Tuesday, September 11, 2018

Pillars of salt

Jig Bohnson writes:
Did you read the Pennsylvania report, or the NY Times victim oped? Surprising number of female victims and heterosexual predators. It is not accurate to call this a strictly gay scandal.
Excerpted directly from the gorillion-page report:
Most of the victims were boys; but there were girls too. Some were teens; many were prepubescent.
Over 1,000 victims were identified (although they are obviously not named in the report). If for the sake of both simplicity and the benefit of Sodom we assume 501 male victims and 500 female victims and assume 5% of the population is gay--not bisexual, but exclusively homosexual--we get homosexuals overrepresented among the perpetrators at a rate of nearly 2,000% relative to the broader adult population.

If we take a more plausible estimate of 1,000 male victims and 100 female victims, and assume 2.5% of the population is gay, we get homosexuals overrepresented among the perpetrators by a rate of 39,000% relative to the broader adult population!

Not only are a lot of these creeps homosexuals, they're also pedophiles. This isn't surprising given that male homosexuals, who are neotenous across a whole range of characteristics, are more likely to be pedophilic than heterosexual men are (the rate is disputed, but I suspect the difference is large).

Sacrificing children to Moloch, god of Diversity, is standard operating procedure for the cultMarx left, so there should be no question as to why the mendacious media does everything it can to obfuscate the gay, pedophilic angles to this ongoing disgrace.

In the Current Year, the Church could, with a little diligence and a dollop of technical savvy, keep most faggots away from the cloth. This is a problem that could mostly be reformed away, but only by focusing on the gay.

That won't happen, though. Better a nearly 2,000-year old pillar of Western civilization collapse into the dust than rude, after all!

Sure, taking down a sacred institution like the Catholic Church is generally desirable, but not at the expense of taking down something truly sacred--homosexuals. The media acts accordingly.

Here, for example, is the accompanying photo to the top search engine-returned article on the report, from the Washington Post. Meshes rather well with #MeToo, you see:


The major media commits plenty sins of commission, but it's the perpetual sins of omission that really distort the perception of reality that credulous consumers of news end up with.

Tangentially, since validating stereotypes is the blog's raison d'etre, let's validate another one. Relative to males, female sexuality is fluid. Bisexuality is predominately a woman's thing. Indeed, of the 222 self-identified bisexuals included in the GSS, 70% (156) have been women to just 30% (66) that have been men.

Additionally, most bisexual women have children while most bisexual men do not. It's thus a stretch to consider most "bisexual" women gay.

GSS variables used: SEXORNT(2), SEX, CHILDS

62 comments:

silly girl said...

.

Thank you!

.

Anyway, the church needs to not only eliminate the celibacy requirement, but also needs to add the marriage requirement for parish ministry. If monks want to be celibate in the monastery, fine, but parish priests need to be married.

JayMan said...

Ephebophiles, technically.

Kipling said...

Saw in Imgur:
"In the next sequel to The Exorcist a Catholic woman hires a devil to get the priest out of her boy."

The damning thing to me is how Pope Poz is aggressively supporting the pedos. A proper church ought to extradite the bishops back to the Vatican for swift executions. The Vatican III Church is going to make that policy, inked on the flayed hides of these monsters.

TechieDude said...

Silly girl, priestly celibacy has exactly squat to do with this scandal.

Most priests I know, and I know many, will tell you letting them marry creates way more problems than it may solve.

One, a franciscan, told me way back in 2005 or so, that they didn't have a sexuality or celibacy problem they had a gay problem. Most know this.

Maybe it opens up the door for more priests, which I doubt. But remember this always - no matter how hard up a dude is, he will never resort to buggering another dude, especially a boy.

Jig Bohnson said...

On the flip side though, there was an asymmetry in access. There were alter boys but not alter girls.

Also severe selection effects for the pristhood in those days. For homosexuals it was a path to a respectable life with nobody asking why you don't have a girlfriend.

Black Death said...

It may be true that around 5% of the male population is exclusively homosexual, but the percentage among Catholic priests is much higher. I have read that 10-20% of Catholic clergy have been involved in sexual activities, mostly of a homosexual nature, although there is obviously no way to be sure. I suspect that this sort of thing has been going on for hundreds of years but was generally ignored or hushed up.

An all-male celibate priesthood is predetermined to attract homosexuals; those who wish to marry and have families will mostly migrate to other denominations. Not sure how this whole thing is going to play out, but, except for feeling sorry for the victims, I don't really care. However, as long as we have priests investigating priests, I don't have much confidence that the full truth will be told or that much will really change.

Anonymous said...

I left a Catholic religious order before solemn vows (until death) but after five years of study. Out of 100 priests, I'd estimate 30-40% were homosexual. There were a lot of swishy guys who seemed more interested in flower arranging than in more manly pursuits. It was a challenge for those of us who were not gay, but I was prepared to accept gays who were celibate and stricing for holiness. My departure was precipitated in large part after the fourth priest in five years died of AIDS (pre-antiretroviral meds). Brotherhood with active sodomites was no part of my vocation. I often wonder how many other straight men were driven out by similar filth?

whitney said...

Read Bella Dodd, School of Darkness.

The attack on the Catholic church has been orchestrated for some time and now we are seeing its fruits. I know many people are scandalized why what's happening and the church and I do not deny it is horrible. It is true evil. But evil is going to attack what is Holy. If you believe that this church was founded by Jesus Christ then you should not be surprised that it is being attacked on all sides

Dan said...

The Google video released today confirmed what I believe. These fuckers are too pozzed to ever be reasoned with.

Only the cold weight of civilizational decline will get their attention. Their religion, which they all seem to believe, is the arc of history bends toward butterflies and unicorns.

If I am right and the Trump era proves to be the all-time civilizational peak, it will almost be worth it for these turds to lose their religion of eternal progress.

Dan said...

I guess if you are a Google billionaire, the world looks to you like progress. Confirmation bias after all. Your whole life experience is floating upwards higher than your work ever merits.

