AFTER I arrived in Ireland, I tended sheep every day, and I prayed frequently during the day. More and more the love of God increased, and my sense of awe before God. Faith grew, and my spirit was moved, so that in one day I would pray up to one hundred times, and at night perhaps the same. I even remained in the woods and on the mountain, and I would rise to pray before dawn in snow and ice and rain. I never felt the worse for it, and I never felt lazy – as I realise now, the spirit was burning in me at that time.

It was there one night in my sleep that I heard a voice saying to me: “You have fasted well. Very soon you will return to your native country.” Again after a short while, I heard a someone saying to me: “Look – your ship is ready.” It was not nearby, but a good two hundred miles away. I had never been to the place, nor did I know anyone there. So I ran away then, and left the man with whom I had been for six years. It was in the strength of God that I went – God who turned the direction of my life to good; I feared nothing while I was on the journey to that ship.

— St. Patrick (more…)

  WHAT exactly happened in Christchurch, New Zealand? Ole Dammegard looks at the event and the way it is being orchestrated. "Was it a crazy lone individual or professionals carrying this out?" Is the reported death toll true or false? (This is an audio interview. No disturbing images!)  

  Source: James Perloff

WAY BACK in 2010, which was eons ago, a commenter at View from the Right wrote about the television show “The Brady Bunch:”

Everything you need to know about feminism can be found in one episode of the 1970s situation comedy, “The Brady Bunch.”

Notice that it’s not called the Brady Family or simply the Bradys. The reason is that it’s about a single father, with three sons, and a single mother, with three daughters, who fall in love and get married. Or, actually, they decide to move in with each other so they can split the rent and have sex while they raise their unrelated children. They do not conceive a child together and thus never form a true union.

[Note: That’s an interesting point about “bunch,” but the Bradys were married. The fact that they did not have children, assuming they did nothing to prevent it, does not mean they did not have a “true union.” Couples are still married in all senses if they cannot conceive. The Bradys’ previous spouses had died. Still, the show was preparing the viewing public for the mixed-up family of television future. In that way, it was cunning.]

It’s the new family! The new husband, the new wife, the man, the new woman, the new son, the new daughter, the new boy, the new girl. They’re not bound by the outdated modes of tradition. They’re hip, modern, and oh so liberal.

There was one episode in Marsha, the oldest daughter, wakes up one day and decides she wants to be a Boy Scout. She goes down to the troop, and the leader asks her, “Why do you want to be a Boy Scout? Why don’t you want to be a Girl Scout?”

Marsha immediately becomes horribly offended. “This is discrimination!” And she goes on a tear. She organizes marches in the streets, with signs, placards, billboards, and bullhorns. Television cameras. She brings the entire town to its knees. Julian of Norwich had nothing on this girl. (more…)

[Reposted entry that first appeared here on June 20, 2011] IN THIS ARTICLE in Commentary on recent scandals involving male politicians, Kay Hymowitz writes: Before the 18th century and outside of Western Europe, marriage was a social and economic as well as sexual arrangement; it had little to do with love and companionship, and no one much cared about whether women were fulfilled or not. Is that so? Where would Shakespeare have come from - how would we have Juliet, Miranda, Katherina, Bianca, Desdemona, Portia, Ophelia, Gertrude, to name a few - if there had been no concept of love in marriage for women well before the 18th century? How would Dido and Aeneas have come to be? How could Virgil have conceived such a pair? How about Penelope, Odysseus's loving wife who refused to marry any number of suitors? These figures were imagined outside Western Europe before the birth of Christ. I offer this other bit of proof that Ms. Hymowitz's historical facts are a bit sketchy. Consider the above painting by the 17th century Dutch painter Jan Miense Molenaer. It is part of his series on the five senses and is aptly called "The Sense of Touch." The great Dutch painters created an enormous body of work portraying marriage and domesticity in the 1600s. This is but one example. I think it suggests that women's needs were at the very least taken into consideration before the 18th century - through the sense of touch if necessary. The man receiving a beating above with a slipper may not be this woman's…

