Only two damn days left

Here is an article which rings just as true with me as it did two years ago when it was written.

Anyone else sick of the Pride flag? It’s everywhere. It flutters from virtually every building in central London. Town halls across the country are emblazoned with it. Every bank, corporation, supermarket and celebrity Twitter account has had a rainbow makeover. There are Pride-themed sandwiches, beer bottles, cakes. Jon Snow has even worn Pride-coloured socks. You could be forgiven for thinking we’ve been conquered by a foreign army that has proceeded to stick its flag in every nook, cranny and orifice of the nation.

Of course in retrospect, the author Brendan O'Neill was because a little bit optimistic when he wrote this:

[T]he reason it’s a whole month is because we are at the fiftieth anniversary of the New York Stonewall Riots of 1969, when gays, lesbians, drag queens and others fought back against cops who kept barging into gay bars and harassing the clientele.

Hate to tell you, but it will be a month forever now. And do you really want to be the person who says "Hey, it's July 1. Time to take down the rainbow flag," to your boss at work?

It’s no longer enough to leave homosexuals alone to live however they choose and to inflict on them no persecution or discrimination or any ill-will whatsoever on the basis of their sexuality, which is absolutely the right thing for a civilised liberal society to do. No, now you have to validate their identity and cheer their life choices. You must doff your cap to that omnipresent bloody rainbow. Today it isn’t homosexuals who are persecuted; it’s their critics, whether it’s Ann Widdecombe or Tim Farron, with their well-known aversion to gay romping, or those Muslim parents in Birmingham who don’t think six-year-old Muhammad needs to know that some men sleep with men.

...

But there are many reasons why it might be a good idea to dissent from the orgy of Pride conformism and to refuse to bow and scrape before the rainbow flag. That flag sums up everything that is wrong with our era. Its message is that you should be proud of yourself simply for what you are — for having been ‘born this way’, as Lady Gaga puts it — rather than for what you have achieved.

As a symbol, it’s a celebration of the self, of an accident of birth, of something as mundane as who one sleeps with. It’s an invitation to narcissism and, as such, it further corrodes the social solidarity and sense of community so many of us long for today. Pride, the institution, is anti-social.

Well, yeah. These are strong words from a guy who earlier states "The Stonewall uprising was a very positive movement. It gave rise to struggles for gay liberation and equality. The gains made by gay-rights warriors over the past five decades have been amazing and important." He is far more accepting of homosexuality than someone like me, and I think we should realize that there are plenty of people out there who feel the same way who are not part of the so-called "religious right".

You look at these new race-baiters and nuts in BLM and it is easy to see why they are continuing to claim that they are oppressed, even while purchasing huge mansions. I mean, it is totally working for the gays. They are no longer persecuted at all, yet straight people are behaving like they are, and are trampling over each other to raise actual flags to celebrate their lifestyle. It is a triumph of marketing over facts.

So happy there are only two damn days left in "Pride Month".

ROCOR's Statement on Brother Nathanael

Youtube makes recommendations on what to watch if you have an account. Fortunately you can turn them off by clicking on the three dot marker and clicking Not Interested. Today I was shown a recommendation for an anti-Semitic video rant from someone calling himself Brother Nathanael and dressed up like a Halloween cardboard version of an Orthodox monk. I think I was probably shown this due to some crazy white supremacist videos I'd watched defending Hitler's murder of millions several months ago. I commented on one, saying something like "Poor wittle Hitler, just weacting to histowical events...." to which someone replied "F**K YOU". Funny.

Googling Brother Nathanael brought up this page which gives you the score on the guy. Basically he's a whack-job who only poses as some sort of monk or Orthodox Christian religious leader. Excerpt:

Though I have never posted anything specifically on Brother Nathaniel on this website, I have received dozens of emails over the past few years asking about him. I informed people of what I knew about him from those who personally have known him, all of which were very disturbing things.