To whom much is given, much is expected.

Will Google please pay enough taxes to plug our budget deficit and also hire all the poor Africans in Africa? You know, to give back?

216 said...

Dan,

The leaked tapes are the best argument I've heard of for the nationalization of Google. We need a Yukos-level solution.

Audacious Epigone said...

silly girl,

That, or get the panopticon going inside the Church. It's doable without any doctrinal issues I'm aware of.

Jayman,

Indeed, at least most of them. More generally, it's a crisis of sexual deviancy--multiple kinds of sexuality that is not fundamentally procreative in nature.

Kipling,

The Church is probably on an inexorable downward slide in terms of Western influence. Maybe it becomes a corrupt African institution in a century or maybe it disappears altogether. If there is a time for the remaining reformers to charge the walls, though, now is the time.

TechieDude,

Thanks. That's what I was trying to get across in previous threads without articulating it that well. There are a lot more incels than there are child rapists, obviously, and it's not just because it's illegal to rape children that it's the case.

Jig,

Rereading the post, I hope it didn't come off as if I was insinuating you were being mendacious, because that definitely was not my intention. What you wrote is true, it's not an exclusively homosexual issue, but it is predominantly a homosexual issue.

Another thing I was struck by skimming through the report is just how long this is alleged to have been going on. Victims in their eighties who claim to have been abused in their early teens. The assertion that this has been baked into the cake for centuries seems at least plausible.

Black Death,

If it's going to be fixed it's going to be fixed by the traditionalists within the Church, with some help from the conservatives. But their numbers are small, especially at the top, and the structure is very hierarchical. My guess is the hemorrhaging of first-world members (and even more so of first-worlders from those first-world countries) will continue with numbers offset to some degree by turd-world masses.

Anon,

Why are so few willing to come out publicly? It's not that lucrative a career path, right? And if the rot runs that deep, where's the spiritual pull?

Audacious Epigone said...

Dan/216,

Yes, it's staggering just how blatant the bias is and how a rigid intellectual conformity is assumed--accurately, as far as it looks--across a room of hundreds of people. But this won't go on forever. Look at that crowd--those people will be utterly incapable of maintaining, let alone improving the position of, the world's most influential tech company. Convergence has costs.

216 said...

AE,

To my knowledge, I've heard of some abuse scandals in the Philippines, but the Third World hasn't seen as many of the scandal reports as the First World. The usual answer is that lower birth rates resulted in fewer men who could be inducted into the priesthood, so men of questionable character were allowed in, and then took over the seminary system to favor their own kind. Part of it also is that most targets are adolescent males, unsure of how much of it is targeted at preteens. Perhaps those in the Third World report at lower rates, or lower tolerance of homosexuality causes a lower expression rate (possibly a lower incidence of homosex due to unknown factors).

It is a major concern that Africans will dominate the hierarchy, which has been western aligned since Charlemagne. Resisting the invasion could lead to the use of the interdict, but a Western liberal would be more eager to use it than an African who'd prefer that his people stay in their homelands rather than be corrupted in the West.

The prophecy also says this could be the last pope. Whatever it is worth, the writer got thematically close on John Paul I, though not chronologically.

silly girl said...

"It's doable without any doctrinal issues I'm aware of."
.

Not to be a pain in the rear, but celibacy of priests is not a doctrine of the church. It is just an established practice. There are a few married priests, but they were married before becoming priests.

216 said...

Priests in the Latin Rite are celibate, occasional exceptions exist when an Anglican congregation switched to Catholicism. Priests in the Eastern Rites can be ordained after marriage, but an already ordained priest cannot marry. A widowed man can be ordained, but this is not common and appears to be discouraged by the seminaries.

Married priests doesn't solve the problem of bureaucratic coverups, and "lack of institutional control". It amazes me that we aren't seeing calls for something like the 1905 French law to be imposed here. That law put the French churches under "civilian control" and forced the all appointments of bishops to be approved of by the French government. I expect any future leftist president and congress will take a serious look at revoking tax-exemptions, only to face pushback from their black church base and other leftist NGOs.

Alex13 said...

216,

The Third World doesn't produce a lot of vocations vis-à-vis its population due to intelligence. Unlike non-magisterial Protestantism, Catholicism does require a higher IQ for its priests.

That said, I think age of consent laws and the functionality of Third World governments play a role in how abuse is handled. In the Philippines and Latin America, the age of consent is 12-14 years old depending on the country. There have been a few priests imported from that region who have used the "in my country this is ok" defense:

https://vdare.com/articles/outsourcing-the-priesthood-nj-catholic-church-aggressively-recruits-ordains-latin-americans-gets-fraudsters-and-pedophiles

Tack on the fact that some accused priests in the First World have often fled to the Third.

As we already know, this is also one of the big problems with increasing diversity, more child rape and tolerance of it (i.e pedonormalization).

Dan said...

Crap.

What is the point of Trump again, I forget.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/12/illegal-immigration-soars-families-spot-holes/

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/98-percent-of-families-who-illegally-entered-the-us-in-2017-are-still-here

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/us-mexico-border-apprehensions-spike-past-45-000-in-august

What a joke.

vok3 said...

the Church could

If the Church had some ham, it could make some ham and eggs, if it had some eggs.

The problem is, the Catholic Church has been entirely captured by homosexuals. It has become a homosexual institution, with the historic role and identity as mere camouflage and protective coloration. For it to get set back on its traditional path would require Crusade-level effort, and I see very little indication of such a thing happening. Far likelier is the churches continue to empty.

Hank Archer said...

The figures I have seen for RC priestly sexual abuse incidents are 83% with post-pubescent male children. 3% with pre-pubescent children of either sex and 13% post-pubescent females. This is predominately a homosexual problem.

216 said...

O/T

I thought of this today wrt the Kavanagh hearings.

"Even if you managed to live your life like the Dalai Lama (heh) they'll make shit up"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1gtBC5Na48

EH said...

