Bernard Nathanson

BERNARD Nathanson (1926-2011) was one of the most influential people in the movement to legalize abortion in the 1960s and 70s. Not only did he help found the National Abortion Rights League in 1969, but for two years he was the director of the largest abortion clinic in the world. By his count, he was personally involved in about 75,000 abortions in his work at the Center for Reproductive and Sexual Health in Manhattan. Calling an abortion clinic a center of “reproductive health” was one of the brilliant propaganda moves of that era which continues to this day.

By a miracle of God’s grace, Nathanson had a profound change of heart. He later campaigned against abortion and was immediately shunned by the media outlets which had previously so warmed to him.

Today, on the 47th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we remember those who like Nathanson have given themselves to the fight against abortion. “Since 1973, there have been over 61,679,000 abortions performed in the United States alone. Since 1980, the worldwide total number of abortions exceeds 1,562,298,000.” [Source]

In the film “The Silent Scream,” Nathanson argued that the science of fetal development and ultrasound imaging had refuted once and for all the idea that the fetus was not a living human being, settling a question that had preoccupied philosophers for many centuries. “Beyond question, the unborn child is simply another child, another human being, indistinguishable in many ways from us. Now we have the technology to see abortion from the victim’s vantage point.”

The abortion movement had lied and conspired against women, he said. It had, by clever sensationalism, deceived them as to the true nature of the unborn child, and he challenged Planned Parenthood and other abortion merchants to show his film to women contemplating abortion. “Women in increasing numbers — hundreds, thousands, even tens of thousands — have had their wombs perforated, infected, destroyed. Women have been castrated, sterilized, all because of an operation of which they have had no true knowledge.”

His change was not about science alone. Nathanson, who was Jewish, eventually converted to Catholicism. The Church, he believed, was the leading institution defending the unborn and it was the only institution where he could find God’s mercy for his own role in the abortion movement.

Robert P. George recounted Nathanson’s life in 2011 shortly after his death:

Dr. Nathanson, the son of a distinguished medical practitioner and professor who specialized in obstetrics and gynecology, had his first involvement with abortion as a medical student at McGill University in Montreal. Having impregnated a girlfriend, he arranged and paid for her illegal abortion. Many years later, he would mark this episode as his “introductory excursion into the satanic world of abortion.”

In the meantime, however, Nathanson would become a nearly monomaniacal crusader for abortion and campaigner for its legalization. And he would himself become an abortionist. Read More »

“THE FORCE of the wind will carry the inhabitants of the earth off their feet, and whirl them aloft in the air; trees will be uprooted, houses unroofed. Long peals of thunder will resound in the Heavens, the flashes of lightning, like serpents of fire, will light up the sky, and with their forked tongues, playing about the dwellings of mankind, will kindle a general conflagration, amid the crash of thunder. The waters of the ocean will be so agitated that their waves will rise mountain-high, towering almost to the clouds. The roaring and raging of the storm-swept billows will last for some time. All the beasts of the earth will lift up their voice, and their dismal howls will fill the air, so that the hearts of men will stand still for terror.

“Yet this is but the beginning of sorrow, Our Lord tells us. What will next occur He describes in these words: ‘Immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from Heaven, and the powers of Heaven shall be moved.’

— Rev. Martin Von Cochem, O.S.F.C. The Four Last Things: Death, Judgment, Hell and Heaven

THE commercial Christmas season has ended, thank goodness, and the stores are filling up with pink hearts.

But the liturgical season lasts until February 2. Rejoice and be glad.

We embrace suffering — and thereby embrace joy.

We are meant for joy, as the bird is meant for the open sky.

FROM a recent article by Andrew Joyce at The Occidental Observer:

It was very gratifying to see Tucker Carlson’s recent attack on the activities of Paul Singer’s vulture fund, Elliot Associates, a group I first profiled four years ago. In many respects, it is truly remarkable that vulture funds like Singer’s escaped major media attention prior to this, especially when one considers how extraordinarily harmful and exploitative they are. Many countries are now in very significant debt to groups like Elliot Associates and, as Tucker’s segment very starkly illustrated, their reach has now extended into the very heart of small-town America. Shining a spotlight on the spread of this virus is definitely welcome. I strongly believe, however, that the problem presented by these cabals of exploitative financiers will only be solved if their true nature is fully discerned. Thus far, the descriptive terminology employed in discussing their activities has revolved only around the scavenging and parasitic nature of their activities. Elliot Associates have therefore been described as a quintessential example of a “vulture fund” practicing “vulture capitalism.” But these funds aren’t run by carrion birds. They are operated almost exclusively by Jews. In the following essay, I want us to examine the largest and most influential “vulture funds,” to assess their leadership, ethos, financial practices, and how they disseminate their dubiously acquired wealth. I want us to set aside colorful metaphors. I want us to strike through the mask. [cont.]

