JUDITH SHARPE of “In the Spirit of Chartres” (ISOC) interviewed me last week. Mrs. Sharpe, whom I have long admired for her common sense, talked with me about the vocation of housewife and “The Feminist War on Marriage.” The interview can be downloaded and listened to for no charge for a few weeks here.

I am truly honored to be among the authors and speakers who have been featured at ISOC. They include E. Michael Jones, Cornelia Ferreira, Hugh Akins, John Sharpe, Dr. Robert Sungenis and many more. Check out the terrific talks there on a wide range of subjects, from the state of the Church to economics to various aspects of the culture war.

In the interview, I mentioned the paradox of feminist opposition to the institution of marriage. As I said, most women want marriage and highly value it. Why then have feminists for hundreds of years opposed marriage in various ways and sought to undermine it? Does that make sense? If women continued to devote their hopes and dreams to marriage they would not devote them to Revolution. Feminism has consistently sought a transfer of power. The family must give charge over its essential functions to government, business interests and social engineers. Only impersonal forces can be trusted to bring about the utopian society, so radically opposed to human nature, that revolutionaries seek.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton, the bossy, 19th-century leader of the women’s suffrage movement, so elevated to the status of secular sainthood that I can find a long list of children’s books about her in my local library system, called marriage “a rite of barbarism.” She wrote in 1871: (more…)

  IT WAS once common for women to display charm, grace and athletic skill as figure skaters -- without dressing in skimpy outfits. See more on the subject by Dr. Marian T. Horvat.  

  OUR LADY'S SALUTATION --- St. Robert Southwell (1561-1595) Spell “Eva” back and “Ave" you shall find, The first began, the last reversed our harms; An angel’s witching words did Eva blind, An angel’s “Ave” disenchants the charms. Death first by woman’s weakness entered in; In woman’s virtue life doth now begin. O Virgin’s breast, the heavens to thee incline, In thee they joy and sovereign they agnize; Too mean their glory is to match with thine, Whose chaste receipt God more than heaven did prize. Hail, fairest heaven, that heaven and earth do bless, Where virtue’s star, God’s sun of justice, is. With haughty mind to godhead man aspired, And was by pride from place of pleasure chased; With loving mind our manhood God desired, And us by love in greater pleasure placed. Man, laboring to ascend, procured our fall; God, yielding to descend, cut off our thrall.

FROM The National Center for Constitutional Studies:

The whole purpose of establishing the Federal Reserve System was to prevent depressions, stabilize the currency, and protect the savings and checking deposits of the people in the custody of the banks.

However, there are three things that the Founding Fathers identified as outright enemies to any sound money system, and the Federal Reserve contains all three of them.

The first thing they said the nation should avoid is turning over to a group of private bankers the right to print the official currency of the nation. They said this right is inherent in the people and belongs to the people’s government. Whenever this right has been delegated to private bankers, they have always used it to abuse the people and gradually devour the wealth of the nation. It will be recalled that Jefferson wrote:

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.

Abraham Lincoln also warned about possible abuses by private bankers. After the National Bank Act was passed in 1863, he wrote:

I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. Corporations [of banking] have been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people, until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic destroyed.

***

The second deception in the whole Federal Reserve System is the fact that the private banks which own the stock in the Federal Reserve System charge the United States interest for borrowing the country’s own currency!

The Federal Reserve scheme provides not only that all U.S. currency shall be printed as Federal Reserve notes, but that if the government wants to use these notes it must give the Federal Reserve IOUs in the form of government bonds on which interest will be paid until the bonds have been redeemed.

The question immediately arises, “Well, what did the banks loan to the government in exchange for these bonds?” The answer is, “Nothing, absolutely nothing.” The banks paid for the printing of their Federal Reserve notes and gave them to us, but they are not redeemable in gold, silver, or anything else of value. They are just paper, backed by virtually nothing. The question next arises, “Then why are they able to charge us interest when all they are doing is printing our own currency?”