Maybe I'm missing something, but your numbers don't make sense to me. If there are 2.5% homos in the general population and 100% of priestly abusers are homos, then that is a maximum possible 40x rate which is 3900% more than the general population. A more reasonable figure would be half to a third of that.

Also, there is likelihood that homos have more victims than heteros, so homos could be responsible for more than 80% of the sexual abuse while only being, say, 40% of abusive priests. You can't find the percentage homos are among priestly sex abusers by just by looking at the number of victims of each sex because the average number of victims for homos and heteros almost certainly differs. You also can't find the percentage homos are among priestly sex abusers from the overall percentage of homos among priests, since homos have a greater propensity to commit abuse (higher libido, fewer inhibitions, more mental illness).

Anonymous said...

Someone made a meme of Corvinus

https://twitter.com/TylerKemps/status/1040367855701778432

Audacious Epigone said...

Dan,

We thought March was the last chance, and he blew it. Just when I start thinking that September will actually be the last chance... he looks set to blow it again.

EH,

Not all homosexuals (nor, of course, all heterosexuals) are perpetrators. If there are 100 incidents of bad behavior and all 100 are perpetrated by homosexuals, then the rate is infinity% more likely. It's not bounded by the 2.5% figure because most of the 2.5% and virtually all of the 97.5% heterosexual population doesn't perpetrate.

Anon,

Ha!

Random Dude on the Internet said...

> We thought March was the last chance, and he blew it. Just when I start thinking that September will actually be the last chance... he looks set to blow it again.

He seems to have bought into the idea that being tough on immigration might cost the GOP a few seats in the midterms. He forgets that not being tough on immigration will cost him several more.

His proposal about using DOD dollars isn't very clever because that was already floated earlier this year. And if it was the case that he could do that, then he could have allocated the funding for it on January 20, 2017 and could have started building right away.

I'm of the opinion that if the wall won't get funding in September, it never will. It will just be something that is designed to dangle in front of the voters in a cynical attempt to keep them voting. Part of me thinks that Trump thinks this is his "trump" card for the re-election in 2020. I'm hoping I'm wrong, though.

Anonymous said...

I'm a parent of school-age kids in a Catholic School in flyover country. I also spend a lot of time on political/moral/sociological blogs (unlike the normies out there), and I was wondering what the current Catholic scandal was doing to those normal people. Were they even aware? Does it influence their attitudes towards the Church, the school, and so on?

I noticed a facebook string by some of the normal moms a few days ago-it was genuinely devastating. Utter cynicism towards the Church, the priesthood, and the bishops (remember: these are moms who send their kids to a Catholic elementary school-not agnostic moms, or even Catholic moms from the public schools).

My take on it is that even relatively strong Catholics (those who spend $10,000s for Catholic education) are pretty done with the Catholic Church. They are getting Catholic educations in spite of the Church (really, just clean middle class private schools) and not because of the Church.

My suspicion is that Catholicism as a belief system is really going to go away. Catholic schools may survive (again, just because they are upstanding private schools in a world with our current public school system-not because they are Catholic), but the whole idea of a Catholic identity (your kids grow up to be altar boys, the Catholic Church is the social center of the community, etc) is on its last legs.

anon

Dad29 said...

there was an asymmetry in access

Remember that the John Jay report (to which you refer here) was paid for by the Catholic Bishops--the very same ones who are now scrambling to cover up their coverups of homosexual predator-priests (which THEY ordained) and Bishops (which THEY are.)

"Altar boy access" is a very red, very ripe, herring. Eighty percent of the attacks were men-on-boys, i.e., queers.

Dad29 said...

Catholicism as a belief system is really going to go away

I'll take that bet. How much do you have? Wanna go house, cars, 401(k)?

Audacious Epigone said...

Random Dude,

Trump's self-confidence is a force (or delusion) of nature, but I wonder if even Trump really thinks he can make no progress over four years and then run on the same thing he ran on in 2016. It won't work.

Anon,

I've similarly noticed a lot of people within the church hierarchy breaking ranks and leveling criticism all the way up at the top. Good.

Dad29/anon,

Is this bet in majority-European countries or worldwide? I may take a bet on the former but am less likely to bet on the latter.

216 said...

AE,

I'm not sure that Trump is going to run again, he's too old for the job and it shows up in his nature to over-delegate and spend too much time at his properties instead of badgering members of Congress.

Pence could easily get the nomination in a walk, nominate the Indian Warmongeress as VP, and Trump will stupidly endorse them on the platform of "finish the wall".

I'm unsure the GOP can hold the House barring a foreign policy surprise, it worked out for JFK in 1962. (The press also helped him by not revealing that he pulled missiles from Turkey, making it look like Khruschev unilaterally caved). North Korea might decide that a deal with Trump is the only thing protecting them from PRC annexation.

Dad29 said...

AE....matters not to me the region......sign the titles and put them in escrow, let me know when you've done it.

Easy money!! I've been waiting 70 years for this!!

216 said...

Contd

In the bottom of the 9th the left decides to pull out the "rape card" on Kavanagh, when there is less evidence of this than there is of John Roberts' illegal adoptions (which disappeared from scrutiny, in exchange for controlling his vote).

And this is the same left that confirmed Sotomayor who said that white males make worse decisions than her people, and the same left that was ok with 4 Jews on the bench.

We need self-determination

Feryl said...

I don't get the autism over the wall.

The wall would have gates that could be thrown open to anyone at any time.

A wall isn't going to stop the millions of people streaming in via airplane every year.

I get the basic psychology of promising a wall, Trump isn't stupid. But expedient and no-nonsense removals of illegals, and vastly stiffer entry requirements, are what we really need to send the message that not all are welcome here. But, you see, neo-liberalism is fundamentally based on de-tribalizing people. As long as many governments place corporate profits ahead of cultural continuity (and thus, low-mid income worker security and comfort), there won't be much of a change.

