Daily Archives: March 8, 2017
International Feminist Deception Day
Today is the day feminists all over the world scream the usual nonsense about a fake “parity” that betrays the very essence of femininity.
Happily, this 2017 appears different from the more recent ones. Chewbacca is not the First Lady anymore, and we see timid signs of the rejection of aggressive “femancipation” calls. The new First Lady recites the Our Father at her husband’s rallies. Long may it last.
For Catholics, the matter of emancipation is fairly simple:
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.
Hhmmm…. St Paul on the one side, the secular culture on the other side. I wonder who is right?
We live in times of pernicious mixing of secular and religious values. For nineteen centuries, Christians have felt no need for “emancipation”. At some point, though, the movement gained such traction that it became ingrained in the Western way of thinking. So much so, that even decent Catholics thought it obligatory to reconcile the differences.
It does not work, because St Paul and the Suffragettes (and their descendants) are in fundamental opposition to each other.
It is no coincidence that the Lord, through St Paul, commands different roles for men and women, at the same time as the Church has never ever denied same dignity and importance to women. There are no differences in what souls are. There are differences in the way they are supposed to work together for their own salvation and the salvation of their children and loved ones.
One hundred plus years of logical derailment have now put us in front of what happens when we ignore the way life is supposed to be organised. The shifting of the measure of dignity (from having dignity in one’s own role to only having dignity if allowed to parrot men) has engendered a rebellion that starts with suffrage and ends with sexual promiscuity, contraception, abortion, mass divorce (in the West, very largely initiated by women), mass single parenthood and, crucially, massive divorce rape of men, with the subsequent unwillingness of the latter to contract a bond that can see them ruined and deprived of house and children at their wives’ calling. The latest trend is for the emancipated, divorcing wife to immediately accuse the husband of rape and/or violence: it makes it easier to get house and children, you see.
The so-called International Women’s Day is the International Women’s Betrayal Day. It is the day when the progressive self-destruction of femininity is celebrated as an achievement, and a further injection of testosterone into Western women is demanded as fitting and long overdue. Less Our Father, more Chewbacca.
Reject the mentality en bloc. Be a counter cultural “agent for change”. Proclaim in your circle of influence the right of the man to be the head of the woman, and the right of the woman to be led by her man. Assert the utter superiority of the traditional system, that did not produce anywhere near, anywhere near the amount of utterly miserable women we see around us today.
I know that, because my life experience straddles what seem to me now two different planets: the traditional Italian societies of pre-female suffrage (represented by the army of grandfathers, grandmothers, grand-aunts, and grand-uncles I had around me as a child) and the utterly unbelievable world I live in today, a world that would have had those grand-aunts heartily laughing in disbelief at the immense stupidity and absurdity of it.
That perfectly absurd world is now everyday reality. I see all those wretches around me every day. The wrinkled colleague in her Fifties talking to you about her “boyfriend”, who at some point will abandon her like every other man before him, and with good reason. The single mother desperately looking for a companion, and giving her body to a number of sub-prime or third-rate males she will likely never manage to persuade to marry her. The young woman already sampling a number of pricks higher than her ten female ancestors together: an experience devastating and soul-ravaging in the long term, utterly unsuited to the female nature, and disqualifying her as marriage material for any quality man. Up to the most benign case, the poor mother labouring under a huge strain, and forced to have two jobs (mother and office worker) and a long commute, because “emancipation”. Enjoy that train ride, ma’am, whilst you suffer at knowing that your children see their mother at 6:30 PM. You wanted to be “independent”, n’est-ce pas?
My grandmothers and grand-aunts lived in the middle of children. They all wished to marry and be the women of one man, but even those to whom the grace of a husband and children was not given were happy in their abandonment to providence, could care for the children of the enlarged family, had time to laugh and cry and be real women rather than caricatures of men, and were an important part of a large family fabric that was all-sustaining and all-absorbing. They were fully women, and lived a life far more fulfilling than the modern office slave will ever imagine. And they lived and died in the fear of the Lord, which coloured all the rest.
I see all those wrinkled women with “boyfriend” around me, and reflect that all this started with the oh so celebrated “suffragettes”.
Who, between you and me, must have been first-class bitches all right.
[REBLOG]: “Catholic Answers” Has Lost The Plot
Catholic Answers decidedly goes from weakness to weakness. As I have already written in the past – but repetita iuvant – they are a mixture of a forum where people attempt to make Catholic doctrine as they go along, and an “ask an Apologist” question where at times a theologian attempts to make Catholic doctrine as he/she goes along; things like “good suicides to go heaven” and the like.
