Please, Do Not Remove Shoes Indoors

M. Williams

At breakfast some time ago, a friend and I discussed some of the modern revolutionary habits in domestic life. In the course of the discussion, my friend mentioned that some persons are in the habit of removing their shoes indoors, and only wearing socks, or even going barefoot. He asked me if I had observed this bad habit in various homes I have visited in the past.

Yes, I told him. As it happens, I knew a particular home, built in a style I like to refer to, only somewhat sarcastically, as “McMansion”, complete with 3,000 or 4,000 square feet of floor largely covered with white “shag carpeting”. On entering this residence, the lady of the house told me and my relatives: “Now, just remove your shoes and leave them by the door.” Of course, I complied, but inwardly I thought the command was completely silly, and intimated my objections privately to my attending relatives.

Catholics should not imitate Mohammedans
who remove their shoes before going indoors
Do not remove shoes indoors

In normal circumstances, civilized persons should not remove their shoes indoors, nor should they compel their guests to do so.

Let me start immediately with a caveat: If your host asks you to remove your shoes, unfortunately, you really do not have a choice in the matter. You must obey.

In such a case where one is obliged to remove his shoes by the tyranny of his hosts, perhaps you could use some discretion, discreetly covering your unshod feet with a small blanket, pillow, or towel, when you are sitting on a couch or chair. But by no means should you indulge the bizarre situation by letting people see your un-shoed feet any more than absolutely necessary. When sitting at table, your feet should still be flat on the floor as normal. Where it would otherwise perhaps be permitted to cross one’s legs, when wearing shoes, it is no longer possible: one is obliged to be as discreet as possible, and to cross one’s legs in such an unshod condition is not refined or correct.

Moreover, it is licit if such a host is a relative or intimate friend, to gently explain at a convenient and later time, one’s objections to the rule of removing shoes at the door. In other cases, where the friendship is less familiar, if an invitation to visit be extended again, it is well to reject the invitation, and if asked to explain, one could say his objections to removing shoes plainly and charitably. Perhaps then the host would change his policy.

Follow the example of these 18th century nobles:
Do not remove shoes and stockings indoors
While Catholic Morals teach that the feet do not have any intrinsic “dishonest” (intrinsically immodest) character, I think that unshod feet almost approach a state of being morally inconvenient (like displaying one’s abdomen or shoulders), because it gives the impression that one is following the casual, sensual, neo-barbarian practices of our times.

Do not oblige your guests to remove their shoes

After my family and I removed our shoes, in the home we were visiting – though it may very well be, that my father, who has much noble intransigence, never removed his shoes at all – I understood the reason for our hostess’s policy: To walk on the carpets without shoes, is exquisitely comfortable. These were not ordinary carpets: These carpets were like a very firm, exceedingly comfortable mattress.

There was another reason for the policy, a little more “sinister”: The carpets, very comfortable and therefore very expensive, must be frequently cleaned to maintain their softness and whiteness.

Does this, however, justify the household’s policy of forbidding shoes indoors? Not at all.

The hostess’s mistake, so common these days, is prioritizing comfort and convenience over dignity. She and her husband deliberately installed a very expensive, very comfortable, very modern–and very revolutionary–style of carpet, all throughout their home, which would almost oblige them to be constantly casual. They have handicapped themselves from pursuing refinement: Why appear in “nice clothes” at the table in their otherwise very nice dining room, if they cannot have correct shoes to match their clothes? What would be more absurd than a man in a dinner jacket but no shoes? Or an unshod lady wearing her best dress? It is not even pardonable for children.

Contrast this manly, dignified hardwood floor (left)
with a modern revolutionary shag carpet (right)
I anticipate a potential crude misconception of my words. Just because I say you should wear shoes indoors, does not mean you should wear “work” shoes (or boots) indoors, because those items inevitably will be covered with mud or dust or other unpleasant things. You should change your shoes at least at the threshold of the house, or the mudroom, and replace your dirty shoes with clean, and especially non-casual “indoor” shoes. When visiting another home where shoes are discouraged indoors, you could, perhaps pleading health reasons or some good excuse, bring specially cleaned dress shoes, velvet slippers or even "opera pumps" (court shoes), according to the situation, telling your host that these are clean shoes that have not so much as touched the ground outside, and are quite proper to wear inside their home, even on their “precious shag carpets”.

