Another War Few Even See

In addition to the culture war being fought, often ineffectively, there is also an often unacknowledged clash of cultures that is parallel and strangely aligned with the liberal side, despite the incompatibility of the two ideologies: Progressivism and Islam.  It is impossible that both can win and exist side by side.  I suspect that if the liberals “win,” their success will be in destroying our culture (if in fact they have not fully done so already) so that the West will be so rootless and weak that Islam and all its oppression will triumph.  If that comes to pass, it will be a very dark day for the West.  Remember how long it took Spain to kick out the Muslims?

Time for choosing in the struggle between Islam and the West

I dare say that most people who have read history would like to think that if they had been present at some pivotal point in history, they would have chosen the right side – with the Allies and against the Axis, with Wilberforce and against the slave traders, with the Romans and against the child-sacrificing Carthaginians.

If I had lived back then, we tell ourselves, I would have fought with the right side, no matter the odds.

Well, now’s your chance. Because it looks very much as though we are at one of those pivotal moments – possibly at one of the major turning points in history, and probably one of the most dangerous. We tend to think that historical turning points generally involve a breakthrough to a higher plane – a turn for the better rather than a turn for the worse. But that’s not always the case. Sometimes, the pendulum of history swings backward and slices off centuries of progress. The turning point at which we now stand threatens to cast us back more than a thousand years to some of history’s darkest days. We may soon be fighting for things we thought had been secured for all time – basics such as freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and even freedom from enslavement.

The turning point I refer to is the civilizational struggle between Islam and the West (acknowledging, of course, that much of the Western tradition has been adopted by people who live outside the traditional geographic boundaries of the West). On a larger view, the struggle can more accurately be described as a conflict between Christianity and Islam, because if the West loses its Christian soul, it will also lose the ability and the will to defend its freedoms.

Of course, some people deny that there is any “clash of civilizations.” All religions and all cultures want the same thing, they say, and they assure us that the tiny handful of trouble-makers in the Muslim world do not represent the vast majority.

But time and again, polls have shown that at least a majority of Muslims want to be ruled by sharia law – a throwback to the harsh legal system that developed in seventh-century Arabia. Contrary to “enlightened” expectations, it turns out that a great many Muslims in a great many places favor cruel and unusual punishments for theft, adultery, blasphemy, and apostasy.

That’s what they want for fellow Muslims who go astray. But if you’re a non-Muslim you don’t have to go astray in order to be punished. The mere existence of Jews, Christians, and other minorities is considered an affront by many Muslims. As a result, discrimination against non-Muslims is endemic in the Muslim world. It can’t be blamed on a tiny minority of bigots, because just about everyone – including police, government officials, employers, and next-door neighbors – expects unbelievers to know their place.

Jews and Christians got the message a long time ago. That’s why there are so few of them left in places that used to be their homelands – in the Middle East, North Africa, and Turkey. For those who don’t leave voluntarily, the daily low-level persecution sometimes breaks out into organized violence. That was the case in the 1914-1923 genocide against Armenian, Assyrian, and Greek Christians living in the Ottoman Empire, in the 1933 massacre of Assyrian Christians in Simele, Iraq, and in the 1941 Farhud (pogrom) against the Jewish population of Baghdad. In more recent years we’ve witnessed the slaughter of Christians and Yazidis by ISIS in Syria and Northern Iraq, the numerous massacres of Christians carried out by Boko Haran in Northern Nigeria and by al-Shabaab in Somalia and Kenya, and the frequent attacks on Coptic Christian churches in Egypt.

“Witnessed” may be too strong a word. Many in the West simply noted these atrocities, and then continued to go about their business as though nothing had happened. But, to paraphrase Trotsky, “You may not be interested in the clash of civilizations, but the clash of civilizations is interested in you.” For a long time, people in the U.S. and Europe were able to ignore the barbarities in Africa, Iraq, and elsewhere. But then the clash of civilization moved north and into Europe. When the “clash” made its appearance in the streets of Paris, in Christmas markets in Germany, and in a concert hall in Manchester, only the willfully blind could fail to notice.