  "ABBOT MOSES was accustomed to say that, as when a general besieges a city he endeavors to prevent any provision being brought to the besieged, in order that through hunger and want the enemy may be obliged to deliver up their city, so the man that desires to overcome his carnal passions, must starve them out by fasting and abstinence." --- Richard Challoner on the Lives of the Fathers of the Eastern Deserts

FROM Heather MacDonald:

The celebrity college-admissions cheating scandal has two clear takeaways:  an elite college degree has taken on wildly inflated importance in American society, and the sports-industrial complex enjoys wildly inflated power within universities. Thirty-three moguls and TV stars allegedly paid admissions fixer William Singer a total of $25 million from 2011 to 2018 to doctor their children’s high school resumes—sending students to private SAT and ACT testing sites through false disability claims, for example, where bought-off proctors would raise the students’ scores. Singer forged athletic records, complete with altered photos showing the student playing sports in which he or she had little experience or competence. Corrupt sports directors would then recommend the student for admission, all the while knowing that they had no intention of playing on the school’s team. (more…)

  ART MUSEUMS are filled with too many frightening images.

TRUMP’S policy against “transgenders” in the military has gone into effect:

According to the Pentagon’s latest memo on the subject, the armed forces will no longer accept new recruits diagnosed with gender dysphoria or recruits who’ve had hormone treatment or reassignment surgery.

Already-serving members (who have been estimated to total anywhere from 1,320 to 6,630) may stay, but will be treated as members of their biological sex rather than their “gender identity,” and held to the dress and grooming standards of the former. Current medical treatment will continue for current members already diagnosed with gender dysphoria, but new transition procedures will not be offered. (more…)

  In Praise of Self-Deprecation The buzzard has nothing to fault himself with. Scruples are alien to the black panther. Piranhas do not doubt the rightness of their actions. The rattlesnake approves of himself without reservations. The self-critical jackal does not exist. The locust, alligator, trichina, horsefly live as they live and are glad of it. The killer whale's heart weighs one hundred kilos but in other respects it is light. There is nothing more animal-like than a clear conscience on the third planet of the Sun. Wislawa Szymborska

  DANIEL McADAMS from the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity interviews Phil Giraldi about the storm over Rep. Ilhan Omar: Democratic Representative Ilhan Omar (MN) has stirred up both political parties with her comments on the Israel Lobby, has infuriated the Republicans with her aggressive line of questioning for Trump's "regime change" expert Elliott Abrams, and has driven the Democrats mad with her criticisms of Barack Obama. Is she on the right track, or off the rails?

"IF THE Lord should give you the power to raise the dead, He would be giving you much less than He does when He bestows suffering. By miracles you would make yourself a debtor to Him, while by suffering He may become debtor to you. And even if sufferings had no other reward than being able to bear something for that God who loves you, is not this a great reward and sufficient remuneration? Whoever loves understands what I say." --- St. John Chrysostom

FROM The Anti-New York Times:

Since the days of “Beatlemania,” the script-writers of the modern world have added the tactic of using the “real lives” of celebrity “role models” ™ as stealth cultural weapons of mass degeneration. The Beatles were introduced to America as four innocent, relatively clean-cut young lads in nice suits from Liverpool, England who sang mindless yet harmless songs. Within five years, their Jewish handlers had completely transformed them into drugged-up, counter cultural, pseudo-intellectual hippies. And millions of the formerly clean living American teens, who had originally taken the innocent bait, copied their musical gods — blindly following lead singer and admitted “One Worlder” John Lennon (“imagine there’s no countries”) into political and social radicalism.

A more recent example of this mass manipulation would be the shocking transformation of Miley Cyrus. From 2006-2011, Cyrus starred on the popular Disney Channel show “Hannah Montana.” The show seemed innocent and harmless enough (though the character lived a double life). With their parents’ blessing, millions of young girls grew up with Miley / Hannah.

In 2013, just two years after the show went off of the air, her handlers pulled the switch. Cute little innocent Miley Cyrus shocked the world with her pornographic “twerking” against the crotch of male singer Robin Thicke at the 2013 MTV Awards. And thus it came to be that a “dance” previously contained within the ranks of the skankiest of lowlife bar sluts soon became a “normal” part of the pop culture.