The answer is that in 1913 the Congress gave the Federal Reserve the legal “right” to print our money, and that right is “as good as gold.” Therefore, if we want to use the Fed’s money, we have to borrow it and give them federal IOUs for the amount obtained. And, of course, each IOU (government bond) is something on which interest must be paid. (more…)

WHERE was The New York Times’s impassioned defense of Haiti, when the Clintons were stealing from it? (more…)

  HOLLYWOOD award shows, like the Oscars and the Emmys, are forms of psychological warfare. Here's an irreverent review of this week's Golden Globe Awards, in which all the women dressed in black to protest .... masculinity. The lust for power -- in this case feminist power -- is like the lust for sex. If not checked, it grows ever more insatiable.

KYLE writes:

As a mother, I know that homosexuals cannot biologically reproduce children; therefore, they must recruit our children.

American country-singer and former Miss Oklahoma, Anita Bryant, made the above comment sometime during her anti-“gay rights” campaign in the 1970’s. Bryant spearheaded fundamentalist Christian anxiety over the homosexual rights advocacy groups emerging in the wake of Roe v. Wade and the Sexual Revolution. Bryant fell on the field of cultural battle; her efforts have proven to be a pyrrhic victory in light of recent developments in public education curriculum that plants the LGBTQ seed in the heads of children.

Bryant’s first foray into challenging social degeneracy was on March 23, 1969 when she participated in the Rally For Decency at the Orange Bowl to protest The Doors’ lead-singer, Jim Morrison–who had just made headlines by pulling his penis out on stage during a live performance in Miami. After some courtroom hoopla and protests from the older generation, Morrison, a known drug addict, would die over two years later at the age of 27 in France. (more…)

WE TEND to think of modern divorce as a product of the Sexual Revolution.

But the post-Christian, philosophical foundations for the dissolubility of marriage were constructed well before the 1960s and 1970s. You might say it began with the Renaissance and its dawning conception of man as god. But it definitely was well on its way 250 years ago. By the time of what is inaccurately known as the Enlightenment, arguments for divorce were being articulated by leading intellectuals. Thomas Jefferson, echoing the principles of John Locke, defended divorce for mutual incompatibility. He filed a divorce suit before the Virginia legislature on behalf of his client Dr. James Blair in 1772, writing:

[I]t is cruel to continue by violence an union made at first by mutual love, but now dissolved by hatred … [t]o chain a man to misery til death. Liberty of divorce prevents and cures domestic quarrels … Preserves liberty of affection (which is natural right). [Quoted in Liberty, the God that Failed by Christopher Ferrara, p. 46]

Divorce may preserve “liberty of affection” for some, but it does not preserve political freedom or justice, two things Jefferson is most famous for desiring. The institution of divorce has brought about, in the words of the writer Stephen Baskerville in The New Politics of Sex, “the most intrusive and repressive government machinery ever erected in the English-speaking democracies.” With unilateral divorce, a parent, typically a father, can be hauled into court, stripped of his assets and children, and even sent to jail without having ever committed a crime.

Marriage, Mr. Jefferson, is the basis of political freedom.

Those who live in hatred should, at worst, separate, but not divorce. (more…)

“IN MODERN society, sexual relations with women are becoming the chief way many men assert their sexual identity. But in most of the world’s societies, sexual relations follow achievement of manhood or accompany it.”

— George Gilder, Men and Marriage

(more…)

THE FAMOUS French actress Catherine Deneuve, along with five other French women, has been the center of attention after issuing a letter decrying what they say are the excessive attacks on men for “sexual harassment:”

Rape is a crime. But trying to pick up someone, however persistently or clumsily, is not — nor is gallantry an attack of machismo.

The Harvey Weinstein scandal sparked a legitimate awakening about the sexual violence that women are subjected to, particularly in their professional lives, where some men abuse their power. This was necessary. But what was supposed to liberate voices has now been turned on its head: We are being told what is proper to say and what we must stay silent about — and the women who refuse to fall into line are considered traitors, accomplices!

They also say:

Incidents that can affect a woman’s body do not necessarily affect her dignity and must not, as difficult as they can be, necessarily make her a perpetual victim. Because we are not reducible to our bodies. Our inner freedom is inviolable. And this freedom that we cherish is not without risks and responsibilities.

This is well said, and the letter makes other good points. But it is fundamentally flawed in its arguments. It also defends, under its same principles, the lewd paintings of children made by the artist Balthus:

(more…)

  SEE the entire film here.