But, apparently, there are a lot of those. In Europe, America, and Canada, the elites in government, media, academia, and even the Church continue to insist that there is no clash. That’s true in a sense. You can’t have a clash if only one side is fighting. And thus far the pushback against jihad – both of the armed variety and the stealth variety – has been feeble. The elites won’t even contemplate the obvious first step – tight restrictions on Muslim immigration.

Moreover, they do everything they can to cover up the clash. Police aren’t allowed to report on the extent of immigrant crime, news media won’t carry stories about the crimes unless they are exceptionally violent, outspoken critics of Islam or immigration are brought before magistrates, and ordinary citizens who post “Islamophobic” remarks on Facebook are visited by police.

The West’s self-imposed blindness to what is happening forces us to another observation about the historical turning point that is now developing. The battle is not simply a civilizational struggle between Islam and the West; it also involves a war within Western civilization itself. Many of our Western institutions now reject the Western heritage, and many of them have effectively taken the side of Islam.

On almost any issue involving a conflict between Islam and traditional Western values, the schools, the media, the courts, and many of the churches stand with Islam. They may not look at it that way. They may rationalize their actions as nothing more than a defense of the civil rights of Muslims. Many of them are likely unfamiliar with the concept of stealth jihad. But they are facilitating it just the same. The main form this facilitation takes is the suppression of any bad news about Islam. Thus, in 2012, Congress refused to investigate Muslim Brotherhood penetration of government agencies, and in the same year the FBI, the Pentagon, and other security agencies bowed to Muslim pressure and purged their training materials of any suggestion that Islamic terrorists were motivated by Islamic ideology. More recently, media giants such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter have taken to stifling the voices of those who speak out against Islamic oppression.

One could cite numerous other instances of this near-suicidal impulse to side with our ideological enemies: the judges who block restrictions on Muslim immigration, the bishops who sign up with the deceptive anti-“Islamophobia” campaign, and the Obama administration’s gift of billions of dollars to Iran.

With a few exception, such as the bishops, these enablers of cultural jihad are secular progressives. Despite their moniker, however, progressives can be decidedly regressive. They champion abortion at every stage of pregnancy – a practice which suggests that the distance between us and the child-sacrificing Carthaginians is not as great as we may think. Progressives promise to pull us into the future, yet they often act to drag us into the past. Several progressive voices now want severe restrictions on freedom of speech. This has already happened on college campuses where hate speech codes effectively stifle free expression. The average college student today has no more freedom of speech than a serving woman in the court of Cleopatra. The “enlightened” progressives who run Google, YouTube, and Facebook don’t have much use for freedom of expression either. Critics of Islam are particularly liable to be restricted, suspended or banned by these Internet monopolies.

Here is the situation in brief. We stand at one of the major turning points of history. Two powerful forces for regression threaten to drag us into a dark past. On the one hand, Islamists want to bring back the subjugation of women, female genital mutilation, sex slavery, beheadings, and dhimmitude for non-believers. On the other hand, their hi-tech progressive enablers are decimating non-Muslim populations by promoting contraception and abortion, while simultaneously controlling the flow of information about Islam using speech-suppressing strategies that no absolute monarch could ever have imagined.

***

Although the means of obfuscating the truth are far more sophisticated now than they were in the 1940s, we still have a marked advantage over our counterparts in that era. We have far more historical perspective than was available to them. For example, when the Nazis were building up their military machine in the 1930s, there was no thousand-year history of Nazi aggression to serve as a warning. The Nazi party was little more than a decade old, and Hitler had not come to power until 1933. There was some excuse for those who naively gave the Nazis the benefit of the doubt.

We, on the other hand, have very little excuse for ignoring the signs of the time. For those who study history, they are very familiar signs. That’s because Islam has a 1,400-year history of aggression. And the battle plan has been remarkably consistent over time – even including migration as a means of invasion. The latest installment of that 1,400-year-old plan for world conquest in the name of Allah has already begun. We are witnessing a remarkable expansion of Islam into every corner of the world – Africa, Australia, the Philippines, China, Russia, Europe, and North and South America.

***

Committed leftists and committed Islamists: it’s a hard combination to beat. Both believe very firmly in what they believe. Unless Christians believe very firmly that they must be stopped, both will continue to expand. We stand at a decisive point in history. Choosing to stay on the sidelines only serves to increase the odds that these regressive forces will triumph.