The disheartening chain of events that really took off in the late 80's, after about 40 years of gradual movement in that direction, may not be over quite yet.*

* Suffering a major economic and/or foreign policy setback would provoke a "come to Jesus moment" among the elites. This is why I dread the current "economic boom". We're inflating bubbles, as much as ever, and delaying a much needed transition away from neo-liberalism (as a matter of fact, generic DLC Democrat Cuomo just beat the more Leftist candidate; eventually hard up Millennials will have greater influence to overrule the wishes of comfortable Boomers, but were a real crisis to happen even older voters would wise up that the "good old days" of neo-liberalism are long gone.

216 said...

Feryl,

The power of the wall is the symbolism, and its effectiveness as a vehicle barrier to significantly increase the cost of drug distribution, and mass human smuggling.

The entry-exit visa tracking system is probably more important, but faces powerful opponents from lolbertarian autists, the travel industry and the education industry.

In terms of the optics of immigration, the most effective use of ICE is to arrest sex trafficking gangs, followed by wealthy (white) business owners that employ illegals. Cut the jobs off and the illegals will go back of their own volition. We should also find ways of using the IRS to harass employers of illegals.

This advice also applies to Europe as well, arresting the NGOs that cooperate with the traffickers is of more importance than the bureaucratically complicated arrangement of deportation. I'll even agree with the left that we shouldn't deport people that aren't violent felons, just pay them to leave (5000 euros) on the condition that it is a felony if they are caught again. Put travel bans on any country that doesn't take back those we deport (a far better travel ban than the one Trump used).

In the longer term, a crackdown on tax havens is of major importance, both to head off a Marxist revolution, and to ensure that capital is reinvested into developing nations rather than spooled off by the rapacious elite and deposited in Swiss/Hong Kong banks.

216 said...

It says a lot about cuckservative stupidity that "Abolish ICE" isn't immediately responded to with "Abolish IRS" or "Abolish USA".

Feryl said...

"I'm not sure that Trump is going to run again, he's too old for the job and it shows up in his nature to over-delegate and spend too much time at his properties instead of badgering members of Congress."

He needs to get out before the bubble pops. Trump has done nothing at all to warn people about the rotten nature of the economy; we're living through the 4th(?)* iteration of the Reaganite/Thatcherite boom economy, in which "growth" occurs as low-mid income workers find their wages to be stagnant or declining (in comparison to the 1950's-70's, unions to be stagnant or declining (in comparison to the 50's-70's), and signs of poor financial security mount (high debt levels, no pension to fall back on, etc.).

Neo-liberalism is decadent and parasitic. It's weakened us, drained us of psychological, financial, and cultural well-being. Inequality since the 2000's has soared to levels not seen since the late 18th century/very early 19th century. Yeah, I get it, life's not fair. But we could be doing a lot better than this.

* 1983-1989, 1993-2000, 2002-2007, 2010-present

I don't think Trump is too old. He just got overwhelmed by cuck inc., and felt compelled to mostly stick to the GOP playbook lest he find himself cast out from the party. I agree with Agnostic; Carter and Trump were political novices who expected to make a lot of headway at pushing the government in a new direction, but their lack of connections within the system and their inexperience made them pariahs in their ostensible party while the public was bemused to horrified by the general vibe of the president's regime.**

I think a lot of Trump's heterodox ideas/tweets have been polished by the Pentagon Junta who de facto pulled a coup in mid-2017. The Pentagon does feel concerned about some neo-liberal excesses (such as too much immigration, and too much kowtowing to China to please the multi-nationals). But the Pentagon is probably over-rating their own power and influence; look at how utterly corrupt so many of our institutions are (Wall Street, the media, the courts etc.), and what are they going to do about it? We need better leadership everywhere.

**In the politically low-key late 70's, liberals and conservatives both had a distaste for Carter (liberals found him to be too pro-business manager and too pious, conservatives thought he was inept in his actions and speech, whatever his ideology was. In the hyper competitive and partisan 2010's, liberals bitch about all things Trump mindlessly, while too many conservatives rush to Trump's aid, even when he probably doesn't deserve it.

Feryl said...

"In terms of the optics of immigration, the most effective use of ICE is to arrest sex trafficking gangs, followed by wealthy (white) business owners that employ illegals. Cut the jobs off and the illegals will go back of their own volition. We should also find ways of using the IRS to harass employers of illegals.

This advice also applies to Europe as well, arresting the NGOs that cooperate with the traffickers is of more importance than the bureaucratically complicated arrangement of deportation. I'll even agree with the left that we shouldn't deport people that aren't violent felons, just pay them to leave (5000 euros) on the condition that it is a felony if they are caught again. Put travel bans on any country that doesn't take back those we deport (a far better travel ban than the one Trump used)."

A real restoration of the Progressive way would of course involve greatly restricting the level of conduct that elites are permitted to engage in. Post 1929 crash, Western elites (mostly) agreed to stop the "race to the bottom" that had first imperiled proles, then threatened to imperil elites via a class based revolution. This is the ideal approach; elites voluntarily rein it in, so heavy handed government tactics aren't necessary.

These days, elites only permit order in a very reactionary away (mass incarceration). Outside of street crime, though, political and civic authorities essentially permit everything. Not literally, but de facto we have corporate approved anarchy WRT immigration, healthcare, and so on. The state does ostensibly regulate a lot, but here's the catch: rich people and big companies can afford to pay fines, pay lawyers, etc. after being picked on by regulators and angry consumers. There's no shame, no serious punishment, no fear of avenging populist elites and their mobs, derived from fucking people over.

Something to behold is that the Nazi party (!) in the 1930's included in it's official platform a strong form of econ. populism (such as promises of quality housing and strong worker dignity protections), that even many current older Leftists would balk at based on their hysterical prejudice towards New Dealism. If the age of the individual started in the 70's and 80's, then reached truly hideous proportions in the 90's and 2000's, then perhaps we are over due to evaluate the imperative of placing maximum importance on un-filtered personal freedom and striving for greater status, which has given us a political, cultural, and economic order that is effectively broken, as measured by record low levels of faith in the system. .

