Catholic and Enjoying It!
A reader writes:
Googling on the stuff you posted, I came across this:
He goes on, on the trend in general. Cites this:
Interestingly, a close friend gave her six-year-old niece a Barbie to add to her extensive collection. This Barbie was different, many hours were spent ‘queering’ Barbie up; she represented a different performance of gender that was not easily read as heterosexual. Barbie’s hair was cut short, she had several tattoos, a nose and nipple ring, black leather clothes, and so on. Despite all the effort put into this performance, this ‘Queer Barbie’ lasted less than a week–she was found defrocked and mutilated (missing limbs), hidden at the bottom of the cupboard; ‘Queer Barbie’ was well and truly reprimanded for her gender ‘slippage’ and was ostracised from her more respectable hetero-feminised cousins.
_Despite_. Despite being made a hideous monster, the Barbie did not meet a
girl’s approval.
This reminds me of the following exchange in email that passed through my mailbox. One reader writes:
As a disabled individual, folks like Mike Treder scare the crap out of me. If I wasn’t committed to the principles of proportionate retribution and preemptive strikes, as well as just degrees of punishment, I would openly advocate capping eugenicists the instant they revealed themselves, no questions asked, to protect the interests of everyone else.
I mean come on! Never again? Except every few decades.
Unfreakin’ believable.
Maybe we should, as a free nation, consider introducing a law that imposes capital punishment on anyone in a position of influence–be it academic, political, medical, entertainment, etc…–who more than once expresses eugenicist views from a public platform or in a public forum?–I mean, views that consider some people less human than others or seek to restrict the definition of personhood to include certain humans and exclude others.
At this point in history, it would arguably be in the best interest of the common good of society to do so, which so often faces the threat of imminent genocide.
Penny for your thoughts?
And another replies:
Do not be so alarmed. This is typical for atheists, and, I must say, typical for lawyers as well. Children, madmen, or persons mentally incapacitated are not afforded the full rights of emancipated adults, but are made the wards of some other adult.
Moderns have the itch to undo the various distinctions Creation put in place. Where Christians, and other sane people, make a distinction between male and female, adults and children, man and beast, or even life and death, the so-called Modern thinkers yearn to find examples to cast doubt on these distinctions. They want to see girls raised as boys, apes treated as people, people bred like dogs, children having sex, and grown-ups acting like infants, and so on. Progress, for them, consists of the descent into primordial chaos, and the triumph of the will over all obstacles, manmade and natural, logical and real.
Behind all this is guilt–I do not know for sure, but such is my strong suspicion. Tens of thousands and millions of unborn babies have been slaughtered in the name of Progress, and this holocaust has been glorified as an act of the will to overcome what Progressive regard as the obstacle standing athwart their cherished desire for copulation without consequences, outcome, or offspring.
The solution of killing the child has a satanic simplicity to it, since they can also cloak the murder in the rhetoric of personal freedom, of granting rights to oppressed femininity, and Nietzschean “empowerment.” Killing a baby is their way of defying reality, of granting themselves power over Mother Nature.
If, however, they admit that there are real distinctions between things, that life is not death, that a fetus is not a non-living thing, that a child is not a clump of cells– in other words, if they admit that reality is real, then the whole smug and necromantic dream of pretending that abusing your power over words and names grants you power over nature, the whole dream, I say, is shattered at the root.
Many men are bored by the philosopher’s care he takes with defining his terms at the beginning, but such dry treks through arid deserts lead to a promised land of real truth on the far side. The philosophers who do not define their terms — I am thinking particularly of nihilists, existentialists, and other moderns — are either charlatans themselves, or men maintaining an attractive nuisance, as if inviting a charlatan to come use their works to do his work of malice.
Mr. Treder is an example of an anti-philosopher, that is, someone trying to define his terms by non-essentials, which allows him enough ambiguity to call Koko the monkey a person, and to deny my autistic and retarded son Roland that name. I await the day when the Martians of HG Wells land in his backyard, and, upon seeing his intellect is not as powerful as theirs, use him as work animal, or as a food stock, on the grounds that he does not fit their definition of a person. Myself, I would prefer a visit from the Martians of C.S. Lewis, who do not use intellect to determine if a spirit is blessed, or if life is sacrosanct.
I pretty much agree with everything in this reply. One of the marks of the demonic is the hatred, not only of God, but of nature. The itch to force a six year old kid into applauding some dyked-out Barbie, to “see girls raised as boys, apes treated as people, people bred like dogs, children having sex, and grown-ups acting like infants”–to always assert will against nature seems to be one of the marks of Hell.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In