Billie Ellish — a heavily-funded package of ugliness, confusion, unashamed lust,  sexual deviance, thuggishness and bad music with moments of classic beauty, genuine talent, heaps of sentimentality and unswerving loyalty to the Party.

PROMOTE sexual deviance and lust as if they were true love.

Alternate deliberate ugliness, vulgarity and extreme immodesty with expensive, classic beauty.

Disguise a ruthless careerism that leaves a train of victims as a heroic, artistic struggle. Confess artistic angst despite being hand-picked, packaged and bankrolled to fame.

Encourage confusion with their multiple personalities.

Convey nihilism with sentimentality. (A spoonful of sugar …)

Portray lockstep conformity as righteous rebellion.

Devote genuine talent to mesmerizingly bad music that is acid to the mind and soul over time.

Confess inner loneliness, which may or may not be real but is an essential feature of the package, offering false friendship to the truly lonely.

Include childhood trauma in their personal narratives. This trauma may be real or not, but is used in a self-aggrandizing way to broadcast victimhood, an indispensable element of their politics of resentment and manipulation of the masses.

Adopt the virtue-signaling political agenda of a super-powerful minority.

Present totalitarian world governance as compassionate.

Provide cover for financial oligarchs with socialist slogans and fierce loyalty to the Party.

Package cruelty, indifference and selfishness as kindness.

Appreciate animals more than children.

Glorify violence.

Promote the occult.

Encourage aggression and fake toughness in women. (Make women mean.)

Create moments of blind pleasure and lifetimes of chaos and alienation.

Earn millions.

Read More »

Splendor paternae gloriae
(O Splendor of God’s Glory)

O Brightness of Father’s glory!
Bringing light from the light!
Thou Light of Light, and fount of light,
And Day that illuminest the day!

O Thou true sun!
Pour forth thy rays on us,
Shining upon us with unfading splendour!
O radiance of the Holy Ghost, be thou infused into our senses and powers.

Give us also to invoke the Father,
The Father of eternal glory,
The Father of mighty grace
That he would drive from us sin and its allurements.

May he give energy to our deeds and strengthen them;
May he break the teeth of the envious serpent;
May he support us when we rudely fall,
And give us the grace to act. Read More »

“ALL the time the aristocratic Suffragette is vehemently asserting that she will no longer be a toy, a doll, a dancing-girl, a merely ornamental thing, a pleasure, she is dressing more and more as if that were exactly what she was.”

— G.K. Chesterton, The Illustrated London News, 1912 Read More »

ONE of many thousands of women opposed to the women’s franchise, Helen Kendrick Johnson (1844-1917) wrote in her 1897 book Woman and the Republic: A Survey of the Woman-Suffrage Movement in the United States and a Discussion of the Claims and Arguments of Its Foremost Advocates:

In demanding equality, Suffragists assume that there is not and has not been equality. In asserting that “there is no sex in mind,” they really have had to maintain that there is one sex in mind, and that the masculine, to which woman must conform. If man wanted clinching arguments to prove his superiority, could he find another to match this one which suffrage has furnished him? The quaint wit of the Yankee put it neatly when he gave the toast, “Woman–once our superior, now our equal!” Man has said: “The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.” He has also said, with Martin: “Whatever may be the customs and laws of a country, the women of it decide the morals.” The civilization of no nation has risen higher than the carrying out of the religious ideals of its best womanhood. If man has the outward framing of church and state, woman has the framing of the character of man.

Ten myths about women’s suffrage

1) Women only had been excluded from the vote. It was not until 1856 (in France 1848) that all white men in the U.S. had suffrage (1869 for black persons). Poll taxes still existed in some states into the 20^th century, excluding men of both races from the vote.

2) The exclusion of women was based on notions of female inferiority. The clergy were excluded from the House of Commons in England; did that mean they were inferior? Men without property were excluded from the vote in early America but not viewed as ontologically inferior.

3) Most women wanted the vote. According to Susan B. Anthony in 1902, in “the indifference, inertia and apathy of women lay the greatest obstacle to their enfranchisement.” She should have included “their hostility.” There has never in history been any organizations of men formed to oppose their own enfranchisement, but large organizations of mostly women were opposed to the female vote.

4) The campaign for women’s suffrage was only about voting. Suffragists promised a restructuring of society and were particularly hostile to indissoluble marriage.

5) The women’s vote was obtained through democratic means. It could not be achieved by popular vote, as demonstrated by numerous failed referenda even in states with the women’s franchise, so suffragists sought a constitutional amendment, to be ratified by state legislatures. They kept index cards of unpleasant, personal information about politicians and were accused of blackmail.

6) Suffragists were seeking equality. They didn’t want military service for women and didn’t demand women plumbers, coal miners or trash collectors.

