The Miracle Of The Empty Tomb

 He has risen indeed:

Courtesy of Gab

We are going away this weekend, I'll write more on Tuesday. Have a blessed Easter you all:)

Good Friday

 

Image courtesy of Gab

Reasonable Clothes For Women

 Though much of what I'm going to say applies to men as well:)

I get a lot of topics to write about from YouTube videos and discussions. Recently YouTube by some reason pushed some episodes of a Nigerien (that is made in Niger) soap opera about life in a village. It is in some French dialect so I couldn't understand much at all, but I was impressed by the clothes the ladies wore. Now you should keep in mind that in Niger the majority of population are Moslem. However, women don't wear the traditional black stile garment we often associate with that faith, but rather something which I would describe as very reasonable, especially considering the climate.

They wore long colourful skirts with long leggins underneath and long sleeved denim/dark coloured blouses, turbans on their heads and lots of gold/jewellery. They looked feminine and dignified, and their clothes while cool offered protection against the sun.  

When we visit an archeological museum we see women wearing European medieval costumes. They consist of long colourful robes, head-coverings and sometimes hats worn on top of it (depending on the period they are portraying). And while Roman soldiers were known for their short tunics, female clothes were still long and covered the entire body + hair unless she was a slave. Slave girls were more undressed because their modesty and chastity were not protected by the law. 

Traditional clothes women wore in the West until recently were of the same type, though obviously of different styles. Hats and headcoverings by women were still worn till 1960s at the least, though dresses became much shorter. Men still wore long trousers and often hats. Then everything changed. Hats and wearing clothes in general was declared the tool of oppression/patriarchy and to emancipate oneself you have to prance around as undressed as the weather allows.

The funny thing is that while "they" definitely promote it, "they" in this case aren't the government officials but rather the MSM, the fashion world and (female) popstars whose skimpy clothes are eagerly copied by the young girls hoping to become just as popular by being "cool and s8xy".

Various Western governments, on the other hand, keep warning people about the dangers of the sun exposure and urge them to put on what could only be described as "modest clothing", like in this article.

 While they don't mention skirts/dresses (that would be too patriarchal, I guess) their educational video shows a girl wearing a dark knee-length dress. The stores are full of long summer skirts, btw, which offer even better protection since they cover more of your legs. And don't forget your feet. Open sandals are more risky than more traditional foot wear, or sport shoes which one usually wears with socks. 

Isn't it rather funny that all traditional cultures and religions expected folks to cover their nakedness, especially women and that it perfectly coincides with modern medical/scientific advice??? By the way, keep in mind that even when the UV index is low there are still UVA type rays present which normally don't cause sunburn, but they contribute to premature skin aging and are thought to suppress immunity. In fact, this article claims that just using a sunscreen regularly is comparable to botox in making you look younger. 

Well, I guess sticking it to the oppressive patriarchy is worth getting skin cancer and may be even dying. Or is it???

I Only Want To Say

 It's Holy Week again, yesterday was Palm Sunday. I don't have time for an effort post right now so I'll just leave you with this amazing performance by Ted Neeley:

Also, Christ is King!

She Was The Victim The Whole Time

 People got very upset in the past when I said it, but it's true. North America is like the ground zero of feminism. It would be literally impossible in any other country:

A former Tennessee cop who got axed for her trysts with six other officers on the job has settled her federal civil lawsuit against her former employer for a whopping $500,000, according to reports.

Maegan Hall, who claimed she was “sexually groomed” by a cadre of male colleagues on the force, sued the city of La Vergne last year after word of her raunchy romps made national headlines.

On Wednesday, the La Vergne board voted 3-1 at a special meeting to settle the suit, WTVF News said.

Just to remind you of her behaviour:

Hall, 28, made national headlines last year after her stationhouse sexcapades went public, including affairs with her supervisor, Sgt. Lewis Powell, and others.