216 said...

Feryl,

Part of the malaise surrounding the GOP is that they are long in the tooth. Having held the House majority since 2010, they have little to show for it other than a tax cut which no one wanted. Most of us underestimated the economic fear that is still felt by a majority of Americans, the media has adeptly stoked fears that a "trade war" will cause another recession. When 40% don't have $400 in savings, that's a very profound fear. Our people are neither able or willing to fight for their sovereignty.

It does amaze me how little energy there is on our side, even on gun boards, as an AWB will pass numerous states assuming Dem Governors, while the Canadian government is moving towards a gun ban of its own. These are threats that should be responded to in kind, with threats of nullification and insurrection.

Backlash against the tax cut may help the Dems win the House, the donor class also has no need to fund the GOP any longer (fundraising levels are horrid), but Woke Capital has probably made sure the corporate rate won't be going back up. The easiest play is for the Dems to just raise the top rate back to 40% and give back the SALT deduction (a serious own goal for the GOP despite its obvious benefits). Trump should triangulate and endorse this position, alongside a push to have Gabbard be the Speaker with Progressive caucus and GOP votes.

Who do you think will resign assuming a Dem House (Senate?)

It would be nice to see Bannon back as Chief of Staff, his European Vacation needs to end, he is actively harming the nationalist causes over there.

216 said...

Feryl,

It's been interesting to see Macron collapse in the polls so fast, but not surprising given the neoliberal trajectory. Thatcher also fell massively in the polls until the Falklands War victory, but came back to be re-elected with a big majority. France has been the most resistant to neoliberalism, so Macron will still probably be re-elected when the economy gets its sugar high.

One thing that Macron has done well on so far is his encouragement of the security state, which has foiled several attacks (perhaps foiled as fake plots like our FBI does). More attacks like the surge three years ago would damn him in the Euro elections next year.

Theresa May is also indirectly helping us out by continuing the attrition of the police, the NHS is more important politically in any case. The British right needs to realize that UKIP is useless, the only way back in is through entryism of the local party association. Most UK seats are "safe", so the utility is in joining the dominant party, then deselecting the globalist MP. The old parties also have the benefit of being harder for the security services to infiltrate, unlike dissident parties which by their nature attract cranks rather than careerists.

I beat on this over and over, but many people aren't going to change until society gets to "Mad Max" levels of violence. The ANC of South Africa in the 1980s also shared this view, they called it "ungovernability".

DissidentRight said...

I just watched the Spotlight movie. I was darkly amused to see the writers drop a controlled burn about how this is DEFINITELY NOT a homosexual problem.

Yeah, about that.

My suspicion is that Catholicism as a belief system is really going to go away.

The Roman church survived the Reformation. It also survived the collapse of the Holy Roman Empire. It will survive this, although obviously not in its present form. Either the laity will declare a Crusade on the priesthood and the seminaries, or the nations and governments of the host countries will. It will probably vary from country to country. But it's a multi-generational process.

If other Christians begin to see the Roman church in the same light as we see Judaism and Islam (anything is possible given the pre-existing anti-Catholic sentiments of various Protestants), I would not be remotely surprised to see (at least in some regions) the same violent repatriations that are in store for the other Abrahamic 'faiths' put into practice against papists who won't renounce the Vatican institution.

I don't get the autism over the wall.

The wall would have gates that could be thrown open to anyone at any time.


Feryl, that's kind of like saying you don't get the autism over the Stars and Stripes. The wall is a symbol. It's a gigantic, tangible middle finger to the Deep State, the Globalists, to Left, and to the Fake Right. And of course the Alien-Americans.

216 said...

DissidentRight,

The flag stance is autism. Considerable political capital was spent not too long ago over the flag burning amendment. Boomercons have been rhetorically routed on Kapernick & co., thanks to the end of BLM rioting. They were rarely willing to accuse Kapernick of being anti-white, a Communist or a Muslim, nor was the term "black nationalist" commonly used. Instead they were using the military as a "shield" of their otherwise racial argument. No one even suggested the perfunctory step of "spend your nfl dollars on donations to wounded veterans", you had idiots saying they were "watching college football instead".

216 said...

Read this thread and cringe.

https://www.ar15.com/forums/General/one-in-seven-people-in-the-U-S-is-foreign-born-/5-2146663/

Feryl said...

"I beat on this over and over, but many people aren't going to change until society gets to "Mad Max" levels of violence. The ANC of South Africa in the 1980s also shared this view, they called it "ungovernability". "

You're talking about "unraveling" era fantasies about bands of cut-throat warriors, which are a caricature of the tribalist mindset. It's something you saw over and over again in the 80's and 90's; the hero is the loner, the rule breaker, etc., taking on a band of thugs whose low character is exposed by the fact that they need to be in a collective to survive..

Massive outbreaks of civil instability tend to be provoked by a breakdown in respect for authority. Also by "crisis" era flare ups of hostility between ethnic groups, nations, etc. But the crisis era is about a decline in individualism, so that hedonistic/self-centered violence (like bar fights, spousal abuse, sexual assault, etc.) actually is lower than it was in the "unraveling" era. What does spike is collective violence, usually motivated by some kind of us vs them tribalism.

In other words, the Boomers who made Mad Max were envisioning a caricature of the "unraveling", in which the only kind of tribalism left involved horrible gangs of thugs. It's moralistic, too; good people are rugged individualists who instill the proper values. Bad people are moochers. Nowadays, in a more crisis era, good people look like us and act like us; bad people are.....Different, in a fundamental unchangeable way. In the unraveling era, people act as if anyone could be a big winner if they have right attitude.

