similar case.

Item In attempting to rebut Rusty Reno’s dismissal of his book, Jonah Goldberg manages to invoke Hitler. He did wait a few paragraphs, though.

Item Eight of Iran’s women’s football team ‘are men’

Eight of Iran’s women’s football team are actually men awaiting sex change operations, it has been claimed.

It is impossible to change your sex. And all the men are ugly.

September 29, 2018 | 11 Comments

Insanity & Doom Update LVII

Item Senator Cruz hounded by progressives (video speaks for itself)

Item Perversion on the curriculum

Consider at what point it would be more merciful for God to destroy this land than the let the children learn that evil is good and so suffer for eternity.

Item The pics heading up today’s were circulated by the NHS of England. They show a video game controller versus a pacifier, and a pair of slutty shoes and lipstick versus a pacifier. They both say “Would you give up this?” infantilizing toy “For this?” guarantee of starting a family. They skipped the “infantilizing” and “family”, of course. The implication that young Brits should only care about Me! Me! Me! was there and plain.

The video game pic advised men to get free condoms. Well, “FREE” condoms. Who is paying for them is a mystery. For the slutty shoes, the ladies are advise they can abort their newly conceived life “up to five days (120 hours) after unprotected sex.” “FREE”, of course. You have to admire computing the number of hours in five days.

Perhaps it was inspiration to name the acronym of these FREE services the “Walsall Integrated Sexual Health Services” WISH.

England appears dead set on committing suicide. The reasons why we are already well familiar with. The real question is: how do we talk them (and us) out of it?

Item University to rename Serra House, Serra Mall following two years of controversy

Stanford will rename the freshman dorm, Serra, and Serra House, two campus buildings honoring California mission system founder Father Junipero Serra, who has drawn sharp criticism for his mistreatment of Native Americans.

Stanford will also seek to rename Serra Mall, pending the approval of Santa Clara County and the U.S. Postal Service. This would change the University’s official address, which is currently 450 Serra Mall. If approved, Serra Mall will become Jane Stanford Way in honor of the University’s co-founder.

New names for the Serra dorm and the Serra House, an academic building that houses the Clayman Institute for Gender Studies, have yet to be determined. According to Brad Hayward, Associate Vice President for University Communications, the University will select the new name for Serra dorm after gathering student input starting this fall.

Not all landmarks that echo Serra’s name will be re-christened. Serra Street, which stretches from the end of Serra Mall to El Camino Real, will retain its name. The dorm Junipero — named for the juniper tree rather than Serra, despite popular misconceptions — will remain unchanged….

In the meeting [to highlight the faux concern of decision makers], individuals of Native American descent recounted “visceral feelings of harm, trauma, emotional damage, and damage to their mental health,” as a result of buildings honoring Serra, according to the report.

“For many of the participants, Serra’s name evokes the entire history of oppression of Native Americans,” the committee wrote.

Speaking of suicide, the “popular misconceptions” are many. If hearing the name “Serra” is going to evoke “the entire history of oppression of Native Americans”, then we ought to use it on every possible occasion. Mosey over to the Stanford coffee shop and say “I’d like a large coffee, black. Also: Junipero Serra!” Then watch the poor darling who took your order it quiver and foam at the mouth. See how many Junipero Serra Junipero Serra Junipero Serras it takes before he begins spinning in a circle.

A Junipero Serra Junipero Serra Junipero Serra historian tried to correct Standford’s idiocy, but the poor fellow who wrote an op ed in support of Junipero Serra Junipero Serra Junipero Serra
probably didn’t realize that administrators never announce they’re thinking about doing something without already have decided to do it.

Junipero Serra is a saint, incidentally. Who’s a saint? Junipero Serra Junipero Serra Junipero Serra.

Item The Most Contrarian College in America

Have I got a college for you. For your first two years, your regimen includes ancient Greek. And I do mean Greek, the language, not Greece, the civilization, though you’ll also hang with Aristotle, Aeschylus, Thucydides and the rest of the gang. There’s no choice in the matter. There’s little choice, period.