Miss Nancy Rowe, St. Paul Outdoor Sports Carnival Fancy Skating Contest; ca 1910

Read More »

Fra. Bartolomeo, Rest on the Flight into Egypt; c. 1500

“ONE night when Joseph was peacefully sleeping at Bethlehem, an Angel’s voice aroused him from his slumber, and he saw before him one of the messengers of the Most High, who said: “Arise, and take the young Child and His Mother, and fly into the land of Egypt, for Herod will seek the young Child to destroy Him.” Hence observe:

That God’s ways are very different from ours. We should have expected that He would exert His Divine power in behalf of His only-begotten Son, and that the soldiers of Herod would be struck with blindness on the road, or would somehow fail to discover where Jesus was, or perhaps would come and fall prostrate at the feet of the new-born King. How different the course enjoined by the Angel! Apparently so clumsy a way of saving Jesus from His enemies. Yet such are God’s ways–clumsy in the eyes of men. What strange presumption it is that I should criticize the Divine arrangements as I sometimes do.

Then the conditions of safety seemed so unnecessarily hard. Why to Egypt? A pagan land, the very name of which was a synonym for bondage and misery. Was this the only way to preserve the life of the Son of God? To all this one answer: It was God’s will, and that was enough.

But after all it was but a vision of the night, perhaps a dream or a mere subjective fancy. Could anything so wild and imprudent come from God? To all this one answer: I know the message came from God, and I cannot and will not evade the Divine command.”

— Daily Meditations in January, Rev. R.F. Clarke, S.J.

Albert Pinkham Ryder, With Sloping Mast and Dipping Prow, ca. 1880-1885

“LOOK AT a pilot in a storm, a soldier on the field of battle, an athlete in the arena. No one can tell what you are capable of, no, not even your ownself, unless you are exercised with afflictions of various kinds. There is need of trial in order to become acquainted with oneself. No one has ever learnt what he could do except by trying. Great men rejoice at times in adversity, just as brave soldiers exult in battle. Virtue is greedy of danger, and thinks of whither it is advancing, not of what it will have to endure, since whatever it endures is a part of its glory. How can I tell what advance you have made in Trust towards God, if all things turn out as you desire? How can I tell what courage you have to bear poverty, if you are rolling in riches? How can I tell what constancy you have to endure ignominy, and disgrace, and universal hatred, if you reach old age amid the approbation of all, and pass your life without an enemy? In good truth, there is need of trial for the knowledge of self. There is no great difficulty in saying in prosperity, ‘The Lord  is my Firmament, my Refuge, and my Deliverer.’ If a beggar begins for the first time to say,’I am now easy in my mind; this week, at least, I shall not be starved,’ when he has a bag bursting with bread, he shows that he is a man destitute of hope.’Hope that is seen is not hope; for what a man seeth, why doth he hope for? But if we hope for that which we see not, we wait for it with patience.’ [Rom. VIII. 24, 25] Our Trust, therefore, shines most conspicuously at that time when flowing blood proclaims wounds, when waves beat into the frail ship, when we are enclosed in difficulties; this is the place, and this is the time for Trust.

— Fr. Jeremias Drexelius, Heliotropium: Conformity of the Human Will to the Divine, Book Five, Chapter Three

“IT IS, therefore, not a matter of indifference what religion a man professes; he must profess the right and true religion, and without that there is no hope of salvation, for it stands to reason, my dear people, that if God reveals a thing or teaches a thing, He wants to be believed. Not to believe is to insult God.

Doubting His word, or believing even with doubt and hesitating, is an insult to God, because it is doubting His Sacred Word. We must, therefore, believe without doubting, without hesitating.

I have said, out of the Catholic Church there is no Divine faith —– can be no Divine faith out of that Church. Some of the Protestant friends will be shocked at this, to hear me say that out of the Catholic Church there is no Divine faith, and that without faith there is no salvation, but damnation. I will prove all I have said.”

— Fr. Arnold Damen, S.J., “The One True Church“

RABBIS call for eating kosher food in response to “global warming.”

MY latest comments on a recent review of the 1975 movie, The Stepford Wives, can be read at the bottom of this entry.