Neil Howe et al talk about the mixed views people have in an unraveling; on the one hand there's terror of a bleak future of moral desolation; on the other hand the Boomers in particular became enamored with being successful and having the perfect family, and they generally believed that this dream could be attained by anyone with the right work ethic. But these rewards weren't to be passed out easily; you had to earn them, and failure to do so was shameful. Nowadays in the crisis era, we want people of a certain persuasion to ally with and strengthen others in their tribe; that's the essence of tribalism right there. In response to an actual (not perceived) collapse in the integrity and security of our institutions, we have to band together and right the ship. Note that in an "awakening" era (like the 60's-early 80's), youngsters exaggerate the flaws of the system so as to justify attacking the system and older generations. It's not necessary anymore to exaggerate; things are really that bad.

Feryl said...

"Feryl, that's kind of like saying you don't get the autism over the Stars and Stripes. The wall is a symbol. It's a gigantic, tangible middle finger to the Deep State, the Globalists, to Left, and to the Fake Right. And of course the Alien-Americans."

It's an essentially meaningless gesture, that, absent leadership willing to drastically cut immigration levels BAMN, will be like a fat person going on a "diet" by switching from Big Gulps to two cans of soda a day. You people do realize the staggering amounts of H1-B types and "refugees" who are flown into this country on a daily basis, and often given schooling, room & board etc. at taxpayer expense. Their kids are treated even better, of course. Then there's the laughable visa "lottery", in which the privilege to come here is literally handed out at random, by pure chance. It's the lowest hanging fruit for reformers, but what exactly is Jeff Sessions doing, anyway? It's like he's been blackmailed into seclusion.

But being that I'm not in a Sun-belt state, what would I know? Ann Coulter I'm sure really does believe that CA went blue because of all the damn Mexicans.....Even though Oregon and WA state both voted Dem in 1988 and 1992, when those states were 90% white. For my sake I haven't lived through a Mexican invasion. And besides, you put up a wall and what's to stop the cucks in the Southwest and Plains states from sponsoring legal immigration plans for Mexicans, and what's going to finally cause elites to get serious about restoring rule of law? As long as our rulers are corrupt assholes, they will be responsive to corrupt business lobbies.

I suppose as long as we're complaining about the dastardly Mexicans, I'd like to point out that IM Estimation, each Muslim and African is "worth" 20 Mexicans in terms of damaging our culture. Erstwhile white countries fought for many generations to keep Semites and Africans largely out. There's no comparable battle with Latin Americans, many of whom are heavily European in phenotype and culture.

We can screech about MS-13 lowlifes, or we can sound the alarm about the ongoing "clash of civilizations" caused by the irresponsible growth and migrations of the peoples of the Middle East/Africa. Fred Reed does have a point; American blacks are still the biggest headaches to us, and inviting in highly entitled and obstreperous people from similar ethnic groups will just bring us greater grief after we should've learned our lesson.

216 said...

Feryl,

In the first Mad Max the state is still functioning, the later films aren't as influential. It is a highly individualistic film, hard to think of anything past or present that has a positive portrayal of tribalism. The newer "Planet of the Apes" seem to fit, by portraying the apes as the good guys.

I'm not familiar with Depression/WW2 era film, outside of the Disney cartoons. Tribalism was highly discouraged then as injurious to the war effort, modern day leftists rediscovered WW2 propaganda for that reason.

216 said...

Feryl,

The President has plenary power to bar the admission of any aliens he deems necessary, but he doesn't have the ability to re-write immigration law to shut down visa programs. And use of those plenary powers would mean a certain impeachment. Thus the only kind of admissions that the administration can reduce without Congress is the refugee program. Ideally it would be shut down, or made Boer-only, but again Congress would interfere. The state governments could also disaffiliate with refugee resettlement, but none have to my knowledge. I don't have knowledge as to what the Administrations powers are to redirect refugee resettlement dollars to more useful effect in their homelands/neighboring countries. It might be considered an illegal "impoundment".

It also doesn't help that Pompeo and Nielsen are not "our people", immigration should be viewed as a subset of unreviewable and elite-driven foreign policy, not domestic/economic policy. The elite treat immigration just like they treat NATO, to even question it marks you as a traitor. You can easily call for a zero corporate income tax rate, and you won't be called a fiscal arsonist. But even the most otherwise left-wing voices in DC society will say that a debt-ridden US must pay for the defense of Europe.

Feryl said...

"In the first Mad Max the state is still functioning, the later films aren't as influential. It is a highly individualistic film, hard to think of anything past or present that has a positive portrayal of tribalism. The newer "Planet of the Apes" seem to fit, by portraying the apes as the good guys."

Of course we can't expect creative types (with some exceptions like John Milius, and....Oliver Stone?) to really understand the team mindset (after all, these our people who often got shoved into lockers by jocks). That being said, the obvious fatalism, bordering on nihilism, that pop culture began to have in the 1970's about the potential for large groups of people to unite and do good, says a lot. Agnostic posted an image (not sure where it came from) about cycles in the social mood; it was at high in the 1940's and 50's, then gradually faded in the 60's and 70's. The fad for portraying the world as being in, or on the verge of, moral and psychic collapse such that we can't perform collectively anymore, became very popular in the 1970's, then receded in the 80's (when crime and drug use declined) when we got see at least groups of friends/families beat the bad guys, but after the 80's the nihilism began to creep back in, and with stuff like the Walking Dead it's obvious that the "everything sucks" mindset is growing and is threatening to derail political and cultural improvements.

Feryl said...

"I'm not familiar with Depression/WW2 era film, outside of the Disney cartoons. Tribalism was highly discouraged then as injurious to the war effort, modern day leftists rediscovered WW2 propaganda for that reason"

Tribalism exploded in the 1920's-1940's (a crisis era). Both the ethnic and national type. After WW2, we got it out of our system, but that was made possible by elites agreeing to a panoply of measures designed to maintain the financial and psychological well-being of the populace.

