Monday, February 11, 2013

Whence Rayne?

I was discussing some recent matters this morning with some of the veterans of the original Contra Crunchy blog when the name of a mysterious commenter on said blog came up: Rayne. A circumstantial email correspondence back in 2009 informed me that commenter Rayne is female. Here are several of the comments which she made about Crunchy Conservatism at the time.

Here's her first insightful comment.

Now this is rich. The rest of us are "soft" - but Dreher et al - padding about in their lesbian sandals on the cobblestone paths to their artsy-crafty bungalows fretting about their profiles in the Style section of the Washington Post - THEY are the poster boys for Alpha males. Is a Crunchy Con anything but a disaffected metrosexual with a ludicrous passion for food and an unhealthy preoccupation with home decor and ugly, expensive footware? I cannot wrap my head around Dreher hailing from Southern Louisiana - it just doesn't seem possible. No wonder those guys love homeschooling - they probably got the living crap beat out of them on the playground.

Bwa-ha-ha. Next:

Oh my - you're right! The New Pantagruel is Stegall's (aka Fr. Jape, IMO) little self-created soapbox where guess who? James Rovira! is a contributor. Shocking! You're right about the jig being up, Contra Crunch - looks like Dreher's biggest cheerleader, Frederica Mathews-Something, just threw him a rope with which to climb up from that hole he was trying to shovel his way out of:

"Rod... would you answer a question? Earlier today you said:

'I’ve learned a lot from critics of the book.'

Like, what, fr'instance? Care to list off a few? Or is there anything you would change or present differently in the book, from your current perspective?"

Would an accurate translation be: "Rod, you've dug your own grave and there's no graceful way up. Let me help you climb out & then back away slowly; otherwise, they'll bury you."

Here's a third

Great expose - now Whole Foods & Birkenstock should fire their entire PR departments for this colossal advertising failure! Dreher has only served to repulse everyone except his Crunchy Choir with his sanctimonious and hypocritical I'm-so-much-better-and-holier-than-you attitude; basically, just being a crashing bore. What does Dreher care that it's all a scam? - he's laughing all the way to the un-crunchy bank. Anyway, no one is even pretending to dignify it anymore by responding on the NR blog - only Dreher and a new poster (Amy Welborn) already in his Crunchy Corner have appeared today. Not surprisingly, Ms. Welborn has posted 2 nonsensical and irrelevant musings in attempt, I think, to be profound. Someone wake me when this is over...

...and on the same page, a really interesting one...

It's just that the Weinkopf guy didn't say anything remarkable - in WHAT sense is drinking organic milk, staying at home with the kids, and working less than 80 hours a week crunchy? LOTS AND LOTS of nuclear families across the political, social, economic & religious spectrum live exactly this way for a myriad of reasons - but QUIETLY without making exhibitions of themselves and demonizing anyone else who doesn't share their lifestyle choices.

Now Dreher drags in my beloved Benedict to support his self-aggrandisement. Has he NO shame?!

No shame indeed, especially since Dreher admitted today that he was on his way out of the church at the time of Pope Benedict's election, which was 10 months before the publication of Dreher's book Crunchy Conservatism, widely embraced by many Catholics at the time—for some reason. One wonders if that would have been the case if he had left the church before the publication date.

Well, I actually feel confident that Rayne might show up again on this here Est Quod Est blog. She and her wise contributions shall be welcomed by all of us.

17 comments:

  1. Oh my gosh. LOVE Rayne's comments. The woman sure can write!

    ReplyDelete
  2. So Dreher preciously weighs in on the Holy Father's pontificate by calling it a "failure" because of his "sins of omission". And he had such high hopes for him, too. :-(

    FWIW, I second Pauli's hope that Rayne pitches in over here, at the home of "AFC".

    P.S. God bless you, Holy Father. My deepest gratitude for your faithful service to God, and your inspiration to me.

    ReplyDelete
  3. So Dreher preciously weighs in on the Holy Father's pontificate by calling it a "failure" because of his "sins of omission".