Incidentally, the policy of forbidding shoes, quite indelicate as it already is, has another inconvenience to it: On receiving guests, to tell them to remove their shoes is to insinuate that you think their shoes (as well as all their clothes) are dirty. You can see how this is extremely rude, opposed to charity, and intrinsically non-Catholic.

A pagan custom, not a Catholic custom

While the shag-bedecked home I mentioned was a Protestant household, this “barefoot rule” is found, if only by encouragement, in Catholic households as well.

Where I live, it is customary in the good homes to have social gatherings on Saturday or Sunday, after the Mass.

One particular occasion is burned into my memory: When I was attending to a Sunday party, and I witnessed a fellow guest walk about the house (in the presence of ladies no less) in his socks. Shocking, and extremely offensive!

Bare feet indoors is pagan, not Catholic  
A concrete way to fight the Revolution

I believe I have provided the reader sufficient reason to refrain from removing one's shoes indoors unless it is absolutely necessary (e.g., bathing, dressing, sleeping, etc.). Remove shoes neither in your own home nor the homes of others. If you are a host, whether or not you have been cursed with those revolutionary shag carpets, do not oblige your guests to remove their shoes under any circumstances. In fact, encourage them to keep their shoes if they ask or have any doubts.

By restoring the elementary good custom of wearing shoes indoors, we can make no small progress in defeating the casual Revolution that is continually destroying what little remains of the dignity of mankind. In doing so, we will restore some dignity to ourselves, our families, and our homes.

Posted 13 May 2020

"PUBG" and "Fortnite": Precursors to Mass-Martyrdom

M. Williams

Several months ago, a relative surprised me with an unusual request. "I want you to try a video game with me," she said, "My friends and I all play it. It's a lot of fun." I wasn't interested: by that time, I had concluded computer games are at best a rare indulgence: besides, most games are bad and revolutionary, a waste of creative energy. "I'm not interested," I might have replied, although I don't remember the specifics of our conversation. But she insisted, saying, "You will enjoy it. It's a war-style game, with combat, and shooting..." This didn't appeal to me, either, realising the problem of violent video games and the mental problems caused by such amusements. But she was persistent, and finally I agreed to play a round of a video game called PlayerUnknown's Battle Grounds, more commonly known as PUBG. "I'll play the game for awhile, and then I can write an article about my experiences and observations," I thought, not sure what to expect yet. 

PUBG: Unabashed nihilism and violence
Although I was uncertain at first what I would find when I played the game with my relative, within moments of beginning play, I was able to reach a definitive conclusion: "This game is revolutionary." My relative and I played for a while, and I soon gained a thorough knowledge of the game, enough to describe it to the Reign of Mary readers and to show just how revolutionary it is. Since that time, when my relative and I stopped playing, I've had several months to collect my thoughts and to develop them. I now believe I understand the deeper implications behind this game, PUBG (as well as "Fortnite", another game I will discuss), implications that are very evil, which will be expounded at the end of this article. 

At any rate, I immediately noticed the game was very realistic, or as video game players are apt to say: "immersive". I was surprised to see how quickly the time passed while playing. All the while, I mentally recorded my observations (and objections) about the game. I knew it was revolutionary, but I wanted to know more. Indeed, it is one thing to instinctively recognise something to be revolutionary, and to leave it at that, which I think anyone can do. It is another matter entirely to penetrate the specific things that make something revolutionary, to examine the revolutionary principles behind them, and to try to see what those principles tend towards in the realm of concrete things. To examine the specific revolutionary things, the principles behind those things, and to make an educated guess on what these things will naturally tend towards in the future: that is my object with this article, in the context of both the PUBG and Fortnite video games.

What is PUBG and what is Fortnite?

Although I have never played Fortnite, is it is essentially identical to PUBG. Fortnite is just a "lighter" and more childish" knock-off" of PUBG. The identical nature of these games is obvious: copyright infringement lawsuits have even been exchanged between both game companies.
PUBG (above) and Fortnite (below)
are battle royale shooting games: to win,
"kill everyone except yourself..."
Both gamesPUBG and Fortnite—contain elements of a "first-person shooter", that is, a game in which one plays as a character shooting other characters. In the games, you can play "looking through the eyes" of your character, hence the phrase first person. First-person shooters are very popular today because they are far more realistic and "hands-on" than second or third person shooting games, where you play more as an observer or abstract controller.