Today, out of sheer boredom, I clicked the page once again, to see what’s going on. I use “predestination” as search item and find a couple of threads that make your blood curl, with the usual sensitive posters (they are generally women; further proof God is rightly spoken of in the masculine) clumsily trying to avoid hard truths and tapping in the dark about what they “feel”, or “imagine” rather than doing what sensible people would do, that is: read a couple of sensible books first, and in case find a very good (means: not a wishy-washy V II one) priest later.
Still, this is a difficult issue: predestination is probably the most inextricable mystery of Christianity, up there with the Trinity, and a degree of confusion is normal, though once again a good book or a good theologian is vastly better than trying to concoct a solution among blog commenters.
Then I went on the “ask an apologist” section, where in the past I generally – but not always – found sound “Catholic answers”. The first (and only) post I read was this one.
In short, a woman has a perverted sister who “married” (not!) and her husband – one is glad there are true men around still – says to her wife the perverted woman is not to set foot in the house again. Not when he himself is there – obviously – and not when he is not there too – also obviously; then it’s a matter of principle, not of presence -.
The wife writes to “dear Abby”, and what do you think the “apologist” answers? Something along the lines of “he has no right to give you orders, you are his accomplice with your submissive behaviour, I suggest you speak to a marriage counsellor; with your husband if you can but alone if you must”.
What is this, a Catholic Forum or Cosmopolitan’s letters to the editor? To suggest that a third person be put between man and wife? After the head of the family (read my lips: head-of-the-family) has taken a perfectly reasonable decision about the scandalous reprobate he does not want to have in the house he (read my lips again: he) has the duty to lead? Really? What do these people think a marriage is, a democracy? There are Christian rules about how a marriage works; Christians have applied them for 2000 years with great success; it appears for “women’s liberation theologians” isn’t good enough.
For heaven’s sake, it’s not like the husband is alcoholic, or violent, or a lazy good-for-nothing married in a moment of Samaritan excesses (some women have that; though I think low self-esteem plays a far bigger role). This is a perfectly sensible, reasonable man confronted with the smoke of Satan wanting to enter his home, and he takes a perfectly reasonable decision about how he, the person responsible for the spiritual welfare of the family, is to deal with that.
Or do you think the feminist “apologist” would remind the wife that the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ is the head of the husband? A wife with the blessing of a man who knows he will have to answer to Jesus about the way he led his wife, and takes responsibility for it, has been graced with a good husband indeed! But that third parties would come to the extent of suggesting another person is put in the middle is really beyond belief.
Tra moglie e marito non mettere il dito (“do not put your finger between a husband and a wife”), says the wise Italian. The Catholic Answers apologist puts an entire counsellor. What a feminist nutcase.
This so-called “apologist” needs a very good rapping before she is kicked out, and I truly hope she is never allowed to instruct Catholic women preparing for marriage. She should also be informed that even today, even today such an outlandish “answer” (all, but a Catholic one) would be considered the answer of a feminist bitch by every sensible woman living in traditional Catholic countries, where – I can assure you from endless, and continued experience – this “let’s put a third person in our controversy” mentality is just not there, and would be considered the result of an acute bitchiness attack and controlling mania.
I do not need to mention here – because every woman with some brains knows it; apparently not the case by some female “apologists” – that women perfectly well know how to deal with disagreements within the family; and have far more effective (as in: smartly feminine) ways to influence their men, insofar as it can be done, or the intelligence to let it be, when it’s clear it cannot.
I am truly stunned. Where I come from, the answer to disagreements is never “put a counsellor in the middle”, but along the lines of “he is the man you wanted to marry: now let it work” or “try to change his mind if you can, with sweetness and prayer and patience; and accept his decision if you can’t, because this the way it goes”. Apparently, it’s now the counsellors who run Catholic families. Pathetic, and so stupid.
I really must say it, but if this flippin’ American mentality has infiltrated the minds to the point where such rubbish is even suggested in a Catholic Forum, by a so-called apologist, you in the old U S of A are in a very, very bad shape indeed.
Catholic Answers might well be the most clicked Catholic site on the planet. The damage they make with their blasted “American Feminist” mentality can hardly be overestimated. These people do not even know what makes a real woman, but they spread their rubbish on the Internet on how to run – or to break – a marriage.