Among the things I was informed about and have now been documented online in various sources, is that he is a man with mental problems (pleasant on his medication though very unpleasant when not) who has caused enough disturbances in a few monasteries in America so that he was kicked out of all of them, at least once by police. He is not and never was a monk. He was a novice in an Old Calendarist monastery in Colorado, but was kicked out of there too. He claims to be a legitimate monk from a legitimate Orthodox monastery, but this is not true. He is in fact a showman who likes to be the center of attention with a persecution complex, though he is well off financially after being successful in business. He is fixated on his Jewish heritage, a sort of love/hate relationship, and obsessed with conspiracy theories that more often than not come out as anti-semitic poisonous rants. He also wears a white skuphos which is only reserved for Metropolitans in the Slavic churches, and a pectoral cross which is forbidden to novices.

If you have some extra time, read that David Abel link. Wow.

So this confirms that the guy is nuts and not any type of official representative of any Christian church whatsoever. The post also includes this official missive from ROCOR which I find highly amusing.

The Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia has recently received repeated complaints about the activities of and statements made by a certain Nathanael (Kapner), who lives on the territory of the Western American Diocese, but has no relation to it.

The clergymen and laity of the Russian Church Abroad are hereby informed that the actions of Nathanael (Kapner) do not have the blessing of the Synod of Bishops.

Profoundly saddened by the state of his soul, we call upon Nathanael (Kapner) to refrain from posting on the Internet, to a life of repentance of peace in Christ, “where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all” (Colossians 3:11).

+KYRILL,

Archbishop of Western America and San Francisco

Secretary of the Synod of Bishops.

July 17, 2013

Yes, we concur. Plus: ditch the costume, go take your frickin' meds, and please don't tell us you built a time-machine out of a DeLorean.

Lies, Stupid Lies and Even Worse Apologies

As usual, a ridiculous situation has reminded me of one of the Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey. This time the ridiculous thing is the whole apology after the Brian Williams helicopter lie, the lie which seems to resemble the Dan Rather Bush lie, the Lena Dunham rape lie, the AP Irish nuns lie, etc. Here's the Deep Thought (source):

I guess I kinda lost control, because in the middle of the play I ran up and lit the evil puppet villain on fire. No, I didn't. Just kidding. I just said that to help illustrate one of the human emotions, which is freaking out. Another emotion is greed, as when you kill someone for money, or something like that. Another emotion is generosity, as when you pay someone double what he paid for his stupid puppet.

Like I said, ridiculous. But no less ridiculous than the Brian Williams apology. Full Text (source):

On this broadcast last week, in an effort to honor and thank a veteran who protected me and so many others after a ground-fire incident in the desert during the Iraq War invasion, I made a mistake in recalling the events of twelve years ago. . . . I want to apologize. I said I was traveling in an aircraft that was hit by RPG fire; I was instead in a following aircraft. We all landed after the ground-fire incident and spent two harrowing nights in a sandstorm in the Iraq desert. This was a bungled attempt by me to thank one special veteran, and by extension, our brave military men and women, veterans everywhere, those who have served while I did not. I hope they know they have my greatest respect, and also now my apology.

Wwwwwoooooooowwwwwww.... Where is Michael Bloomberg when you need him?

It's what is really impressive to me, saying you got shot down, and then realizing that you just mis-remembered what actually happened. No one seems to appreciate that a lot of exciting things happen in your awesome life and, gee-whiz, why are they all upset that you can't remember small details? "Hey, I single-handedly fought off nine black-belts in that bar fight, and everyone is upset that I said it was ten! Like I was trying to exaggerate. Man, give me a break."

You have to wonder if they learn this in journalism school. I'm pretty sure they do, and they practice on town floozies in dive bars. I'll bet it works on them sometimes. Veterans on the other hand... not so much.

Looks like 2015 might be another record breaking year for lies, just like 2014.

Real Thing vs Counterfeit

Father Longnecker spells it all out with regard to the real divide with clarity. Excerpt:

“You believe the old, old story of a loving God and a rebellious humanity. You think the church’s main goal is to proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ, to heal the broken hearted and set the prisoners of sin free. You believe in the saving, precious blood of Jesus and the threat of hell and the hope of heaven. Right?”

“Of course” he grinned.

“Well, those other people don’t believe in all that. They think the Christian faith is simply about making the world a better place. They believe no one will go to hell because God is completely merciful. They therefore do not think it is necessary to preach about repentance of sin and salvation of souls. Consequently, their religion is one of social work and political activism. They are passionate about inequality and see people as victims rather than as guilty souls.”