What distinguishes PUBG and Fortnite as games is not their "first-person" style, however. Rather, their shared genre of "battle royale" is what really makes them popular, which is disturbing, because the object of a battle royale game is: "Kill everyone except yourself". In battle royale games like PUBG and Fortnite, the "last man standing" is the winner. The lone survivor is awarded with "trophies" and the coveted "victory royale" title.

In order to win the game, you kill everyone else by any and every means at your disposal: by shooting, beating to death, throwing grenades and bombs, even running over in cars! In PUBG, bomber planes fly overhead dropping explosives that can kill you if you are caught in their sights. In Fortnite, you eliminate all your opponents to the sound of goofy, childish electric music, in colourful, bright ambiences. It is very unsettling.

A serious moral question

"...even running over in cars..."
"It is a war game, so who do we kill in the game?" I found myself wondering as the PUBG video game was installing on my computer. As my relative guided me through the unfamiliar setup, the answer shocked me: You don't kill terrorist enemies: you kill regular people!

But were the "people" just computer-controlled, "AI" enemies? No. They are real "avatars" controlled by real people, all across the world! Why do you kill them? There is absolutely no cause, I discovered. The only goal is to win by being the last to survive, so you kill everyone you can. The question thus came to mind: How is this "legitimate" amusement? I concluded that it isn't.

It gets worse...

Nudism promoted as an ideal
At this moment, the Revolutionary process is slowly metamorphosing. We are in the transition period from the naive, smiley Sexual Revolution of the 60s, to its natural conclusion: an openly satanic society that shuns civilisation and order, of nihilism, and of man emulating animals and Indians as the model ideal. Naturally, violence, in the forms of video games like these, helps satisfy the rising bloodlust among the revolutionaries and neo-barbarians. On the horizon, we see an emerging public cult to the Devil. It is the same with this video game: elements of both the Sexual and Barbarian Revolution are present. Even the public cult of Satan is implied in the game.

One element of the Sexual Revolution in these games would be the absurdly poor dress of the characters. If it weren't so bizarre, it would almost be comedic: men fighting and killing each other wearing underwear, tank tops, sandals... Yet it is only natural such  nudism and immodesty would be typical to these games, because the neo-barbarian and tribalist principles underlying the game are co-natural with nudism. It would be very strange, out of place, really, to see the characters vested "properly". We cannot imagine Indians or Huns wearing suits and ties, let alone proper combat suits, so why would we imagine any differently with these virtual Indians, these virtual Huns?

The model ideal for girls?Muscular arms, tank tops, short hair?
Women in combat are normalised by these bad games.
The picture at right illustrates this well, from the Fortnite game. All "new" characters start very poorly-attired. Only by playing enough games (that is, killing enough people) does one gain "money" and "points", and thus the "right" to wear clothes. As you may expect, the clothes to "buy" are also inappropriate—as you can see in the picture at right. Tank-tops, shorts, baseball caps, motorcycle jackets...all of this is presented as a model for youths to aspire to. "I want to be like the nearly-naked man in the video game, and spend my life killing people with baseball bats...", or, "I want to be like the woman in the video game, with the dirty face, the short, ruffled hair, muscular arms, the tank top, and men's combat pants!" You can see how dangerous this is, and what it will inevitably lead to: not only a society of very poorly-dressed people, but also a society of savages and killers.

"It's innocuous!"—No, it's revolutionary

Amidst all this, I can foresee the many millions of players responding, to justify themselves with various excuses: "But it's all for fun! It's innocuous!" they might say. "It promotes teamwork!" Or even, "It promotes militancy: a Catholic virtue!" How anyone can seriously say such things—and I imagine they willin view of the above facts is ridiculous. It betrays a disturbed mind stuck in denialism. Although I shouldn't have reply to such objections, because this article already speaks for itself, nevertheless I will, to hopefully dispel potential detractors once and for all.