7) Suffragists had a burning interest in politics. Their publications and books were notably lacking in discussions of political issues of the day.

8) The federal government had no vested interest in women’s suffrage. Women’s “liberation” is profitable for government through taxation of employed women and government supervision of the family.

9) The vote is an inalienable natural right. Children don’t have the vote and are still viewed as human beings. Immigrants, both male and female, are denied votes, but are still accorded basic human rights.

10) Women needed the vote to have political power. Prohibition is a salient example of non-enfranchised women shaping politics. Women and their organizations always had the right of petition — and they used it. It is absurd to say that American women were ever wholly indifferent to politics or wholly excluded from them. Also, when women didn’t have the vote, husbands could be jailed for failing to pay their wives’ personal debts and had other mandatory obligations enforced by law. (Hmm, I do so like those shoes I saw the other day….) Men institutionalized male obligations to women without a single female vote, a fact which demolishes the claim that men in Western society as a whole were historically indifferent to the welfare of women.

Here’s one more interesting myth: The women’s vote would improve society at large.

Gee, has it?

Henry Ford

“SUPPOSE these articles should be truly a sign of the times for American Jewry! Suppose they offer a warning word, however unwelcome, and a light, however undesired, which it would be most unwise for Jews to ignore.

“Suppose these articles were conceived in a spirit far different than the average pro-Jewish spouter is competent to understand. Suppose the ultimate benefit will be mostly Judah’s. Suppose the set time has now come for the Jews to quit their attitude of attacking everyone who shows them the truth, and to profit by this report of the poor figure they cut in American life today. Suppose these people who are moved to search and report the truth about Judah are truly the shophar calling the people to a new day — is it wise to let stubbornness counsel? Is it wise to let pride close the ear?

“The enemies of the Jews are those who defend them for the pay of hire or praise or votes. The enemies of the Jews are those who bespeak them fair to their faces and express quite different thoughts behind their backs. The writer of this personally knows that two of the principal ‘Gentile’ defenders of the Jews, men who have shouted and ranted through the Press on the Jews’ behalf, are men who privately hold and express thoughts about the Jews which are sheer hatred and enmity and—fear. Mostly fear! The enemies of the Jews are those who encourage them to take an attitude that they cannot hold in America—not as affecting their personal liberty at all, but their social attitude and the Public Right. These are the enemies of the Jews, and yet these are the ones whom Judah counts his friends. They are hired friends, false friends, incapable of realizing for a moment what this whole Question means. Judah’s friends today are those who will speak the surgical truth to him, braving his fury in the knowledge that the future will justify the word. Read More »

Read More »

Morning, Catskill Valley by George Innes; 1894

NEXT SUNDAY brings the autumnal equinox in the Northern Hemisphere, when the sun is at its highest point directly above the equator, and the fall season, with its smoldering beauty, begins. The liturgical calendar also assigns seasonal significance to this season. Wednesday, Friday and Saturday are “Ember Days” on the traditional Catholic calendar, days of fast, abstinence, prayer and almsgiving. These penitential days are more important than ever. This is something you can do to help yourself, your country and the people you know.

Reflections on the Autumnal Embertide can be found at Fisheaters.

In the 13th century, Blessed Jacopo de Voragine gave eight reasons to fast on an Ember Day: Read More »

ALAN writes:

“Young and foolish,
 Why is it wrong to be,
 Young and foolish,
 We haven’t long to be,
 Soon enough the carefree days, the 
 sunlit days go by…..”

— “Young and Foolish” (1954)

How very true. And so now, I look back to those carefree, sunlit days from the other end of life. The years 1958-’64 stand out in memory, and baseball was a big part of those years — as it was then, not as it is today.

Grandfather, parents, aunts, uncles, cousins — all took an interest in baseball, mostly via radio, sometimes in attending games at Sportsman’s Park in north St. Louis.  Some of them had played softball or baseball at neighborhood parks when they were young. When I was 9-10 years old, each of my parents took me to games at that wonderful old ballpark, just a few years before it was made into dust. (Frank Sinatra comes to mind:  You could stand at that location today and invoke his recording of “There Used to Be a Ballpark” right there.)

Baseball entered my awareness in 1958. My father taught me the essentials of the game on many evenings and Saturday afternoons at Marquette Park. I learned about baseball cards from classmates at St. Anthony of Padua school. All summer long, we collected them, traded them, and carried them in our pockets.  In spring and autumn, we played games with them outside our school building during recess.  We reconnoitered our neighborhood and found five confectionaries, two dime stores, two drug stores, and two corner markets where we knew we could find five-cent packs of baseball cards in case our nickels and dimes became too burdensome.