According to an internal investigation, Hall hooked up with several colleagues, sent them nude pictures and went topless in a “Girls Gone Wild”-themed hot tub party — and even performed oral sex on two cops while on duty.

She also allegedly had a threesome with one of the cops and his wife, according to the city’s report.

The hanky-panky cost several of the male cops their jobs, including Powell.

Sugar and spice and everything nice, eh? Womyn are strong and independent and equal but also can't be responsible for their own (s8xual) behaviour. Well, we can thank Victorian feminism for this, I guess. 

Isn't Tennessee like a bastion of conservatism? But then, of course, conservatives generally support treating adult females like minors out of some misguided sense of chivalry. Well, chivalry was meant for ladies not for well you know...

The woman in question was married, btw. This is a real life example of why many young men eschew marriage nowadays. Here is some advice for you guys: if you are in a similar situation, go for the jugular in court. Victorian chivalry need finally to die out for the society to change for the better.

Jesus Christ And The Merchants

 A friendly reminder that money-making should never be the highest value for a Christian:

What Happened To Kate Middleton?

 This is really weird. What's going on???

The End Stage Of France?

 You probably already heard about it, too? 

Monday's vote by the two houses of the French parliament enshrined in Article 34 of the French constitution that "the law determines the conditions in which a woman has the guaranteed freedom to have recourse to an abortion".

Abortion rights are more widely accepted in France than in the United States and many other countries, with polls showing around 80% of French people back the fact that abortion is legal.

Before WWII there was death penalty for abortion in France. 

It's not enough for Macron, though. Every knee should bow:

French President Emmanuel Macron said on Friday that he wants the European Union to guarantee the right to an abortion in its Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Those are the Western values I keep hearing about so often right? Which make us so superior? You know what they also make us? Extinct.

"We're going to lead this fight in our continent, in our Europe, where reactionary forces are attacking women's rights before attacking the rights of minorities," he told the crowd attending the ceremony in Paris, in front of the Justice Ministry.

Last time I was in Paris, 13 years ago it hardly looked like a European city at all. Something tells me the situation isn't getting any better, because, minorities Mr Macron so cares about, don't use this fundamental right, unlike silly ethnic French women. 

At this point I'm past caring anyway. If the people collectively decide to eradicate themselves to please women and give space to foreigners, so be it. This is just terminal. I simply object of them forcing it on others.

Woman's Duty

 I'm sure by now most have already heard about another victory for the traditional family, this time in Ireland where the voters overwhelmingly rejected the changes to the Constitution supported by all mainstream parties, and kept the language from 1937 which explicitly states that mother's duty lies at home:

The second change — a proposed 40th amendment — would remove a reference to women’s role in the home as a key support to the state, and delete a statement that “mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labor to the neglect of their duties in the home.”

I know American conservatives like to blame the government for everything, but let's be honest here. Who is standing behind the government? Notice that the original text basically means that the family should have a decent living standard so that the mother is not forced to neglect her home for the sake of making ends meet. The truth is that it's "the business community" so beloved by all Western conservative parties which really pushes female employment, just like they are pushing open borders. 

Those people are not your friends. It's time conservatives stopped worshiping merchants and "free markets" at the expense of the family and the nation. And if they won't...it's time for Christians to stop supporting them.

Are They Doing Something With Time?

 Here is a really weird discussion I read on YouTube. People were discussing how everybody seems so busy nowadays and then some guy said: "They are doing something with the time. Haven't you noticed how the days are shorter? They say there are now 18 hours in the day instead of 24."

I know it sounds crazy, but on the other hand though...The days do appear very short. Personally I blame smartphones. You take the darn thing in your hand, check some social media and utube vids and suddenly like an hour has passed.

Well, what do you think? Any ideas?

Meanwhile In Ghana

 Just some news from around the world.

There is currently a rebellion going on against Pope Francis. Some say, it will cause a schism in the Catholic Church:

 A group of 90 Catholic clergymen, scholars and authors have published a joint letter to "all Cardinals and Bishops of the Catholic Church," urging them to oppose a Vatican document approved by Pope Francis that allows priests to bless same-sex couples for the first time.