Is Fortnite or PUBG innocent? Of course not. The notion they are "innocent", however, is probably based on something legitimate. Fortnite, for example, is far more colourful and childish than PUBG, which is nihilistic and apocalyptic. So, we will exclude the notion PUBG can have intrinsic innocence, because I don't think anyone would claim that. But as for Fortnite, we need only examine the childish aspects to expose the error in believing it "innocent". It isn't. It's revolutionary.

One example of this so-called "childish innocence" are those ridiculous dances from the Fortnite game which have become very popular on the Internet, and unfortunately in the public schools among youths (albeit often as an ironic joke). Even more unfortunately, though, many disturbed youths shamelessly—and seriously—engage in these dances, not to mock them, but because they actually like the dances. The video at right depicts some public school youth having a "Fortnite dancing battle". All the ludicrous dances in the video are real-life imitations of dances from the game, emulated with astonishing similarity. In view of dozens of their peers, they brazenly employ those most ridiculous choreographical poses. Those apathetic peers at the tables, also very unfortunately, don't seem to care. However, I was heartened, not to mention amused, to see many comments on the YouTube video at right, "This is a good reason why we should bring back bullying in schools," one said. I can't help but agree.

Those revolutionary dances are probably accepted with complacency by the teachers at the school. What else, after all, could be more appropriate for the neo-barbarian public school system of today, than revolutionary, disordered dances like these? If only the teachers knew those dances are usually performed to celebrate killing an opponent in the game, usually in a gloating manner over the opponent's dead character body... 

How very contrary to the Catholic and counter-revolutionary spirit of seriousness are these insane and derisible dances. Do I now rest my case? No. There is one final, and most important, point that has to be addressed.

The diabolical end-game: mass-martyrdoms

So what is the "end-game", so to speak, of these video games? The reader may have already deduced this from the title of the article. The "end-game" of these games is the most disturbing part of all. I will still likely surprise many readers who haven't yet realised what this "end-game" is, even many readers who have heretofore agreed with my line of argumentation with regard to these games. But now we reach that logical conclusion: that these games will one day be brought into reality, resulting in neo-gladiatorial games. Will it be for the killing of criminals? I don't believe so. Rather, I believe it will be for the killing of the faithful Catholics.

Unless the Chastisement should come first (for it seems inevitable, given that men have refused to stop offending God), we are on the verge of a public cult to Satan, which is the penultimate episode in the Revolutionary process before the coming of the Antichrist. In that unhappy age, however short it will be, there will be mass-martyrdoms of true traditional Roman Catholics all throughout the world, which I think could only be exceeded by the killings Antichrist himself will enact. I believe these "battle royale"-style games will be an inspiration for some of the mass-martyrdoms: just as in the days of the old Roman Empire, Catholics will be put into arenas and forced to fight one another, with the illusory promise of freedom if they are the last-man-standing. We can only weep with the knowledge of how many will likely apostatise under those conditions, and only pray that God grace them especially well to resist such temptations.

Thanks to PUBG and Fortnite, public opinion
may eventually accept neo-gladiatorial games
and mass-martyrdoms: the purpose? Entertainment
For those who are skeptical of this, I can only ask them to be honest: do you really believe that if the Secret Forces of satanic Freemasonry, International Jewry and Communism had their way, that they would not enact all sorts of persecutions and killings against the Church and the faithful? Of course they would, because in every instance of history where they gain power, that is exactly what they do. This process, of moving from one extreme to the next, is the Tendential Revolution in action. Thus, if they reached the final phase of their Revolution, total subjection of the world to Satan (which is not actually possible, and will only be apparent when it happens), they would wage war against the Church throughout the entire world in a way unthinkable in our present age. We can have little doubt that these video games, which are themselves the inspirations and workings of the Secret Forces, are a model and a foreshadowing of what awful and horrendous attacks will be waged against the faithful in that evil time.