The vivid colors, the format, the names and players pictured on those 1958 Topps cards became etched forever deep in memory. My boyhood pal Jeff and I compared our evaluations of such cards as we walked through Marquette Park in the heat of midsummer days, pausing now and then for life support at one of the two drinking fountains. We walked countless times past the screen door with a bell on the top and into the Kozy Korner Confectionary in search of such cards. One of my classmates suckered me out of a nickel in exchange for a 1957 Cardinals team card. (Real value in 1958: One cent.) Couldn’t even trust a fellow altar boy.

I remember sitting in our living room with my grandfather as he watched games in the 1958 World Series on our black-and-white television.  Twenty years earlier, he watched my mother and her classmates play softball at Fox Playground in south St. Louis. If the Cardinals were well on their way toward losing a game, he would get up and turn the radio off in exasperation. At age 79, he could endure only so many losses by the home team. In later years, I felt the same. Read More »

Read More »

SIMON SHACK at September Clues has for years maintained that either no one was killed at the World Trade Center on 9/11 or there were a small number of accidental deaths. Look at his research and judge for yourself. Regardless, many people died in the aftermath of that day as a result of war and asbestos-related injuries.

Shack wrote:

If you have come to terms with the fact that 9/11 was a massive money-making scheme and – of course – a pretext to wage hugely profitable wars, the basic rationale behind this Grand Deception should, hopefully, become clearer. It is essential to consider all the variables which such an audacious false-flag operation would entail and what precautions its plotters must have observed: The Grand Deception plan was undoubtedly meant to be foolproof and, ideally, free of unnecessary elements of risk and opposition. There was simply no rationale for the 9/11 plotters to commit a mass murder of some 3,000, mostly white-collar professionals (brokers, bankers, financial analysts, etc.) whose families would likely have access to first-rate, ‘uptown’ legal assistance. Surely, killing that many people would have been an utterly senseless, self-inflicted aggravation on the part of the perpetrators. Since they could reliably rely on the fully compliant ‘top-brass’ of the mainstream media, they would have used this unique, exclusive asset to its full potential.

Ever since day one, the major hurdle for many people to even start considering 9/11 being an ‘inside job’ has been: “I can’t believe my own government would murder 3000 of their own people”. Once that psychological obstacle is removed, it should become apparent that the whole operation consisted essentially of a covert demolition of a redundant, asbestos-filled building complex. To kill thousands of people in the process never was an envisaged proposition as it would have encountered severe resistance among the insiders involved. The second objective was to blame this destruction on a foreign enemy; an inanely fanciful, outlandish tale involving hijacked airliners used as missiles was concocted, to be supported by digital imagery and special movie effects. How this was done is thoroughly illustrated in my September Clues video analyses. Read More »

IN THIS 2005 interview, Tucker Carlson interviews physicist Dr. Steven Jones about 9/11. After studying the collapse of the buildings, Dr. Jones concluded they could not have been brought down by planes, but were rigged with explosives.

Notice how Carlson does not play the clip of the Building 7 collapse as Jones requests.

Notice also how Carlson cuts him off. By conducting this interview, Carlson could later say he had given “9/11 truth” a hearing, when in fact he had not. Jones appears bemused.

Years and years of interviews like this add up to so much sham journalism. The media has failed in its responsibilities. It’s an illusion machine and only by avoidance, censorship and character smears can it keep the truth at bay.

VIDEO link.

Video link

Gifford Pinchot visiting students at School of Forestry Camp at Gray Towers

[This entry was first posted here on June 12, 2012. It’s still an interesting story. Perhaps the Forest Service has since changed, but it seems unlikely.]

TWO YEARS ago, I posted an excerpt from a book-in-progress, The Death of the U.S. Forest Service by Christopher Burchfield.  Since renamed The Tinder Box: How Politically Correct Ideology Destroyed the U.S. Forest Service, the book was published by Stairway Press earlier this spring.

Burchfield has more than fulfilled the promise evident in that excerpt. The Tinder Box is an outstanding work of investigative reporting and cultural criticism, a blow-by-blow account of how the U.S. Forest Service, with its millions of acres of cherished timberlands, was transformed from one of the most effective and highly motivated government bureaucracies in American history to a rancorous, dysfunctional and despised workplace, a bureaucratic hellhole more preoccupied with egalitarian quotas and sexual harassment seminars than its mission to preserve and govern this country’s vast woodlands.

Burchfield, who has held jobs in the Forest Service, other government agencies and IBM, spent months poring over government documents and interviewing employees of the Forest, amassing a small mountain of evidence. Anyone who doubts that feminism severely damages the morale and initiative of men, and is inherently opposed to the pursuit of excellence, is encouraged to review this evidence. This story is so disturbing, pointing as it does to an environmental disaster of significant proportions, it is sure to be ignored by the mainstream. And that is a crime. Read More »

Read More »