In the letter, the Catholic conservatives say that Fiducia Supplicans, a Vatican doctrine released on December 18 and signed by the Pope, would lead to the blessing of "objectively sinful" relationships. They add that the cardinals and bishops should "forbid immediately the application of this document in your diocese" and "ask directly the Pope to urgently withdraw this unfortunate document, which is in contradiction with both Scripture and the universal and uninterrupted Tradition of the Church."

Some Catholic priests went so far as to film themselves praying for the Pope to die and laughing about it:

A group of ultra-conservative priests from Spain and Latin America have been forced to apologise for saying they wished the Pope would die “as soon as possible”.

The comment was made during a filmed chat between members of a group called The Sacristy of the Vendée, which describes itself as “a counter-revolutionary priestly gathering”.

In it, Gabriel Calvo Zarraute, a priest from Toledo says: “I also pray a lot for the Pope, so that he can go to heaven as soon as possible.”

Another priest then also expresses his support for the Pope’s quick death, with other participants laughing at the comments.

The video was posted online and has had more than 60,000 views. 

Not only priests, but also some high ranking military officers appear to be upset by the current state of things in the West. Italy  suspended an army general for writing a politically incorrect book:

 ROME, Feb 28 (Reuters) - An Italian army general reprimanded by the defence minister for publishing a book disparaging LGBT people, migrants, minorities and feminists has been suspended from duty for 11 months, his lawyer said on Wednesday...The book says homosexual men are not normal and claims there is an "international gay lobby" trying to brainwash the world. It also appears to question whether Black people can be Italian, referring to Paola Egonu, an Italian volleyball international born in Italy to Nigerian parents.

 Well, I don't know about Nigeria, but in Ghana they don't care about "rules based world order'' any more:

Ghana's parliament passed a bill on Wednesday that further clamps down on the rights of LGBTQ people in the West African country.

The "Human Sexual Rights and Family Values" bill enjoys support from a majority of lawmakers in Accra and has been sponsored by a coalition of Christian, Muslim, and Ghanaian traditional leaders.

Same-sex intercourse in Ghana was already punishable by up to three years in prison, but while discrimination against LGBTQ people is common, no one has ever been prosecuted under the colonial-era law.

The new bill, commonly referred to as the anti-gay bill, now also imposes a prison sentence of up to five years for the "wilful promotion, sponsorship, or support of LGBTQ+ activities."

 Meanwhile in the USA progressives are upset about the pastor who won the Republican primary for governor of North Carolina. He is considered controversial because in a "fiery speech" he declared that there are "but two genders":

Robinson faces off against NC Attorney General Josh Stein, who won the Democratic nod Tuesday, and would become North Carolina's first Jewish Governor. Stein and Robinson will compete to replace term-limited Gov. Roy Cooper.

"Robinson is an abortion-banning, election denying, social media conspiracy theorist and come November every voter in the state will know exactly who the real Mark Robinson is," texted Morgan Jackson, a senior Stein adviser, to Politico.

Robinson, meanwhile, is on a quest to defend America against people "who want to destroy it."

Why Student Loans Are Immoral

My previous post links to VD, and he, in his turn, links to another blog which goes into great length to discuss what usury is and what is a traditional Catholic position on the issue. I'm not sure how many people would really bother to read the whole of it, but since I found the topic very interesting myself, I decided to do a sort of summary of it plus add my own thoughts on one of the most contentious modern issues, student loans. 

So here comes. There are basically 2 different kinds of loans, usurious and non-usurious. Usury nowadays is often understood as charging an unreasonable amount of interest on the loan, but it's not correct. It's the type of loan itself, not the amount of interest you have to pay, which creates usury.

Here are 2 examples to illustrate the point I'm trying to make.