INTELLECTUALS are not always smart. Or not always wise. There are aspects of human existence to which they may be clueless.

Mary Beard, the well-known classics professor, has written a book titled Women and Power. She says the modern world, still affected by the misogynist attitudes of the ancient Greeks and Romans, attempts to silence women. It’s an interesting argument for a woman who receives gobs of publicity to make.

The abusive twitter trolls who attack her, she says, must be placed in context. As The National Post reports:

“Greek myths, early Roman history is configured around violence against women,” she said. “And I think we need to get in there, get our hands dirty, face it and see why and how it was.”

Here are a few responses from an email thread in my inbox: (more…)

THE growing number of female sports reporters is said to be a sign of women’s progress:

Over the past few years, women in the sports world have made progress toward equality in the workplace. But for every step taken forward, for those in the field, it can seem to be countered quickly with a reminder of the work still left to be done.

In April 2016, ESPN’s Around The Horn featured an all-female panel for the first time in the show’s history, consisting of Kate Fagan, Jemele Hill, Jackie MacMullan and Sarah Spain. The panel marked a historic moment that came just a week after the program’s 3,000th episode.

This isn’t progress. In fact, it is the opposite: a sign of regression.

Ideological poses aside, women like virility. Even more importantly, they depend on virility, even today. But men can’t thrive unless they have avenues for male bonding. Sports were the last holdout against destructive egalitarianism.

No woman has ever played professional football. The number of women who have ever wanted to play professional football is infinitesimally small. By what authority then does any woman belong in a job reporting from a football field when there are plenty of men who long for such jobs?

My husband calls female sports reporters “babecasters.” I apologize for his outrageous insensitivity, but a search on the Internet reveals that many men, unlike my husband, have prurient attitudes toward women sports journalists. If they like them at all, it is not because of their skill. Obviously the networks appeal to this prurience by choosing highly attractive women.

Last fall, Cam Newton, a Panthers quarterback, laughed when he was interviewed by a female sports journalist. He was honest and briefly commented on the oddity of a woman using football lingo. He was subsequently punished.

It’s sad that women are so insecure and miseducated in the wake of feminism that they think the point is that they are somehow inferior. Women rule the world by virtue of their dominance in the most important sphere of life: family and social relations. Why can’t they let men have something to themselves — some arena where they can believe that being a man is not the crime the modern world says it is? True femininity is the refusal to dominate men, the gracious and deferential approval of masculinity. Most of the traditional restrictions on women in male spheres were aimed at correcting the imbalance that nature creates: a void in male identity in the face of woman’s command over life itself. (more…)

  AND the star that they had seen at its rising went before them, until it came and stood over the place where the child was. They greatly rejoiced when they saw that the star stood still. Matthew 2:9

FROM George Gilder’s Men and Marriage:

Imaginative advocates of coeducation will tell you that the boys are learning to regard the girls as “human beings” rather than sexual objects. What in fact the boys are learning is that unless they are exceptionally “bright”  and obedient, they will be excelled in their studies by most of the girls. Unless you are imaginative, you will see that this is a further drag on their already faltering attention …. Clearly in a losing game in masculine terms, the boys react in two ways: They put on a show for the girls and dominate the class anyway, or they drop out. Enough of them eventually drop out, in fact, to disguise the otherwise decided statistical superiority of female performance in school. But they do not drop out soon enough to suit educators for whom aggressive boys are the leading problem in every high school.

Adolescent boys are radically different from adolescent girls. The boys, for example, are at the pinnacle of sexual desire and aggressiveness. In school, what they chiefly need is male discipline and challenge, ideally without girls present to distract them. Girls, on the other hand, are less aggressive and sexually compulsive at this age and are more willing to study without rigid policing and supervision. Thus a classroom that contains both boys and girls will hurt both. The boys will be excelled and demoralized by the girls; the girls will be distracted and demoralized by the boys. Both sexes will be damaged by the continuous disciplining that the rebellious and unsuccessful boys require.  (more…)

(more…)

SEE A casual discussion of Muslim terrorism with Kristor at The Orthosphere. There is much more to say on this subject. It's not meant to be exhaustive.