Advertisements

The War We’re Not Really Fighting

Brian Niemeier addresses the fact that Catholics are not doing so hot in the culture wars:

The problem isn’t that Catholics haven’t been using our profound intellectual tradition. The problem is that our thought leaders keep deploying tactics that lead with dialectic informed by that tradition when the public at large a) is not equipped to understand that tradition, b) has no desire to understand that tradition, and c) have been conditioned into both of those predispositions by the media and academia, including many Catholic schools.

As for why God has allowed Christian influence to wane, it’s because we have free will, He lets us have the consequences of our bad decisions, and Christians have been making a fuck ton of bad decisions over the past several decades. (See divorce and contraception rates, degradation of the liturgy, and Democrat party voting rates among Christians.)

Marshall ends with this lament:

Where are the Christians? We need to spend the next decade prayerfully cultivating sharp and relevant Christian minds to engage the culture and social media.

To reiterate, Milo and Gavin are two Christians who’ve been extraordinarily successful on social media. John C. Wright is a prolific and gifted Catholic author and blogger. Vox Day is making inroads in publishing and tech. Even I’m making my own modest contribution. But Guys like Taylor Marshall won’t support or acknowledge any of us because we’re not engaging in Thomistic disputations on Facebook.

While one might argue about exactly how Christian or how effective any of the people Niemeier mentions are, the fact is they have done more than the average writer who shows up on New Advent on a regular basis. Thomistic disputations at this point in time only work for preaching to the choir.

This really goes to show, in a way, why the idea of withdrawing from society is bad. On one hand, we have to back up enough to be able to preserve ourselves and children and so on from being corrupted. On the other, it’s clear that current Catholic pundits are already so removed from regular society that they don’t understand how to speak to normal people.

There may be a bit of the IQ gap problem here too. Catholics have a great and wonderfully long intellectual tradition. But people are stupid. 2000 years of theology and philosophy mean nothing to a moron. I once failed a quiz on the Summa after reading the required section five times. But somebody who can read it, who can understand it, maybe can’t understand how to dumb it down enough for the intellectually challenged to grasp. When your brain functions solely on a dialectical level can you even comprehend a brain that functions only on the rhetorical? It’s certainly going to be harder to do if you live in a Catholic bubble or an academic ivory tower and aren’t surrounded by people like that every day.

Trying to get these people to comprehend that they don’t comprehend is as difficult and frustrating as trying to get an average person to understand that maybe his problems might be coming from sleeping around and, no, a vasectomy won’t help. The man standing on moral bedrock can’t tell the man drowning in quicksand to just stand on bedrock. There isn’t any bedrock over there but the man standing on it doesn’t see the quicksand.

The difference between dialect and rhetoric is imperative for people to understand.  Understand it and know when it use it.  Sometimes that’s going to mean being mean.  We have to let go of the intellectual pride and the self congratulatory, defeatist moral high ground and try to win for a change.

A Brave Woman

Moira Greyland is a very brave woman to have written this bookThe Last Closet: The Dark Side of Avalon (especially considering when asked how she’s doing, she says “I am not good”)I do not think I have the stomach to read the book.  Reading about the book is hard enough.  LifeSiteNews interviewed Ms. Greyland (Read the whole thing here)

This section deals with a very un-PC view of homosexuality and its genesis, sheds some light on the whole Milo episode, and illustrates how critical it is to protect children (and how incredibly evil this whole thing is).

LifeSite: The homosexual movement has a long history of association with organizations and groups that are sympathetic to pedophilia or promote it outright. Your father was a homosexual activist and an open advocate of pedophilia. For decades the “North American Man-Boy Love Association” (NAMBLA) marched in homosexual “pride” marches, and major homosexual organizations, like the International Gay and Lesbian Association, used to have NAMBLA as a member. Do you see the embrace of pedophilia as a natural outgrowth of the homosexual movement?

Moira Greyland: In my father’s book, Greek Love (J.Z. Eglinton, 1962), he explored at length the fact that pedophilic and pederastic relationships are the historical norm, and peer-to-peer gay relationships are a modern phenomenon. Where I completely deny my father’s contention that pederastic relationships do anything positive for young men, I do believe that nearly all gay men were initiated in this fashion as boys by older men.