I was always surprised when I left Italy and these colleague in Germany told me “Italian women are so feminine!”. Why, of course they are, thought I. They’re women, aren’t they…
I began to understand, later, what was meant by it, and it seems to me the problem is not limited to Germany.
Fight against feminism and bitchiness, even when it is in disguise of “Catholicism”. If you want to see real women in their environment, try to spend some months in a traditional Catholic country and see how those among them who have been properly raised – still the vast majority, even today! – live, embrace and enjoy their womanhood.
They live far happier lives, too.
[REBLOG] Hillary Is After Stupid Women: Some Inconvenient Truth About The Tragedy Of Female Suffrage.
Bar big surprises (Assange is your friend) it seems to me that the remaining weeks of the electoral campaign will be dominated by the following themes.
- The MSM will keep screaming hysterically by every new tape (of which, of course, there will be several) in which Trump says something that wouldn’t be heard at the local Salvation Army chapel. All those liberals ceaselessly spitting on Christian morality will discover themselves aflame with zeal for purity in their candidates. Actually, in the candidate of the Republicans only. They will manage to impress the gullible, and I suspect that many of these will be women.
- The sane part of America – and I suspect many of these will be men – will actually react to the MSM pro-Hillary, nuMorality bombardment by doing exactly the contrary of what the media relentlessly push for. They will vote for Trump just because they can’t stand this North Korean situation anymore.
It remains to be seen how many are ready to be impressed by lies and fake indignation, and how many are those who can still think straight. However, it seems to me that Hillary’s campaign is doing the only thing that leaves them with a shot at victory: make of the campaign an emotional attack to Trump and try to capture with it the gullible females (and some not very manly men) ready and willing to be carried away by this wave of emotions. Already the fact that Trump appears to have suffered in the polls for calling a fat woman “Miss Piggy” tells you all you need to know how easily US female voters can be manipulated, how emotional this race has become. And don’t get me started about the “first female president” rubbish, which is the same as to say that a vagina gives a candidate special rights.
I’d suggest these Miss Piggy women eat less instead. But hey, I am a man, what do I know…
So, let’s come to the inconvenient part of this blog post.
It fills me with rage at this stupid age to know that, in the most crucial US election in the last decades, there is such a discrepancy between female and male voter orientation. It seems that this wave of Reprobation (make no mistake: voting for Clinton can only be a mortal sin) is mainly fueled by the female sex, who is more prone to swallow hook, line and sinker all the rubbish about the “first female President”, the “objectifying of women” and all that insignificant noise meant to cover the real issues: the fact that Christian heritage and fundamental liberties (besides the Country’s security) may well be at stake.
Women of past ages knew very well that it was better for them that only men could vote, or be a judge. It helped a lot to keep the emotions out, and preserve an ordered society. It prevented the brutal emotional manipulation of serious issues we see today.
In a society in which only males can vote you can’t get very far with the emotional appeal to the “poor pregnant girl”. In a society in which only males can vote you could never attack the Second Amendment. In a society in which only male can vote not only Trump would clean up, but you would probably have a better Democrat opponent in the first place. Instead, we have a world in which a conversation filled with reasoning and expletives any men who was not raised among girls has heard hundreds of times truly is an important part in deciding the destiny of a nation.
Women suffrage has done great damage to women. It has allowed them to hurt themselves in so many ways: with abortion, with divorce, with a stupid push for an “emancipation” that has become a double burden, with the attempt to dismantle a patriarchal society that served them so much better than making of them the toys of many men.
The extreme emotional tones of this campaign, in which the word “Pussy” (let me say it again: “Pussy”) has at least the same public echo and relevance than the real issues (security, immigration, Christian values, fundamental liberties) could never exist if only men had the right to vote. You may not like it, but that’s how it is. Even those pussified men (like Paul “Pussy” Ryan) who profit from the events to stab their own candidate in the back do so not only because of intrinsic lack of manliness, but because they are afraid of their female electorate. Ryan’s pathetic, unnatural, unmanly grovelling is the result of the sex of more than 50% of the voters.
It would be better for everyone, and particularly for women, if they were not allowed to vote. In time, this would cause a reversion to what every Catholic (that is: sensible) woman must wish: a solidly patriarchal society honoring women for their real qualities and helping them to give the best of their feminine nature, whilst stifling the self-destructive tendencies unavoidably generated by their (otherwise so beautifully) emotional nature.
Look at what three generations of female voters have done to the US, and reflect whether they have made a better world for women. A better world, I mean, not only as the world judges, but as the Lord does.
You must be logged in to post a comment.