“So the argument is theological?”

“Every argument is theological.”

“We’re really believe two different forms of Christianity.”

“It is more true to say that you believe in Christianity. They believe in something else which they have mistaken for Christianity.”

The facade goes so deep in the world that the counterfeits appear to be actually more real than the real thing at times.

What a lot of people don't realize is that when bishops like Cardinal Burke try to keep Catholics like Nancy Pelosi from receiving communion, what they are attempting would primarily redound to these Catholics' own good. There might be secondary effects which would be prevented, like the scandal caused by a pro-abortion politician acting like it's no biggie what they support. But scandals aren't eternal — hell is. I'm not the first or greatest person to suggest this.

If traditional bishops and priest keep their intentions pure, they can truly state that they are "loving their enemies", even if they are portrayed in the media as grouchy old men with a penchant for fancy clothes. Whereas these others who do not truly believe are using the Catholic religion in a most disingenuous way, and are almost always idealized as the best representatives of their "faith traditions". They are the nice Catholics. Volumes have been written about this phenomenon, and there are many times a place for prudence and suavity in the proclamation of the truth. But my main point is that some grouchy old dude might be the guy that saves your life—or your soul—and that smiling, attractive person might alleviate your conscience but take your soul straight down.

Was The American Conservative's Rod Dreher previously Beliefnet's "Jackie"/Lena Dunham?

In my comments to Pikkumatti's excellent post here I make a case that at least must be addressed. In the wake of Dreher's latest post on Lena Dunham - still titled in Google's as yet uncached version as "Liar Liar Lena Dunham" like its permalink - I'll summarize those comments here.

This morning, the Senate Intelligence Committee will be releasing its torture report on Bush-era CIA interrogation methods. Four years ago, middle-aged professional writer Rod Dreher, then writing for Beliefnet, accused persons associated with Louisiana School for Math, Science, and the Arts of willfully enabling the torture of a student assigned to their care - him.

Remember, four years ago Rod Dreher had already long since been established and well known as a professional writer, someone well-acquainted with what his carefully chosen words mean.

In this Beliefnet post (screen capture here, because Dreher's Beliefnet posts have a habit of mysteriously disappearing), Dreher claims:

When I think about the bullying I endured in high school, the most indelible image on my mind is being pinned to the floor and tortured in a hotel room on a school trip, and the two adult women chaperones in the room literally stepping over me, lying there screaming for them to help me, as they left the hotel room.

From my comments on Pikkumatti's post, here's how serious this really is:

• Dreher was born in 1967.

• According to numerous references throughout his writings, he attended high school at an actual high school, the Louisiana School for Math, Science, and the Arts

• If he started first grade at 6, that would have been 1967 + 6 = 1973

• Starting high school 8 years later would make the opening time bracket of the torture episode 1981

• Therefore, Rod Dreher is publicly claiming that, sometime between the years 1981 and 1985 (give or take a year on each end), two female chaperones employed or formally engaged by the Louisiana School for Math, Science, and the Arts allowed a student in their care to be tortured by other students while on a field trip sponsored by that school

• Dreher, long a professional writer as of this 2010 Beliefnet article, is using the same word being used to indict the CIA in the report being released today. He does not modify or otherwise explain his use of the word torture. 

• How serious was the liability which Dreher, at least since this 2010 Beliefnet piece, has accused the Louisiana School for Math, Science, and the Arts of enabling through its negligent chaperones? Why, any thing from being physically burned with cigarettes to being brutally sodomized. Taunting or tickling can in no way be described by a professional writer of the age Dreher was when he wrote that as "torture".

• If the story is true, school records will reveal there were specific real, identifiable women who enabled this torture and real fellow students who carried it out, real torture enablers and torturers associated with the Louisiana School for Math, Science, and the Arts.

• If the story is false, Rod Dreher has libeled the Louisiana School for Math, Science, and the Arts

As fabulists and defamers go, "Jackie" and Lena Dunham have nothing on TAC's Rod Dreher.

So what was Rod Dreher's torture?

A real event that, as reported, condemns the Louisiana School for Math, Science, and the Arts and its personnel for their reckless endangerment of their students? A made-up rape fantasy like "Jackie"'s or Lena Dunhams? Some mish-mash of both?