E. MICHAEL JONES, in this interview at the Patriarchy Podcast, has interesting thoughts about the effects of pornography, including social isolation and passivity in men. Increased personal indebtedness and pornography are “two sides of the same coin,” he says.

Start the interview at minute 26:00.

I WAS in the dentist’s chair today, undergoing torture, when the announcer on the pop station playing overhead interjected between two songs, “If your wife’s angry, tell her she’s over-reacting! Try it!! It works.”

I had to laugh at the way he just tossed that in there and moved on to other things. I bet electricians, roofers and other tradesmen listen to that particular radio station all day. As they are working, some of them are probably thinking, “What did I do wrong?”

I don’t mean to make light of men who have lost almost everything because their wives are mad. Those serious cases aside, is this a good suggestion for the ordinary kind of anger a husband may encounter? No, I don’t think it is — even if she is over-reacting.

Men may be genuinely perplexed or taken off guard when a wife gets mad at them. They may truly not understand why she is so upset. The worst thing they can do in response is 1) get angry themselves or 2) just dismiss a wife’s feelings. Saying, “You’re just over-reacting,” is a form of dismissal. I think it will just make things worse. Read More »

One of many books written in the 50s and 60s  about flying saucers

In Saucerology, as in much else in modern life, there was a passionate desire not to know and not to learn.  I saw this in the way journalists and Saucer Fans reacted when it was determined that a certain Flying Saucer incident involved the planet Venus. It was typical for them to say “It was just Venus” or “It was only Venus.” The key words there are “just” and “only.”  

****

ALAN writes:

Nearly half a century has gone by since I last spoke with my friend Arthur. He was a chemist who worked for a company in south St. Louis. I never called him Arthur. He called himself “Art” and encouraged me to do likewise, even though he was old enough to be my father.

He was born in St. Louis but at one point moved to California and attended Hollywood High School. He then came back to St. Louis and worked as a teacher, swimming instructor, and with the Boy Scouts.

We met in 1967 because of our mutual interest in science and the Flying Saucer controversy. Separately, each of us had read many accounts by people like military and commercial airline pilots who said they had seen extraordinary objects in the sky.  Each of us had read the 1956 book The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects by USAF Captain Edward Ruppelt, whose job it had been to investigate and evaluate such accounts.  I bought my paperback edition at a small bookshop next to the Ritz Theater on South Grand Boulevard (both demolished years ago).  I remember reading that book in my bedroom on the night in January 1967 when a tornado struck St. Louis County.

I was a misfit at age 17. Nearly all teenage boys liked sports, cars, and girls. I liked girls but had zero interest in sports and cars. I preferred to read and to think. The Saucer Mystery provided an opportunity to do both.

While eating breakfast on the morning of Nov. 2, 1966, I heard a radio news announcer say that a UFO was in the sky at that very moment.  So I went outside to see it, and there it was: A small silvery object high in the clear, blue southwestern sky.  But it wasn’t a UFO.  It didn’t even have the letters “UFO” painted on it. I was rather disappointed that no alien beings were standing on the top deck and waving to me. Read More »

“IT IS much to be regretted that persons who have many important things concerning their spiritual welfare on their minds, from pride and false shame, would rather go to perdition than ask advice, solely for fear of showing their ignorance.”

— Leonard Goffine, 1871 Read More »

AMERICAN-style feminism has met a serious foe in the patriotism of the British.

Social media and newspapers comments sections continue to show stinging condemnation of Meghan Markle for the decision by her and Prince Harry to set off on their own. “Megxit” is an insult to the queen and taxpayers who support the monarchy, many say. Buckingham Palace is reportedly in crisis mode. A meeting is scheduled between the Queen and her grandson tomorrow.

Many believe Meghan is responsible. “Meghan is blamed for the couple’s bombshell move, with just 4 per cent saying it was Harry.” (The Daily Mail)

It’s ironic that a beautiful woman and feminist should be at odds with an institution that has produced some of the most powerful women in the world. Here’s the 93-year-old, indestructible queen driving her Land Rover on the grounds of Sandringham House yesterday.

Women’s rights are Meghan’s burning cause. The new foundation she and Harry have created emphasizes that mission. She is reported to have been deeply unhappy in her role as royal emissary and wanting to put her own stamp on her future — even though she hasn’t been with Harry, pseudo-marriage that it is, for two years [yet].