    Good grief. Dear Lord, Make that dude shut up about OUR Church, please. Let him focus on the manifold failures in his own communion. Make him mind his own freaking business!!

    ReplyDelete
  4. K, I think I've figured it out. Dreher is just jealous because everyone in the world is talking about the pope's resignation, whereas most people have never even heard of ex-Met Jonah (and even I have no earthly clue who the current Metropolitan is). LOL.

    Also, most people (Catholics and otherwise) have no clue who Dreher is.

    Ah, the green-eyed monster that doth mock the meat it feeds on.....

    ReplyDelete
  5. Even the people at Mark Shea's blog are getting tired of Dreher. Look at the comments. Jonathan Carpenter
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2013/02/haters-gonna-hate.html#comments

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thanks for that link, Jonathan. Very interesting!

    ReplyDelete
  7. I went over to the Mark Shea link Jonathan mentioned and found it interesting as well. I can't tell if Mark is calling Rod Dreher a "hater", or just calling the people in the combox haters. I think he's being purposefully vague in that regard.

    I tried to comment about the type of trad who characterizes a papal abdication as throwing the flock to "wild dogs" but my comment was not approved. So I suppose that I'm banned over there. It stands to reason that I would be, since I've been so critical of many of the idiotic things Mark Shea has said, especially in the political realm. But I find it humorous more than anything else, and I'm thinking it might be time to AGAIN begin calling the whole lot of them on some of their more ridiculous proposals. They have similar feelings toward opinions expressed here that we think represent common sense. I am convinced that they read this blog from time to time, and I wouldn't even think to delete their comments since they usually prove the point I'm trying to make.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hope you do this. Should be fun. :)

      Delete
    2. no, your comment passed the censors

      Delete
    3. I doubt Shea would openly call Dreher a hater. After all, he wouldn't want to offend someone who might give him links (and vice versa). Defending the integrity of the pundit class is much more important than defending the Church.

      Delete
    4. Although now that I read the the thread he may be calling out Dreher. If he weren't, he'd be much snippier to the commenters on his blog deriding Dreher.

      Delete
    5. PZ: "Defending the integrity of the pundit class is much more important than defending the Church."

      Paul, that's what got me aroused yesterday. I was disappointed to hear that Zmirak recently jumped on the "defend Dreher" bandwagon in a Facebook argument. His claim is that Dreher's coverage of the abuse scandal has been good for the Church. Absurd.

      K, yeah, I see that now. So my IP address isn't blocked, it's either my posting name (Pauli) or the link to my blog.

      Delete
    6. PZ: "Although now that I read the the thread he may be calling out Dreher. If he weren't, he'd be much snippier to the commenters on his blog deriding Dreher."

      Right. That's what confused me. My best guess is that Shea wants to indirectly attack Dreher; the safe way to do that is to show how he doesn't approve of the whole AmConMag far-right, traddy potshots at the Pope. Linking to something over there that, by the way, was written by Dreher might be the way to accomplish that.

      I like our style better--just point out that Rod is an anti-Catholic ex-Catholic.

      Delete
  8. And also... it looks like I am banned across the Patheos site. I'm not sure, but I just attempted to post this silly comment here on this Anchoress post as Pauli on my notebook PC: "I don't think it was the tweeting. I think the Holy Father was just really depressed by the Hobbit movie." I was not able to do this. Then I posted that exact comment as Dorgon and didn't have any trouble.

    I need to do some more experiments to verify this, but it's quite curious. Maybe I'll try to post something on Joe Carter's snooze blog next.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, and I meant to say that I posted the Dorgon comment from my iPhone.

      Delete
    2. re: Anchoress banning, don't forget I used this blog to slam her several months ago.

      Delete
    3. Yeah, that's right. When I post as Pauli, I always put a link in there to this blog. However, I did try to post with another name, Jim D, and it did not go through either. So I'm wondering if they have my IP address blocked from commenting. Like I said, it might not be Patheos-wide... but it definitely seems like Lizzy and Shea have given me the boot.

      Delete