Let your collegiate peers elsewhere design their own majors and frolic with Kerouac. For you it’s Kant. You have no major, only “the program,” an exploration of the Western canon that was implemented in 1937 and has barely changed.

It’s intense. Learning astronomy and math, you don’t merely encounter Copernicus’s conclusions. You pore over his actual words. You’re not simply introduced to the theory of relativity. You read “Relativity,” the book that Albert Einstein wrote.

Diversions are limited. There’s no swimming team. No pool. The dorms are functional; same goes for the dining. You’re not here for banh mi. You’re here for Baudelaire.

I’m talking about St. John’s College

The degree to which “the program” omits the intellectual contributions of women and people of color troubles me. But many schools would be wise to consider and better integrate its philosophy

Wait. This doesn’t sound like insanity. It doesn’t sound like doom. It sounds good, ideal, desirable. Why is it here, then?

Because this came from the enemy New York Times. St John’s has been noticed. Noticing always starts like this. With praise, and with a hint of discontent (“the intellectual contributions of women and people of color”, which pale next to the contributions of pale-faces). St John’s is now a target. The left will not accept anybody in any position of authority to engage in wrongthink. St John’s has been outed. They will be attacked.

Now is the time to pray for them.

September 26, 2018 | 103 Comments

Why “I Believe Survivors” Is Asinine: Kavanaugh vs. Ford, Realists vs. Fantasists.

We’re interested here in why people believe this female Ford’s charges against male SCOTUS nominee Kavanaugh. Many progressives say Ford’s evidence, even at this late date (I’m editing this on the morning of 25 September) is “credible.”

What could they mean by this word? And what could they mean when they chant “I believe survivors”?

In the old days, credible, a belief word, meant “appearing to merit belief or acceptance”. This word applied to the evidence used to support a conclusion — such as the conclusion “He’s guilty” — and not the conclusion itself, which here are details of the accusation.

It’s clear, back then, that accusers meant their conclusion to be deducible from the evidence (the details of the accusation). So it was always a question of how reliable the evidence was. We examined the evidence, in each part, and verified whether each part was true, false, or in between.

If the evidence was faulty, lacking, false, uncertain, tainted, or otherwise corrupted, it was tossed. The conclusion could then no longer be deduced, because, obviously, the conclusion was deduced from the evidence. This led to the conclusion being set aside (the conclusion could still be true or false, which we could only know with reference to different evidence than the discredited evidence).

That was then. These days, the conclusion is taken to be true because the charge was made or, rather, because of the “seriousness of the charges.” (Remember Anita Hill?) The charge itself is taken as sufficient evidence. The other evidence, the details in the accusation, are incidental, almost beside the point.

This is why you see people still, right now, saying Ford’s accusations are “credible”, even though her evidence has fallen apart (e.g., all the people she said were at her party under oath swore they were not present). They still say “credible” because the main evidence is the accusation itself; those details about who was where when are trivial distractions. It doesn’t matter if the details are true or false.

This new interpretation is everywhere. Global warming is true because of the seriousness of the charges. Incidentals like failed climate models are dismissed. The charge — or theory — is true because of its inherent importance.

I am a woman because I say I am. The biological evidence that I am a male is incidental, and dismissed, because of the seriousness of the charges.

This new definition of credible therefore represents a true Triumph of the Will. Reality itself must bend to our desires. Let me explain that, too.

Substituting fantasy and desire for Reality has, of course, always been with us. But it is only now that it is becoming institutionalized, the default reaction. “The law of the land,” and so forth.

The divide is between Realists and Fantasists. In Ford’s case, the Realists are frustrated Fantasists still believe even though all Ford’s direct evidence has been proved faulty; therefore the conclusion does not follow. “Why can’t they see that?” Realists ask.

The Fantasists do not care about the incidental evidence. The charge is too serious in all its consequences. Therefore the conclusion must be true. “Why can’t the Realists understand this?” they counter. (Some hovering between Reality and Fantasy try to make hay of highly circumstantial evidence, such as that some witnesses reported seeing Kavanaugh drunk before.)