I believe these video games—so greatly "hyped and promoted"—are really and ultimately a tool of the Judeo-Masonic Secret Forces to tendentially prepare the public for neo-gladiatorial games, and eventually, mass-martyrdoms. Let's therefore do what we can to stop these games, and in doing so, engage in active counter-revolution against Antichrist himself. May Our Lady help us in this, and may she grant us that age of peace promised at Fatima and Quito, so we may not experience these dreaded persecutions in our epoch.
Posted 15 January 2019

A Schizophrenic "Catholic" Youth Conference

M. Williams

A youth conference for Catholics, held from 3-7 January 2019, just finished. It is called "SEEK 2019", the creation of "FOCUS", the same organisation responsible for those infamous "LifeTeen" masses. When I first heard of this conference from some traditionalist friends who were criticising it, I could tell something was "off" almost immediately. For example, the one-word name of the Conference: "SEEK", and the use of a verb as a noun immediately followed by the year: "SEEK 2019" told me I would likely encounter that schizophrenic, confused gnosticism typical of Novus Ordo circles.

Since it's a youth conference, I reasoned correctly that the best way to find primary source information would be via social media. Opening Twitter, I searched for the conference, and found hundreds of results, most of them in the form of pictures and videos. The vast majority of those pictures and videos are in one way or another (albeit unintentionally) offensive to Catholic morality. I will be sharing and commenting many of those pictures in this article. Thus, those who would rather not see such things should not read any further.

Scott Hahn receives the "St." John Paul II award at SEEK 2019
In reality, it did not take me long to do my research effectively: not minutes, but seconds, was all it required to have a good grasp of the ambience of the Conference. I can describe it in several terms, some of which I've already used: "schizophrenic", "confused", "offensive to Catholic morality", and others—feminist (and effiminate), thoroughly imbued with the Novus Ordo mentality: "all is well", and much more. In this article, I hope I will be able to effectively discuss all of those themes and more.

Yes, it really took only a moment to confirm my initial suspicions, but I still spent the better part of an hour just looking at the Tweets, the pictures, the videos. If I could give an "unum" to the "SEEK 2019" conference, I would say it is in the same spirit of those infamous and amoral World Youth Days. The only thing missing from the picture is the Pope presiding over the dancing, the rock concerts, the hodgepodge of ideologies present at the events, the guitar Masses—I also believe that, though Pope Francis was not present at the Conferences in the flesh, he certainly was in spirit.

Bad fashions

Another intuitive expectation I had about my research, before I even began, would be overwhelming immodesty. In general, I expected bad fashion, and I found it in almost everyone in every picture I saw of the Conference. Bad fashions were the foremost of my expectations, and they were also foremost of my observations. They are the most striking and most immediately-noticeable problem with this youth conference, whose standards of modesty are, apparently, "anything goes except outright nudity". These two pictures below, of two "different" groups, illustrate this:

An immodest and egalitarian "uniform"

I believe these pictures give a good sample of the fashions typical of Conference attendees, and it also gives a good idea of the male-to-female ratio, another troubling aspect. The women are universally wearing either jeans or elastic pants. The use of skirts is very rare in my observations, and most of the skirts are above-the-knee or otherwise immodest.

Also, the men, who are clearly the minority in this picture, wear the same thing as the women. The clothing is unisex and egalitarian: there are absolutely no apparent distinctions among the attendees.  

Unisex revolutionary attire
I can imagine someone countering: "Look at the sheer number of youth attending this conference. Isn't this proof that the Church is growing and strong?"I would answer: No, it isn't. This looks more like a women's conference than a youth Conference. The fact that so few men are present tells me the men think the conference is too feminine. Also, I would imagine many of the men actually present have something of an ulterior motive: "I am not interested in the conference, I am just here to get a girlfriend or a wife"...while not necessarily an evil motive, it shouldn't be the primary motive for conference attendees, for a Conference that is allegedly about teaching the Faith and such as that.

It is unsurprising, then, that the men would be wearing indistinguishable unisex clothing so they can more easily "blend in" with the women: tee shirt and blue jeans, and only occasionally a "formal" polo shirt. In their perverse logic, lowering themselves to the level of the women makes them more agreeable to the women. To dress "properly" is "nerdy" and therefore unattractive. The men, then, are just like the modern clergy who wear lay clothes under the pretext of "humility". 

Rather than setting a more formal and tendentially Catholic tone, as men are supposed to do, the men go along with the trends.