Attempts to sanitize these “initiations” of younger boys by older men are ongoing, including in the recent movie “Call Me By Your Name” which Hollywood gushed over, despite its appalling content.

Since the reality of gay culture depends on these initiations, there are only two choices: keep the reality of the genesis of a gay identity secret, or yank it out of the closet and risk the outrage and hatred of the general public.

Here is the trouble: screaming “homophobia” at anything which has a problem with homosexual conduct will only go so far.  As soon as our children are endangered, and their seduction praised, the torches and pitchforks rightfully come out.

After all, this is the Big Secret, and the truth behind a gay identity.  Father-son porn is the number one topic of all gay pornography.  Why is this the actual reality?  In male nature, there is the need to pursue, to vanquish, to conquer.  This is much easier with a young, vulnerable, hairless and helpless male.  They can be manipulated into adoring an older male, putting up with darned near ANYTHING for his love and approval (read: fathering) and they submit.  Always in male homosexual relationships, there is the top and the bottom, the giver and the receiver, and these roles are predicated on age and the ability to project masculine dominance.

This is the conclusion I reached, not only from knowing far too many young boys seduced by my father, but also reading the words of former gay men like Joseph Sciambra and Robert Oscar Lopez.

Male homosexuals know, and count on the fact that a young man who does not have a present, protective father in his life will be much easier to seduce than either a masculine boy who obviously has a strong father, or an older man who might well beat or kill them for a sexual overture.  They seek out boys who are unsure or effeminate, precisely because of those qualities.

How can they persuade those they persuade?  Boys tend to be perpetually sexually frustrated, and know that vanishingly few girls will go along with their advances at that age.  Predatory male homosexuals take advantage of this knowledge, and offer porn and intoxicants to lower the inhibitions of their target.  Once the sexual assault has taken place, even involuntary arousal on the part of the male victim is used as “proof” that the boy is actually gay.

This attitude assumes that being gay is a physical, inevitable reality which other gay men can “see.”  But the truth is that the first sexual experience will usually create an indelible impression, a longstanding change to a male fantasy life, deliberately imposed.  These raped and molested boys are not “gay,” they have been forcibly imprinted with a sexual act meant to permanently alter their fantasy life.

Claiming the involuntary arousal suffered by the boy “proves” they are gay is like claiming that bleeding as the result of a stab wound proves the victim wanted to be stabbed.

In any case, the raped boy is destroyed three times.  Once by the betrayal of the sexual assault, even if they end up going along with it, once by the permanent alteration to their fantasy life, and once by the forced imposition of a “gay” identity which is made to seem inevitable and indelible.

Without pederastic relationships, there would be no adult gay men.  But as it is the Big Secret, don’t expect any admissions about this.  When Milo joked about his own initiation at thirteen, he was demolished in the press.  Shortly thereafter, he admitted on video that he actually had been raped, and it actually was a horrible experience.

It is no joke. When I see a man who identifies as homosexual acting out in a flamboyant way, I see the thirteen year old boys in my house screaming with rage: “I meant to do that!  You did not hurt me, I am no victim, and you will not own me, you BASTARD!”

 

 

The Skin Carcass

From SJWs Always Double Down:

The Skin Carcass: Identify a respected institution.  Kill it.  Gut it.  Wear its carcass as a skin suit, demanding respect….

Speaking of The Skin Carcass, a reader sent in an anecdote from a friend who, while on a recent pilgrimage, had a conversation with someone who is very close to some of the liberal religious orders in the Roman Catholic Church.  His acquaintance told him, in no uncertain terms, that many members of the religious orders in serious decline are actually happy that their orders are dying out because they hate the Church and their own orders because they believe them to be unjust.  These aging SJW infiltrators not only do not lament that their orders have few individuals with vocations to replace them, but they actively, consciously, drive away any young people who come inquiring, because they consider joining a religious order of any kind to be a waste of time.  They literally want the Roman Catholic Church to die with them.

That won’t be much of a surprise for any orthodox or traditionally minded Catholic.  The old fashioned, habit wearing orders are more likely to be growing and the “spirit of Vatican II” types are slowly getting grayer and grayer.