Then the me generation blew the doors off of mid century modesty in the late 60's/early 70's, but the worst damage wrought by this generation's insolence and greed was slightly delayed. For example, the only states really affected by immigration in the 1970's were CA and TX. As GIs faded and Boomer rose, the damage just kept getting worse, though. I understand that adj. for inflation, the money spent on "lobbying" (bribery) is now like 15 times greater than it was even in the 80's. As a general rule, everything that the Boomers complained about in the 70's and 80's, in terms of corruption and ineptitude, has gotten worse in subsequent decades as the Boomers have aged and assumed more leadership.

Feryl said...

"The President has plenary power to bar the admission of any aliens he deems necessary, but he doesn't have the ability to re-write immigration law to shut down visa programs. And use of those plenary powers would mean a certain impeachment."

Yes, in America the president has been, and still is, subject to the priorities of whichever elites we happen to be stuck with at the time. Trump thought otherwise when he was running (as did Bannon), but since then he's rationalized being captive to Wall Street (to some degree) and to the Pentagon (almost 100%) as a survival mechanism. His ego can't tolerate the notion that he's had to compromise, and give in to people he once seemed to despise. Jimmy Carter, not being part of the Me Generation, was clearly heartbroken and dismayed by his lack of support from fellow elites and the public alike. He was self-aware of his impotence, and people ridiculed him for his obvious lack of confidence and not being able to get what he wanted at the outset.

In America, the president has to be in step with the zeitgeist as permitted by elites. Trump could be more like Carter, and sulk and frown at how his own party treats him like an interloper and makes unwelcome demands on him. But being a Boomer, Trump can't help but be enamored by the fame and fortune that comes from being president. His ego and his wallet come before principles. So Trump is really having fun, and really thinks he's doing a great job, even though he obviously hasn't made good on his original platform. Not that he could've even if he wanted to, which is something that people like Ann Coulter need to understand. It does take a village, huh?

DissidentRight said...

Read this thread and cringe.

216, I cringed. Yes, the flag is autism. Doesn't make it wrong.

It's an essentially meaningless gesture, that, absent leadership willing to drastically cut immigration levels BAMN, will be like a fat person going on a "diet" by switching from Big Gulps to two cans of soda a day. You people do realize the staggering amounts of H1-B types and "refugees" who are flown into this country on a daily basis, and often given schooling, room & board etc. at taxpayer expense.

Feryl,

Yes. But most people are idiots. This is about morale. Energize Majority-America, demoralize the Left and Alien-America.

We can't go about solving any of the actual problems until we have shattered the enemy's resolve to resist.

Audacious Epigone said...

216,

Does China want the basket case?

Dad29,

My bluff has been called. I make bets I'm confident I'll win, exclusively!

Feryl,

The Wall is a concrete symbol of national sovereignty. If successfully running for president on the explicit promise of building doesn't get the wall built, nothing serious about stopping the invasion will be done. Africa IS coming if we don't stop it.

As for Trump not doing a thing to warn people--and to the contrary, inculcating a sense of complacency--about the bubbles, you're correct since November of 2016. He deserves credit for what he said from June 2015 until then, though.

Re: the Latin invasion--it has to be dealt with, and the wall is part of that, now so that there is precedence and political acceptance for dealing with the coming African invasion, which as you note, is a much larger problem.

What I see forming: Trump, and all that is associated with him like the travel ban and the wall, gets mortally wounded in the 2018 mid-terms and then finished off in the 2020 election. Kamala Harris, running on the inevitability of the POC ascendancy, offers the US as a humanitarian contrast to a Europe that has rolled up the welcome mat and becoming "xenophobic". How is that contrast made real? By accepting huge numbers of sub-Saharan African migrants, beginning in the early 2020s and continuing indefinitely.

216 said...

AE,

The Afriforum people have been claiming that the expropriation list is of land containing mineral deposits desired by Chinese state-owned businesses.

China is willing to invest in the more violent Venezuela, risking the anger of provoking the Monroe Doctrine. The dirty secret about the high-tech economy is its dependence on Third World minerals. China isn't held down by Western notions of human rights, and its worth recalling that Taiwan, Korea and Japan were the biggest allies and trading partners of the National Party government. Israel (pre-1979 Iran) were also important, but Israel was notoriously two-faced.

I don't think the question mark in South Africa is China, the question mark is India. The anti-white Indian minority has been BEEs biggest beneficiary, and blacks have noticed it. The name of the ANC is copied from the Indian National Congress. Surprisingly, BEE included white women until 2011. Both India and South Africa have elections next year, the EFF might push for removing Indians from BEE.

The Brazil elections are also tangentially related, (BRICS), Bolsonaro as President means a realignment to the West and the first outright ally of Trump in the Americas. The far-left has made calls for "land reform" in Brazil before, so Bolsonaro might decide to back the Afrikaners. Another leftist President means the continuation of the "neutralist" stance that they've followed since 2002. The Venezuela/Argentine cataclysm will dissuade the popular appeal of an anti-Western stance for a while.

The Russian stance is opportunistic, I doubt many Boers will take up the offer to go to Russia, they lack the capital (farmers are cash-poor). Russia is interested in reviving the nuclear power deal that South Africa is too broke to take on unless someone else finances it for them. China won't finance a competitor, the IMF won't finance Russia. There are no weapons deals on the horizon, and their other export of natural gas can be easier obtained from Nigeria/Angola (lots of wasteful gas flaring).

The stance of Western Europe has been the worst. The Belgians and the UK have openly supported expropriating farms, they have said that they will increase investment in South Africa when this is completed. Martin Bosma (PVV-Netherlands) is probably the only Western Euro politician to have ever made an issue of the Afrikaners, not sure if his book was translated into English.

舟舟 said...

You sound like my 70-year-old mother. Translatio of your position: there is nothing the church could ever do that couldn't be taken as a sign that the church needed even more support.

216 said...

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1041093953007833088

In this tweet, Trump says "finish the wall".

If he ever tweets "Belarus or bust", we might be living in a simulation.

vok3 said...