Bad example of clergy and conference speakers

Fr. Mike Schmitz, Jen Fulwiler
and Dn. Larry Oney

Of course, it is only natural that the vast majority of conference attendees would dress so inappropriately. The tee shirt, jeans, and tennis shoe, or some variation thereof, are what everyone wears. As (I believe) Dr. Marian Horvat described it, it is the "uniform of the Revolution". Why would it be any different at a conference for the aggiornamento Church of today? Moreover, why would it be any different for the clergy or the other conference speakers?

I was completely unsurprised to see how sloppy and lazy the Conference speakers dressed. The picture at right is a good example of this:

Fr. Mike Schmitz, a popular Robert Barron-esque Internet celebrity priest, sports a wrinkled clerical shirt and the omnipresent "clerical" blazer and slacks (really lay clothing). Without the collar, he would be indistinguishable from a businessman.

Ms. Jen Fulwiler sports the equally-omnipresent pants (apparently tight-fitting), and some sort of open shirt.

A priest from the modernist
Mundelein Seminary pulls a face
while eating an enormous dessert
Deacon Larry Oney, is at the same time both the most well-dressed and poorly-dressed of the three. He is well-dressed in the sense that his clothes appear natural to him (if we didn't know he was a deacon of the Church), and, except for his lack of a tie, it is appropriate attire. He is, however, the least-appropriately dressed due to his status as a member of the clergy of the Catholic Church. At least with Fr. Schmitz I can tell he is a priest, and at least with Jen Fulwiler I know she is just an (albeit poorly dressed) laywoman. Dn. Oney's wardrobe choice is particularly sinister because he just looks like a comparatively well-dressed layman.

To his credit, though, his choice of clothes is probably superior to 95% of the male conference attendees, and it certainly looks better than Fr. Schmitz's wrinkled and awkward "clerical" clothes. How much more attractive would this picture be, though, if Fr. Schmitz and Dn. Oney wore their respective cassocks, and Ms. Fulwiler opted for a dress, something far more suited to a Catholic woman...

Let's also not forget the enormous, toothy smiles, present in almost all the photos. It is something of a "grave sin" in the modern culture to neglect to show one's teeth when being photographed...
Dominicans making a mockery of themselves

Schizophrenia in pictures

Schizophrenia: progressivists and pseudo-traditionalists
There are other problems with this Conference, besides the most prevalent problem of bad fashion. I could categorise them under the heading of "Schizophrenic". Why would I do so? Because I notice a jarring and horrifying theme: it is a hodgepodge between garbage Novus Ordo Catholicism, and some commendable traditionalist elements.

I can only imagine how confused some of the conference attendees may have been, as they passed through the countless rows of booths, all advertising different groups, different apostolates, different orders; all of them advertising different and conflicting orientations of thought.

I believe the picture at left-top is a great example, perhaps one of the most palpable, of the veritable schizophrenia of this conference. Take note at how open the state of near-schism within that particular order manifests itself, and then imagine it as a microcosm of the entire conference, even the entire Conciliar Church. At left in that picture, you have some conservatives who retain a more traditional attire. At right in the picture, separated, and apparently tense and ill-at-ease, are the progressives, with their trousers, and hoodies. Even still, those who are "traditionally"-attired are no different than those who show up to these ridiculous mini-World Youth Days dressed "properly", but still go along with the bad music, the revolutionary mannerisms, and of course the untouchable Novus Ordo Mass.

What a horrible state of soul, to be present at this conference and to be bombarded with so many contradictory mentalities. One notices as well the presence of the Canons Regular of St. John Cantius, a pseudo-traditionalist group that accepts both the legitimate Mass of the Roman Rite and the illicit Novus Ordo. In spite of this mortal failing, one can still appreciate other aspects: their attire, entirely appropriate, and the good ambience of their booth (the attractive rug, the nice pictures, the tastefully-decorated table and the reliquary) must be among the most traditionalist in the entire Convention Center, perhaps the entire city of Indianapolis. But how this contrasts so sharply with the conference at large.

Meanwhile, one can imagine the innumerable legions of youth processing through the conference center, snacking on the typical fare of pretzels, pizza, and soda, and no doubt consulting their iPhones regularly to take the equally innumerable pictures and videos of this conference for the sake of social media...