Situation 1. My friend Jane needs 20 euros. She asks me to lend her money. I make her sign the contract which states that if Jane doesn't pay me 20 euros within 1 month, I'm entitled to her hammer which cost about the same. I then can sell it online and get my money back. This type of loan is non-usurious because it's tied to property with real market value.

Situation 2. Jane wants to borrow 20 euros from me. We sign the contract which stipulates that if she doesn't pay within a month, then I can sue her in court for a portion of her future earnings. This type of loan is always usurious, because it's tied to a person, and something which doesn't really exist at this moment. It could be very well that in 1 month Jane loses her job and has no salary at all. Her "future earnings" are non-existent.

Usury is considered immoral because it is akin to slavery, since it lays claims on a person, and not a thing/property. Hence the term "debt slave". By this definition, all student loans are usury and sinful. Even if the chance exists, like in my country, that they are forgiven if you get your diploma. Since it's tied to the possibility of you passing your exams in future, which may or may not happen. This "diploma thing"" doesn't even exist at this point.

Traditionally, the magisterium taught that the sinner was the one who lends, and not the one who borrows. So a student who feels his only chance in life is to borrow money to get a degree is misguided at best, and a victim at worst, while the system which allows for it is wicked and immoral.

Conservatives naturally side with the usurious banker in the case. Sorry, couldn't help it. But there is really a nuance to the whole situation. There should be some sort of a debt jubilee for student loans after which the system should be reformed. However, the proper way to handle it is, imo, not to give those people free money, but simply cancel all the debt. Let the usurer bear the costs. Simple as that:)

Usury Is Morally Wrong

 A very interesting post on usury by VD:

Now, the history of economics, especially as recounted by Murray Rothbard, is essentially the history of relentlessly challenging the Catholic Church’s ban on usury. And in retrospect, it’s clear that this incoherence is the direct result of centuries of gradually chipping away at the concept through adulteration and expansion of the moral and legal permissibility of usury.

Why Conservatives Keep Losing...Again

 

  I think I already wrote about it before:) Anyway, I don't have much time today, so just a couple of thoughts. Conservatives keep losing because it's inherently "bourgeois" ideology, i.e. they are obsessed with being respectable. God forbid they would break any rules, engage in  street activism or, in general, do anything except b8tching online about "liberal double standards" or in the best case, holding a prayer vigil. 

While I'm not a big fan of D.Trump, I still remember how "traditional conservatives" were denigrating him in 2016 as "crude" and "boorish". Remember that famous "grab them by the 88888" remark? It had all these prissy types reaching for their smelling salts. He committed the ultimate sin of "not respecting women" by (gasp) wishing to bed them!!! Oh the horror of horrors, he had a libido.

 Conservatives are the ultimate pedestalisers. They simply can't bring themselves to criticise women so if they do criticise feminism they somehow make it the fault of men. Along the lines of "men are so weak nowadays that women have to join the army". They keep pretending that it's still 19th century and all these sluts girls out there throwing themselves at chad and tyrone are simply pure misguided angels seduced by big bad men. They themselves would never offend any woman by desiring her, hence the reason why they chose chad in the 1st place, lol. 

Being ultimately too cowardly to do anything themselves they spend an enormous amount of time  online attacking those who try changing things by inventing various conspiracy theories about psy-ops and stuff (not that psy-ops never happen, but you know what I mean). They have the personality and charisma of a Victorian schoolmarm and are always ready to scold those who in their opinion, deviate from the conservative standard. They are the enforcers of the speech norms (no, you can't say anything about the behaviour of group X. That's not NICE!!!)

In short, they keep losing because they simply refuse to fight. Conservatism is simply loser ideology. 

“It may be inferred again that the present movement for women’s rights will certainly prevail from the history of its only opponent, Northern conservatism. This [Northern conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation.What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism;... Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom.

P.S. While I do love The Lord Of The Rings there is a reason why it's so popular among conservatives. It's about good guys per chance acquiring the Ring Of Power and refusing to use it!!!