Daily Archives: June 7, 2013
And it came to pass the blogger known all over Catholicism for being rather unsavoury made an apology and admitted he is rather unsavoury.
Kudos to him, and all that.
Still, yours truly allows himself a couple of thoughts, related to the general problem of the endless bickering on the Internet.
If the BBC anchorman is a bitter bastard the public has reason to complain, because the bitter bastard uses the resources and TV frequencies paid (forcibly, of course) by all of us. The Internet, though, is different, and no one is forced to click Mark Shea’s blog, or has to pay a dime because he runs one. If one, therefore, wilfully clicks his site, he implicitly accepts all the bitterness, insults, and generally poisoned atmosphere and assorted rubbish that he will find.
The problem is, apparently, made worse by the strict connection between Shea on Twitter and Shea on his blog; a bit as if the blog were the petrol, and twitter the matches. Not a good combination, I am told. I’d say it’s rather frequent, though.
Secondly, I think the role of a blog should be the one of enraging souls and stirring them to assertive action, not to provide discussion themes for old ladies’ afternoon teas when the weather has been examined to everyone’s satisfaction. There’s enough sugar on the net to give the world diabetes, and nothing is more trite than calls to “harmony” and “understanding” when we live in times demanding anger and confrontation. Whilst I do not like the way Shea thinks, I never perceived his abrasiveness as a personal offence. Everyone is made his own way. Again, I can always choose not to click his site.
Thirdly and lastly, in my eyes much of the problem is caused by the “democratic” mentality of our time, with the related expectation that everyone has the right to say everything everywhere; again, a recipe for continuous bickering. If you add to this that many blog allow quarrelling in the comment section because of the huge amount of page views it generates – an important factor for commercially run Catholic sites, or simply for the ego of many a blogger – you understand how the net can be such a tavern.
Yours truly has chosen a different way, explained in short as follows:
1) This is not a place for debate. If you are an abortionist trying to persuade me that abortion is fine your comment will never appear, period. This is a place where sincere Catholics go to find ammunition, not ceaseless bickering with the usual suspects.
Life’s too short. You want to quarrel until 2am? Pick a forum.
2) Whilst this blog is (I hope) rather trenchant, I never abuse it for personal confrontations. If someone nerves me on Twitter I might use the issue for a blog post, but I have never started the crusade against the person saying “Mr such and such wrote I am an idiot, let me explain why he is a cretin”. Again, life’s too short, and when you click here your time should not be squandered for my own petty confrontations.
3) If you want a grittier Mundabor, you can follow me on Twitter, when I occasionally write my thoughts (the blog has precedence, and time’s a tyrant) and can be as brutal as the brutally concise medium requires. But again, it is a choice, and no one is obliged to follow me. Also, I avoid becoming addicted to Twitter, or mired in controversy. I block idiots like it’s going out of fashion. Life’s too short to waste it answering to idiots.
4) I never try to be popular, or liked. You can get rid of this blog instantly if you don’t like it, and I promise I will not be offended in the least, or call you “intolerant” or “insensitive”. At the same time, I do not feel any urge to apologise because you don’t like my blog, myself, or the values I try to protect.
I can therefore, semel in anno, have some sympathy for Shea on this one. He promised to improve, but it’s easier said than done. I prefer a bitter blogger I can click every now and then to a sugary one that is useless every day. My Catholic upbringing leads me to think people are accepted as they are or avoided as they are. It simplifies life a lot.
I for myself will decide every time whether I am in the mood for a dose of Shea. If I click his site, I won’t blame him if what I find it’s not of my liking. But I will always find him – even when he is wrong, which is very often – a preferable way to employ my time than the huge amount of Catholic blogs for the kindergarten available around.
If you live in England, you know that a huge explosion might well be in store in the next very few years, as it is now becoming increasingly more evident the UKIP is being given the status of “eligible party” for general elections (as opposed to, say, European ones) by millions of voters.
Whilst the UKIP's boys 'n girls can still manage to ruin everything, the probability they will be Cameron's gravedigger is not a bad one. But they are a young party, and suffer from the difficulty of transitioning from a one-issue party to a credible social and political project for the Kingdom's future.
Some seem to be worried this party might become too much “right wing”. This is certainly not a bad word to me, as I am proudly Right Wing and demand to be respected as such, as many others are Left Wing and think it perfectly fitting. What I think is feared here, though, is that the UKIP might be highjacked by the extreme right element, the xenophobic loonies conspiracy nutcases, and the likes.
Well, being a foreigner in this country I should be worried, then; but I ain't; not in the least. My worry is rather that the UKIP might not become a right-wing party, but rather an imitation of the Tories with some chilli pepper added for the benefit of rural England.
What the UKIP means for us sound Catholics is, in my eyes, rather the issue. If they try to run after the secular mainstream and betray Christian values they will become just another evil party whose only use will be to kill Cameron's tenure (yes, please!), after which they will rapidly disappear. For us Catholics, the only reason to vote for them will be to punish Cameron and his bunch of perverts.
If, however, the UKIP should develop a coherent image – and praxis – of a party rooted in sound Christian thinking, they will have a good chance to survive the wave of protest against Cameron and grow to be the heir to the traditional Tory party and Tory values. At the same time, they will become the only possible choice for every Christian who does not want to have aiding and abetting of sodomy on his conscience and values his salvation more than his wallet.
Where we are now, it's difficult to say. The UKIP have their own “LGBT” group (an extremely bad sign), but the grassroots appear to be rather indifferent to the attempt of the party leaders to make them stupidly “mainstream”. Yes, they might have the one or other nutcase, but we must be very prudent here, as every sound Christian will nowadays be considered a dangerous extremist by the mass media and this will easily become a widespread perception. At the moment, the UKIP are riding a huge wave of hostility towards the EU, coupled with the dissatisfaction of traditional Tories with the Chameleon. How long this will last is anyone's guess, particularly as the Tories seem to want to recover sanity – at least in EU matters – with or without Cameron.
Am I worried the UKIP might become a danger for law-abiding, tax-paying citizens like myself? Not in the least. Am I worried they might “cameronise” themselves in the stupid pursuit of a mainstream who would in this case still vote the Tory party in the end? Rather. Am I worried they will soon become useless to Catholic voters? Very much so.
If you ask me, the sodomy issue is the one that will decide the party's destiny. If they take a clear stance on it they will lose some of the leftist protesters – they have those too, it seems – but will attract a faithful following of solidly conservative, Right Wing voters. If they try to be all things to all men – as seen in the stupid “LGBT” group – they will rapidly become an imitation of the latter days Tory party, and the voters will end us preferring the original.
The First UKIP Reblog of the day
I like the UKIP in many ways, and I like most the fact that being a conservative alternative to the Tories, they force at least those Tory MP in “endangered” constituencies to wake up a bit before it’s too late. Still, this is a young party which has to develop a coherent thinking yet as it grows out of the one-issue grouping it used to be.
Let us take the controversy about “gay adoption”. A UKIP politician says he is against to his local newspaper in Croydon; predictably, the usual crowds starts to bark; the man tweets desperately around saying (more or less) “gay” is fine, but “gay adoption” isn’t.
If it is fine being “gay”, it really can’t be seen why such a “fine” man could not enjoy all the rights the law gives to his heterosexual counterparts.He should, then, be allowed to adopt…
View original post 519 more words