Then we have “The Kardashian” whores of “Reality TV” fame. Though there was no “bait & switch” tactic utilized here, the stupid show — followed religiously by millions of silly young women and girls — was used to heavily promote inter-racial marriage and trans-genderism (Bruce / Caitlyn Jenner was step dad to the Kardashian sluts.) (more…)

 E. MICHAEL JONES is at his best here in this wide-ranging interview. Don't miss his discussion of the woman who threw a chair at him in a restaurant, apparently because he was wearing a suit, and of why so many people are filled with rage. (I'm not sure who the interviewer is here. As with many amateur interviews on the Internet, it's rough in spots, but she elicits good commentary.)

  IMAGINE you have just been robbed and beaten. As the robber runs away on the street, he stops and starts to scream hysterically: "Help! Help! I'm in pain. I'm in pain. Oh! Oh! He hurt me! He hurt me!" The police show up. They automatically believe the thief is the victim. The hysterics distract them, and the robber has passed the loot to a friend. That's exactly what last week's House Resolution 183 represents: hysterics by defenders of criminals. "Oh! Oh! They have hurt us! They have hurt us!" Criticizing Jews is supposedly tantamount to committing genocide. "Help! Help! I'm in pain!" How is it possible that the most privileged group in America, the group that has brought us excessive mass immigration, indebtedness, multiculturalism, racial politics, unjust foreign wars, legal abortion, staggering financial crimes, ethnic networking that has crowded out others from top colleges and jobs, Holocaustianity, fraudulent evolutionism, psychiatric quackery, same-sex "marriage," exhausted working mothers, pornography, the drug epidemic, sex for teens, transgenderism for tots, media monopolies that have near total control over the flow of information --- and more, gets away with claiming to be the victim?  It's the chutzpah of the robber crying out. It's so outrageous it stuns normal people into submission. The screaming, hysterical victim has moral status. He is so loud, so aggressive, so insistent, he prevents clear thought. Victims rule. There's another trick the robber plays. The police show up. The robber…

THE resolution condemning “white supremacism” passed by the House of Representative last week represents a familiar phenomenon, which Tobias Langdon at The Occidental Observer examines in contemporary Britain:

It’s like the set-up for a joke: “This young Jewish woman and this young Muslim woman walk into a classroom.” But the joke turns out to be a sick one: the Jewess and the Muslim are there to instill guilt in White children and grievance in non-White children. ….. The ideological contradictions are monumental, because Jews and Muslims are both highly clannish and xenophobic groups. The Jewish nation of Israel privileges the Jewish majority and ensures that minorities are kept firmly in their place. Muslim nations like Pakistan actively oppress non-Muslim minorities, often in ways that read like something out of Alice in Wonderland: “the new [blasphemy] laws in Pakistan were also noteworthy on other counts: there were no agreed standards of evidence; no requirement to prove intent; no penalties for false allegations, and no clear guide-lines for what actually constituted blasphemy. Most remarkably, accusers retained the right not to repeat offending statements in court in case it aggravated the blasphemy, leaving the accused vulnerable to a sentence without knowing what was said or done to have constituted blasphemy.” (more…)

FROM an essay by the late great, persecuted columnist Joseph Sobran (1946-2010):

It was once considered “anti-Semitic” to impute “dual loyalty” to Jews — that is, to assert that most American Jews divide their loyalty between the United States and Israel. This is now passé. Today most politicians assume, as a matter of course, that Israel commands the primary loyalty of Jewish voters. Are they accused of “anti-Semitism” for doing so? Does this assumption cost them Jewish votes? Not at all! Dual loyalty nothing! Dual loyalty would be an improvement!

Once again, it’s a practical necessity to know what it would be professional suicide to say. No politician in his right mind would accuse Jews of giving their primary loyalty to Israel; but most politicians act as if this were the case. And they succeed.

You can read Jewish publications like Commentary for years, and you’ll read interminable discussions about what’s good for Israel, but you’ll never encounter the slightest suggestion that what’s good for Israel might not be good for America. The possibility simply never comes up. The only discernible duty of Jews, it seems, is to look out for Israel. They never have to choose between Israel and the United States. So much for the “canard” of dual loyalty.

The very word anti-Semite is reminiscent of the term anti-Soviet. It serves a similar function of facilitating imputations of ill-defined guilt. (more…)