Either way, in the wake of tales like this what can one reasonably believe about Rod Dreher's factual accounts about anything, from 9/11, to the Catholic Church Scandals, to what his now-dead sister, unable to respond, may or may not have said or done?

Anything at all?

UPDATE (as they say): In the comments, Art Deco wonders whether the high school in question might actually have been Dreher's local West Feliciana High School rather than the Louisiana School for Math, Science, and the Arts.

If so, nothing but the name of the high school in question changes. There either were or were not real and identifiable chaperones responsible for enabling Rod's torture on an identifiable field trip sponsored by whichever high school it was, as well as real and identifiable students on that same trip from which the pool of actual torturers was comprised.

... said the pot to the kettle ...

Our fave Cub Reporter has posted seven (and counting) pieces in recent days regarding the Rolling Stone piece on the University of Virginia fraternity rape story.  Those pieces began with the hook-line-sinker piece entitled "A Fraternity of Rape" but has now closed in on the dangers of shoddy journalism and its defenders.  Fair enough -- many (including yours truly) followed the same path as the story waxed and has now waned.

In one of today's pieces, Dreher offers the following analysis:

If you have a reporter or an editor who believes her own activism and therapy is more important than observing basic journalistic standards of diligent fact-checking and fairness, you have a very big problem. ...

However righteous your cause may be, if you allow your passion for it to turn you into this kind of journalist -- which is to say, a propagandist -- then you are a liability to your employer, your profession, and to yourself. 

Sound advice, if plenty harsh.

But let's hearken back just a few months, tho, (seems like only yesterday) to the dust-up over another shaky piece of journalism, namely the alleged tossing of the bodies of 800 children into a sewer by nuns.  Dreher tosses out McCarthy-like "facts-which-if-true" like this:

If this is true, one concern is that doctors, with the consent of the directors of these homes, allowed illegitimate Irish children to be used as guinea pigs, presumably because in the eyes of the Irish church and Irish society at the time, they lacked full human dignity.

Of course, he followed this up with a bold-type "This has not been proven, but ...".  Meaning that the story is fake but accurate, I guess.  And here's why it was justified, according to Dreher at the time:

I say in this post that I regret being quick to believe the worst, and I have updated the story all along as more counterinformation has come out.  This is a blog.  This is how it works.  I added in this context as to why it's very easy to believe the worst about the behavior of the Irish church -- not to justify it, but to explain how it happens.  It doesn't require "anti-Catholic bias" to expect the worst when it comes to the behavior of the Irish church.  It just requires an awareness of its recent history. -- RD

College fraternities get a better shake from him than does the Catholic Church.  Because .... well .... an awareness of recent history .... uh .... they just do, I guess.

Those who want to read Rod Dreher for the serious substance of his work had better have a short memory.  Remembering too many of his pieces in the past will tangle up your mind in knots pretty quickly -- that is, until you realize that he is merely about whatever style and fashion strikes his fancy on any given day.  Nothing more.

Jigsaw President

I really appreciated Matthew Continetti's piece in which he provides evidence that Obama has, with the cooperation of the media, entirely constructed the character which his adorers see when they look at him. Excerpt:

Obama was similarly meticulous in constructing his positions, attitudes, and demeanor when he became a professional politician. Here, too, his identity was hard to pin down. His alliance with Jeremiah Wright was necessary to gain credibility with Chicago’s African-American community. He frequently voted present in the Illinois state senate in order not to offend particular constituencies. He agonized over his decision to oppose the Iraq war because he was afraid he would be on the wrong side of the issue. His debut at the 2004 Democratic National Convention was a gauzy, abstract paean to national unity. He became, as he put it in The Audacity of Hope, “a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.” He ran for president as a bipartisan ‘pragmatist’ who would bring us together.

The conclusion is good too.

The composite identity that took Obama 47 years to create has come undone in less than four years. It was just as faked as Julia. Behold the man as he is: A “New Politics” liberal whose idealism is dropped at the first sight of an FEC deadline. There’s nothing funny about it.

Continetti proves in this article that the most devastating exposés of this phony chief executive do not have to contain words like "socialist", "communist" or "Alinsky". In fact, they are much more powerful when they don't.