If the wall is not visible by 2020 Trump will have a very difficult time with reelection. At best he'll be the default - only if the Democrats fail to come up with anybody remotely convincing as an alternative. That the wall by itself wouldn't solve anything won't matter - the people who turned out for him last time will just stay home.

He went into this seriously naive. He did NOT have staff ready to replace all the political animals infesting everything. He tried to let the goverment keep running by retaining most of the personnel and just changing a few figureheads. As we've seen that doesn't work.

On the plus side this is all standing as a very illustrative lesson to everybody watching. I have no idea who the next right-winger to approach power will be, but the next COMPETENT right-winger will show up on inauguration day with a plan to systematically shuffle out the entire top third of the bureaucracy over the course of about three months, replacing them all with people who've proven their loyalty as election staff or local party officials. Also a carefully devised plan to use the DOJ as a tool and extension of the President's will, not as an uncontrolled sparking cable flopping around electrocuting things it shouldn't. Things like antitrust actions against the tech behemoths and the medical monopolies, for example. (Trump's campaign website EXPLICITLY talked about the medical monopolies. That text was all removed the night he won. He hasn't mentioned it since. This problem alone is capable of collapsing the entire economy within 10 years.)

Also being prepared to nominate cabinet members and to simply ignore the Senate's failure to confirm them if that happens. Also, about six months into the term, being prepared to declare martial law (and incarceration of ALL statewide elected officials) in any state that doesn't immediately start full enforcement of immigration law.

In other words, go into it fully aware that you're in the modern day game of thrones and you cannot afford to not be cutthroat. Trump seems to have been not fully prepared for the #resistance. His successor, whoever it might be, had better not share that flaw.

And this all might be wishful thinking. We might get into a Venezuela/Argentine style collapse leading to a Yugoslav style shooting war before then.

Audacious Epigone said...

vok3,

Yes, he should've cleaned house as soon as he was inaugurated. Sure, the political class doesn't have a surfeit of America First populists, but it has some of them and they weren't invited in. Why wasn't Ann Coulter offered the press secretary spot? Why wasn't Kris Kobach made DHS secretary? Why wasn't Pat Buchanan made Chief of Staff? There are people who could've seriously helped Trump and he refused to utilize them.

Feryl said...

"As for Trump not doing a thing to warn people--and to the contrary, inculcating a sense of complacency--about the bubbles, you're correct since November of 2016. He deserves credit for what he said from June 2015 until then, though."

Actually, it makes him look two-faced and like an opportunist. He gave sound criticism to get good rep, to build his path to power, then he gets power and his stance changes. In defense of Trump, there's absolutely no interest among GOP leadership/elite donors to reform our economy towards new-dealism. Hell, even the Dems offer up only the most tepid steps towards a new New Deal, which is weaker still among the DLC crowd like Cuomo, who used a vast fortune to remind middle aged and elderly voters that the long arm of economic Leftist policies (monopoly busting, greater welfare programs, greater union activity, better wages, greater worker diginity, etc.) would be cockblocked by the "liberal" party yet again. The modern Left is focusing almost 100% on race, sex, and gender, along with boutique issues like abortion rights, and only the most token efforts are made to reduce economic inequality (like raising the minimum wage by a few bucks). We also partisan idiocy by the Left, who act as if DLC neo-liberalism.

Silents and Boomers are still virulently hostile towards most forms of economic Leftism. Certainly, the ones who have any clout or money still think it's 1995. Gen X-ers are somewhat better, less ideologically rigid, and with Millennials we see a generation that's building toward a possibly violent rejection of neo-liberalism in the coming decades, if our system hasn't been reformed by then.

Audacious Epigone said...

Millennials capable of violence? Maybe of the looting the General Dollar variety, but I’m not sure of much more beyond that.

216 said...

AE,

It isn't Boomers making up the Antifa mobs, nor their older BLM and Occupy incarnations.

Incel is a Millenial phenomenon, and for all intents and purposes is a new type of communism.

Dad29 said...

AE: Heh.

She might get smaller--Benedict XVI predicted that--but the Church will not disappear. But I'm a nice guy about that. Stop by and have a beer sometime.

Feryl said...

"AE,

It isn't Boomers making up the Antifa mobs, nor their older BLM and Occupy incarnations.

Incel is a Millenial phenomenon, and for all intents and purposes is a new type of communism."

The thing about periods of collective violence is the.....um.....lack of violence. Let me explain. During periods of individual violence (such as the 1980's and 90's), things like domestic violence, animal cruelty, bar fights, and the like happen frequently because it only takes one or two people to start shit. In a period of collective violence, you need to have dozens, hundreds, and sometimes thousands of participants to get something going. Which isn't easy to do. But once it gets going, the scale of it also makes it difficult to stop. Massive wars, genocides, expulsions, and the like tend to happen in crisis eras of collective violence. It's tough to predict when they'll happen, what course they will take, and what will stop them. The US civil war, WW2 etc. all reached terrible extremes that nobody thought would initially happen.

In summary: Crisis era (the 1930's and much of the 1940's, the 2010s and 2020): low individual violence (Millennials cause dramatic decrease in fighting, crime, and animal cruelty), high collective violence (Boomers and Gen X-ers easily marshal Millennials for the task of tribal conflict)
High era (late 1940's-early 1960's): low violence of all kinds
Awakening era (late 1960's and 1970's): rising level of individual violence, moderate incidence of collective violence
Unravelling era (1980's, 1990's, and early 2000's): high individual violence, low collective violence.

EH said...

AE @8:49

Very well, (though you seemed to be saying something else in the article) but you ignored my second paragraph, in part: "You can't find the percentage homos are among priestly sex abusers by just by looking at the number of victims of each sex because the average number of victims for homos and heteros almost certainly differs. You also can't find the percentage homos are among priestly sex abusers from the overall percentage of homos among priests, since homos have a greater propensity to commit abuse"

If you're going to make up numbers, why not make up the ones that you actually need for the calculation, which are not the numbers of male and female victims but the numbers of homo / hetero perpetrators?