Feminism has been a sort of religion for Meghan since she was a young girl — and who can blame her since she was surrounded by it at an impressionable age? Even at 11, she was swept up into the cult. Her efforts to get Palmolive to stop associating its dishwashing liquid with women show a truly touching idealism. Read More »

Irvin Kline, c1910 Postcard

I DON’T approve of racial discrimination in hiring, but the literary star Louisa May Alcott most definitely did.

Curiously, this did not affect her sensational success. A new movie version of her novel, Little Women, is showing in theaters now — and yet no one is suggesting a boycott. Very few people even know about Alcott’s racism.

Her main beef was with the Irish. After working with Irish maids, Alcott decided never to hire them again.

In 1874, Alcott wrote an article, “The Servant Girl Problem,” recommending that other women not hire Irish servants too. She apparently wanted to make this discrimination global.

 Last spring, it became my turn to keep house for a very mixed family of old and young, with very different tastes, tempers and pursuits. For several years Irish incapables have reigned in our kitchen, and general discomfort has pervaded the house. The girl then serving had been with us a year, and was an unusually intelligent person, but the faults of her race seemed to be unconquerable, and the winter had been a most trying one all around.

My first edict was, “Biddy must go.” “You won’t get any one else, mum, so early in the season,” said Biddy, with much satisfaction at my approaching downfall. “Then I’ll do the work myself, so you can pack up,” was my undaunted reply. Biddy departed, sure of an early recall, and for a month I do the work myself, looking about meantime for help.

“No Irish need apply,” was my answer to the half-dozen girls who, spite of Biddy’s prophecy, did come to take the place.

I would like to know more about those “faults of her race,” but Alcott does not specify. She eventually found competent American women:

Dear ladies, don’t say this is sentimental or impossible, but try it in all good faith, and take the word of one who has known both sides of the mistress and maid question, that if you do your part faithfully you need never again have your substance wasted, your peace destroyed and your home invaded by foreign incapables.

I have no problem with Alcott’s hate crimes. In finding fault with the Irish, I actually think she had a point. But then I’m Irish.

Not all big-shot literary figures disliked Irish maids. Emily Dickinson was said to have been inspired by hers. For myself, I’d happily employ a defective Irish housekeeper, if I could afford it. Better to have one than be one. Read More »

AFUA HIRSCH, author and barrister, adds to the chorus of those who say Meghan Markle, the Duchess of Sussex, has been driven from her royal duties by the racism of the British people. Writing in The New York Times, Hirsch says:

I am not at all surprised. This was the bitter shadow of their sunny May 2018 wedding. How many of us suspected — hoping but doubting we were wrong — that what would really initiate Meghan into her new role as a Briton with African heritage would be her experience of British racism. And ironically, by taking matters into their own hands, Harry and Meghan’s act of leaving — two fingers up at the racism of the British establishment — might be the most meaningful act of royal leadership I’m ever likely to see.

Ms. Hirsch, who is black and Jewish, comes up with not one serious attack on Markle’s heritage. Everything, including a supposedly offensive brooch worn by Princess Michael of Kent and a stupid joke by a BBC journalist who was instantly fired, is petty. A woman of African descent is welcomed into the British Royal Family and given a $32 million wedding. And the British are racist!?

The Ashanti Royal Family of Ghana (below) does not look any more racially diverse than the British royal family. Would Hirsch consider it racist if it treated a foreign-born white woman with the same level of respect that Meghan has received?

Racial consciousness is part of human nature. But few societies have eliminated its overt expression for one particular group as much as modern Britain. Hirsch’s screed reads like a rant of jealousy. And behind this dark envy is a desire to get people to focus on race more, not less. Hirsch, who has argued that Nelson’s Column in Trafalgar Square is a symbol of white supremacy, is the author of  Brit(ish): On Race, Identity and Belonging and is a product of British elite schools. She seems to have done well for herself in racist Britain. If highly altruistic whites didn’t get a masochistic thrill out of being accused of racial hatred and if they didn’t have genuine goodwill toward non-whites, she surely would not be enjoying such success. The very existence of her article proves that what she says is not true and that the opposite is true: white Britons are surrounded by a sea of resentment.

The Ashanti Royal Family of Ghana

If the media paid more attention to Britain’s communities of color, perhaps it would find the announcement far less surprising. With a new prime minister whose track record includes overtly racist statements, some of which would make even Donald Trump blush, a Brexit project linked to native nationalism and a desire to rid Britain of large numbers of immigrants, and an ever thickening loom of imperial nostalgia, many of us are also thinking about moving.

How about it, Ms. Hirsch? Why not go?