The only sole lone thing that could “destroy” Ford’s conclusion is that if she publicly, forcefully, and loudly declares, “I lied.” The charge will have been removed; therefore, the conclusion no longer follows, even for a Fantasist.

This same battle takes place everywhere the Culture War is fought. This is why it always appears the battle over direct evidence never goes anywhere. It can’t. It’s ultimately a battle of who has True Authority. Nature, and Nature’s God, i.e. Reality, or Man’s Will.

This explains why charges of sexual assault do not (often) work against progressive politicians. Fantasists, which are most progressives, use seriousness of the charges as their main evidence, ignoring, when convenient, the details of the accusation. When a progressive politician is accused, and the charges bear up, the Fantasist fallacy works in the opposite direction.

First there are the ends-justify-the-means crowd, the pure Machiavellians. Liars all. There isn’t any need to explain this. But this group, once the largest, is about even with pure Fantasists. These folks actually believe. The Machiavellian knows he’s lying, but the Fantasist does not. The consequences of losing the progressive politician because of the charge are so serious (and this varies by the person under consideration, of course) that the Fantasist cannot believe the charges against the progressive politician are true, not really true.

Of course, when the politician is of no more use, or is otherwise a liability, the charges against him are treated just like charges against a Realist. Even Bill Clinton is still believed.

Finally “I believe survivors”. Why wouldn’t a “survivor” be believed? A survivor is a person who was almost killed only to be saved by some thing or event. Only kidding: “survivor” means victim of some sort, even where the threat of death was low or non-existent. Skip that.

The only reason not to believe a “survivor” is because it is suspected the “survivor” is lying about being a “survivor”. To issue the blanket statement “I believe survivors” thus discounts any possibility, or rather any interest, in whether the “survivor” is lying (or mistaken). It is to say the consequences of the “survivor’s” charges are too serious for their accusation not to be believed. A “survivor” who lied is not a survivor.

“I believe survivors” is thus pure Fantasist thinking.

Addendum As evidence how bad it’s getting, this: BOY, 13, ARRESTED, CUFFED AND DRAGGED FROM SCHOOL OVER #METOO ALLEGATIONS.

September 25, 2018 | 5 Comments

Cardinal “Soupy” Cupich Tries To Wrap Straight Jacket Around Faithful Priest For Burning Pervert Pennant — Updates

So this Soupy Cupich, cardinal of the Catholic Church, appointee of the Worst Pope Ever, has sicced men in white coats after a faithful priest, a priest who allowed his parishioners to burn a Pervert Pennant.

If the strong arms catch this Rev Paul Kalchik, 56, they’ll wrap him in a straight jacket and toss him to the shrinks for an “evaluation.” More about this not-so-subtle form of torture in a moment—the main point of this post.

First, here’s what happened. Kalchik was 11 when a “gay” neighbor raped him (young boys are a favorite of this set: keep yours away from them). And when he was 19, a homosexual priest went after him.

Kalchik recovered from these attempts at re-orientation and, as is obvious, became a priest himself. A faithful one, by all accounts. All accounts except those put out by Soupy.

Some of Father’s parishioners found an old Pervert Pennant in storage, this one with a cross superimposed on it, and asked to burn it. There was some back and forth on this, as you can read, but eventually the parishioners (not Kalchik) did what was right and torched the unholy cloth.

Soupy found out, became angry, and released the goons.

According to Church Militant, two capersome-merry-lighthearted priests threatened Kalchik with jail and with being sent to the “St. Luke Institute for his ‘psychiatric issues.'” (I loathe the euphemism issues.)

St Luke’s is “a treatment center with a notorious past, whose former CEO was convicted in 2014 of embezzling $200,000 dollars, which he spent on gay lovers.”

Kalchik blew off the devil-may-care-colorful-exuberant goons, who had by then become crude and threatening. “That’s a nice neck you have there, Father,” they in effect said. “Be a shame if anything happened to it.”

Here is what may be Kalchik’s real secular sin, as quoted in the Sun Times: “Of gays in the church, Kalchik says ‘scripture is crystal-clear. It’s against God’s law.'” It is, too. But don’t remind Soupy, who thinks such talk leads “down a rabbit hole.” Soupy would rather talk about global warming.