A young woman once told me about a well intentioned, old busybody who was pestering her with the “you don’t have boyfriend; maybe you’ve got a vocation to be a nun” line.  The busybody even had a particular convent picked out.  She’d been on retreat there so she knew it was great.  The nuns didn’t wear habits and they could do this pseudo-cloister thing but it wasn’t permanent so they could still come out and so on.  The busybody admitted that there really weren’t any young women there and the convent was getting kind of old demographically but she’d thought it was so nice there.

I wonder what happens when the last couple nuns turn 80 and can’t take care of each other.

It’s been completely and totally obvious for a very long time that the changes made to religious orders in the 60s were a disaster.  If any of these orders cared or wanted to survive, they’d go back to how it used to be.

The Church is in the unfortunate position that its structures make it hard to converge but once converged make it hard to unconverge.  The younger generations have to wait and wait for everybody to croak and then have to go about fixing the shambles left behind.  The Church will survive; it’s just annoying waiting for the point when she can be restored.

“Catholic” or not?

The Christendom Advocacy and Support Coalition seem to have been wise enough to refrain from using “Catholic” in their name but they do say this:

Is CASC a Catholic organization?
Yes. While we do not require members to be practicing Catholics, all of our members are Christendom alumni who are well versed in Church doctrine and teaching, our organizational mission is motivated from a desire to see a deeply Catholic approach to addressing the issue of sexual violence and supporting survivors of sexual trauma, and our official policies and resources will always conform fully with Church teachings as received via the infallible authority of the Magisterium.

The answer contradicts itself: yes, we’re Catholic but no, we’re not actually practicing Catholics.  Plus it’s very interesting to see that a “deeply Catholic approach” to these issues includes trying to get people fired for disagreeing with you.

While not using “Catholic” in their name is following canon law, consider the reason for that part of the law:

If an organization indicates that it is “Catholic,” persons who hear about it naturally will assume that it represents the Church’s interests–but if it is run by a group of lay people acting entirely on their own, this is not necessarily so. Such groups can potentially do a lot of harm, by “spinning” the Church’s generally teaching about human rights and dignity to support a specific social or political position, which the Church may be neutral about, or which may actually be at odds with Catholicism.

The Nonsense Coalition claims to be Catholic but likes to retweet homosexuals and far-left, pro-abortion politicians and post pictures like this.  They post on their website things like this: Bad Things Do Not Happen to Good Girls.  Another story of an alleged rape victim, this one makes the ones Simcha posted look almost not stupid and unbelievable by comparison.  But it’s also full of gems.  Like these:

The negligence that Christendom College displayed in addressing Adele’s case is intricately linked with the deeply entrenched misogynist preference that the Front Royal Catholic community (and the sort of people the College attracts) expresses towards men, at the expense of women’s safety.  This sexist sentiment is deeply ingrained in this community’s expression of Catholicism.
***
Can you guess what it might be like to be reared within a social group that systematically programs its girls to be breeders of children and caretakers of men, while this same social group raises its boys to externalize blame and responsibility while they assume their places among their brothers, fathers, and male elders as esteemed patriarchal leaders?

If what this woman says about Front Royal and Christendom College is to be believed, then the place is a hellhole and no piddly Title IX is going to save it.  But really it just sounds like she doesn’t like Catholicism:

Our sexuality does not exist for its own sake, but for the glory of a distant god, his virgin, sexless mother, and the salvation of a (naturally and through no fault of their own) morally deviant male race.
***
[Christendom College and the Front Royal Catholic community ] care about there being no premarital sex allowed (or at least spoken of), no birth control permitted (or at least spoken of); no threats to traditional family would be tolerated. The ultimate threat to their patriarchal utopia, Feminism is a dirty word. Women’s liberation, a laughable phenomenon, not worthy of discussion…. Homosexual or ‘gay’ is a popular insult. A joke, not to be taken seriously.
***
For these people in this town and at this college, mental illness is a choice, medication an admission of defeat, a source of shame. Abortion is the greatest sin; a woman’s ‘choice’ or agency over her body is a misnomer. An unspeakable affront. A greater stain on humankind even than the sin of slavery, for which the American South is infamous.
***
We fallen women have no recourse.

We are told. Subtly or otherwise.

Birth control is immoral. It is bad for women’s health.

But what we are not told is this.

What is more immediately bad for your health is sexually transmitted infections that can become cervical cancer. What is decidedly bad for your health is an unwanted pregnancy, a rape baby. What is bad for your health is thinking you are disgusting for something that was done to you that was not your fault. What is bad for your health is domestic violence. What is bad for your health is not realizing that you are a Person who has a right to have needs, wants, hopes, dreams.

Yep, if you’d just had birth control and abortions, none of these bad things would have happened.

Or you could recognize that as a young adult you made a lot of very stupid decisions (underage drinking, drinking and driving, sex).  It’s not the town’s fault.  It’s not the college’s fault.  It’s not the Church’s fault.  It might be your parents fault for continuing to let you go to college and not packing you off to a reform school when you were behaving so badly.  But in order to be empowered, in order to have agency, you have to take responsibility for what you did.

These women fail to realize that in order to solve the problems they’re complaining about the answer isn’t throwing yourself into modernity but going backwards.  Single sex schools and chaperones everywhere.  (If men are so evil why would you want to be around them anyway?)  Or maybe, they could just have self control and common sense.

But if the Nonsense Coalition won’t go for that and if they want modernity and all its sludge, then they shouldn’t call themselves Catholic.

Those Rotten Misogynist Apostles

The Christendom Advocacy and Support Coalition sure likes to put stupid things on Twitter.

CASCmagd

I guess that Thomas though all the other apostles were women then:

Now Thomas, one of the twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails, and place my finger in the mark of the nails, and place my hand in his side, I will not believe.”

Facebook Censors Christianity

It’s no surprise by now that Facebook is censoring and throttling all sort of people, groups, and content they deem “problematic.”  Their most recent target?  An image of the crucifix.

‘He was despised and rejected’ … by Facebook

Facebook rejected a Holy Week ad placed by a Catholic university featuring a picture of the San Damiano Cross because of its “shocking, sensational, or excessively violent content.”

The Franciscan University of Steubenville, Ohio, responded:

The San Damiano Cross. Jesus in glory, reigning from his cruciform throne. This is what the monitors at Facebook consider excessively violent, sensational, and shocking.

And indeed, the Crucifixion of Christ was all of those things. It was the most sensational action in history: man executed his God.

It was shocking, yes: God deigned to take on flesh and was “obedient unto death, even death on a cross.” (Philippians 2:8)

And it was certainly excessively violent: a man scourged to within an inch of his life, nailed naked to a cross and left to die, all the hate of all the sin in the world poured out its wrath upon his humanity.

“But we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews, an absurdity to Gentiles. But to those who are called, both Jew and Gentile, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 1:23-24)

As Father Mike Schmitz points out in today’s #ShareJesus message, it was not the nails that held Jesus to the cross: he was God, he could have descended from the Cross at any moment. No, it was love that kept him there. Love for you and for me, that we might not be eternally condemned for our sins but might have life eternal with him and his Father in heaven.

This is sensational, this is shocking. This is only possible because of the excessive violence that he endured for us.

“He was despised and rejected of men.” It was ever thus and will ever be, for those who do not see with the eyes of faith, and love with a love unquenchable.

The San Damiano Cross is actually quite mild as crucifixes go.  The Censors at Facebook are either very ignorant or very deliberately coming up with dumb reasons to keep Christian content off Facebook.

The Facebook-banned San Damiano Cross, while perhaps foreign and jarring to Facebook censors, is an iconic image well-known and venerated by hundreds of millions of Catholics around the world for close to a thousand years.

Censoring Christian messaging is nothing new among social media and tech giants, and in fact, the tyrannical suppression of Christianity’s presence on Facebook may well be growing.

When Facebook adjusted its algorithms earlier this year in order to ensure the promotion and dissemination of what it deems “quality news,” websites purveying “conservative”  news — including LifeSiteNews — noticed a precipitous drop in traffic and reach.

Last year, Facebook blocked a traditional marriage campaign page. Sky News reported, “This is bullying. Respectful debate is being shut down; Facebook has taken sides (in the same-sex ‘marriage’ debate).”

Facebook also blocked or removed more than two dozen pages belonging to conservative Catholic organizations and individuals, affecting many millions of devoted followers of those pages. While the pages were eventually restored, Fox News’ Todd Starnes, author and host of Fox News & Commentary, said, “You might recall that Facebook has a dark history of blocking conservative and Christian pages.”