Kalchik, as of this writing, has gone into hiding. Incidentally, if any reader knows any clear and true ways to getting funds to Kalchik, please let us know.

Now to the point.

Soupy in a letter said he wanted to slip the straight-jacket on Kalchik “out of concern” for his “welfare.”

We earlier met Fr Edwin Palka who told us how threatening and using psychiatric evaluations was a common tactic to keep faithful priests in line. I’ve heard from other priests and rad other material that it’s not uncommon.

Here’s what you should already know: psychologists and psychiatrists and other mental health “workers” have no special expertise in knowing right from wrong, nor in discerning good versus evil, nor in dividing moral versus immoral. None. No shrink is better equipped than the next (educated) guy to tell you if sodomy is sinful or celebration-worthy.

To believe otherwise is to embrace scientism in the wickedest way.

What shrinks can do is after a man has been seen to go wrong, and where right and wrong are externally defined by sages (I trust you understand this word), the shrink can give us clues why the man did what he did. Maybe he had (is this still a euphemism?) a chemical imbalance, or a brain injury, or maybe he’s merely under the sway of idiotic ideas, such as Equality. Or maybe, in the case of a good man, the shrink can tell us what sustained this good. But that’s it. About why good is good, and bad bad, the shrink must defer to his betters—as we all must.

The danger is allowing shrinks, or their fans, to believe they know what is good and what is bad defined by their own terms. If we allow the medical profession to define evil we are doomed (we probably are already).

Professional groups of shrinks famously voted to declassify love of sodomy as a mental malady. That vote was only possible after deciding that love of sodomy is good and not evil, right and not wrong, moral and not immoral. Those shrinks learned that false lesson from the culture—which is now the worst teacher. Shrinks act as if their judgment has scientific merit. It has none. None.

Psych evals were a popular form of threat and punishment in communist countries, all of which were in thrall to scientism. As are we. A tranny on Twitter, whose call about Kalchik was received by Soupy, said “Cardinal Cupich went on to announce that Fr. Kalchik was being removed and sent into a program of pastoral care where Cupich hopes Kalchik will get the help and guidance he desperately needs. Cupich said there is no home for hate within the Roman Catholic Church.”

Soupy is wrong. There is plenty of room for hate. All sin should be hated. And no shrink can tell us what sin is.

Addendum Look for the Update in Dreher’s piece from a priest on how psych evals are weaponized.

Update Father Z’s take: Read and weep: Soviet style “psych” tactics used against priests by bishops.

The pattern is alarmingly similar. The priest has some sort of dust up in the parish (or wherever). For example, a woman gets angry because he preached about contraception, someone claims that he as “boundary issues”, somebody on the staff says that he is “cold” or “remote”. They complain to the bishop. The bishop tells the priest — pressures the priest — to go for “evaluation”. With great trepidation the priest obeys (an important point). He goes for a week or two of evaluation, at the end of which he is told that there isn’t much wrong with him. He goes home, thinking that all is well. Shortly thereafter, he is called in to the bishop’s office, where he is told that the clinic sent the bishop a very different assessment. The priest is diagnosed — and it is always about the same — narcissism and borderline bi-polar. The bishop then really puts the screws to the man to go back that clinic for “treatment”. He is told for three months or so. But when he gets there, and they confiscate his mobile phone and even his shaving kit, and start pumping him full of drugs and monitoring/controlling email, he is told that he’ll be there for six months. The horror show begins.

Go and read the rest.

Update Google “St Luke’s Institute” and look at the pics. Place looks like some kind of psychic abattoir. Google shows a pic from a 2016 gala showing a smiling Cardinal Wuerl (a.k.a. “The Girl”) with others, but it has gone missing from the St Luke website.

Update Church Militant scores an interview with Kalchik.

Update A priest tells of his recent stay at St Luke’s. Must read! “Specifically, one of the doctors evaluating me mentioned how strange is was that I was not sexually active during high school and had not experimented with homosexual acts. He said that such behavior was a normal part of development.”