The schizophrenic state of the Conference is exemplified in plenteous other pictures. Look, for example, at the contrast-graphic at left. The top picture could easily be mistaken for Adoration or Benediction in a traditional Mass.

In fact, it is taken in the same context as the picture directly below it: a "reverent Novus Ordo" scene, with rock-star spotlights, strange projected pictures, and the indispensable piano and guitar. True to form, the guitarist and pianist are on the same level, both horizontally and vertically, as the Mass taking place. There is no clear center.

This video could be taken from the same Mass as the picture: were it not so subtly evil, it would be almost comedic: as over a hundred priests, vested in  Novus Ordo fashion, walk quickly in procession, they are accompanied by completely out-of-place music: drums, guitars, and electronic music. It is indescribably idiotic.

What is the solution?

I believe many of the 18,000 youths—perhaps hundreds—are fully aware of the inherent incompatibility of this Conference with the Catholic faith, and yet they went. Thus, those who were aware prior to reading this article, and who still went, are rightfully censured. Those who think of going in future years should reconsider. Regardless of whether it is sinful to attend events like these, it is clearly wrong to do so because the event is like a giant Tendential Revolution.

What is the Tendential Revolution? The saintly Professor Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira (1908-1995) describes it in his magnum opus, Revolution and Counter-Revolution:
Dr. Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira
The first and deepest level [of the Revolutionary, anti-Catholic psychological process] consists of a crisis in the tendencies. These disorderly tendencies by their very nature struggle for realization. No longer conforming to a whole order of things contrary to them, they begin by modifying mentalities, ways of being, artistic expressions, and customs without immediately touching directly - at least habitually - ideas.
– Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira, Revolution and Counter-Revolution

This means that, due to man's fallen nature, he has natural disorderly tendencies. This "SEEK 2019" conference is an expression of disorderly tendencies: rock music, the Novus Ordo mass, the immature behavior of clergy, the bland and modern style of decor of the Convention Center, and much more. 

To surround one's self in such an ambience for a day, let alone 4 days, is dangerous. It can be the beginning of a path into sin, or at least, taken as the sum of all the thousands of attendees, the beginning of a path to a even more thoroughly un-Catholic society.

Thus, everyone, especially youths, should abstain from attending conferences like these. Not simply because of the Novus Ordo mass, attendance at which can be sinful, but also because of the bad ambiences intrinsic to events such as these. Parents can, in their own small way, prevent events like these from happening in the future, by giving their children a genuine Catholic education. This means tastefully decorating one's home, instilling good manners, and trying to have a refined, urbane spirit. Children, when they are still young, will naturally emulate, and in their adolescence and adulthood, they will be repulsed by "Catholic" conferences like these. They will naturally seek out truly Catholic ambiences and, thus, truly Catholic youth conferences (whose existence I can attest to, having attended such ones as the Institute of Christ the King's and the TFP's), of which there are already many to choose from.

 Posted 7 January 2019

The Abandoned Coffee Saucer: Another Concession to the Revolution

M. Williams

Our enemy the Devil, a fallen Angel, has an intellect far, far superior to ours. As Fr. Chad Ripperger once opined, even the "least intelligent" of the angels would, compared to man, have "an IQ of 300". If that is so, it is not difficult to imagine the vastness of the intelligence of Satan, who was created to supervise and govern the entire created order before his fall. It may very well be that, of all the creatures of God, only Our Lady exceeds the Devil in knowledge. For this reason, we can know that every action of the Devil is significant. Especially since God in His Providence only permits the Devil to do certain things, and not all things, we can be sure nothing the Devil does is without reason, because God Himself has ordained it so. Indeed, every action of the Devil is part of a "pseudo-providence" of the Devil's own creation, a pseudo-providence that really belongs in the grand scheme of Divine Providence. This, then, is the true Counter-Revolution: to observe the moves of the Devil and his Secret Forces, and to counter them in an intelligent way. By countering the satanic pseudo-providence, we fulfill the work of Divine Providence.

One such strategic move of the Devilquite subtle and largely unobserved today by a Counter-Revolution that largely focuses on broad, "more important" campaigns: against same-sex "marriage", abortion, and such things (however good to fight, on their own merits)is the attacks against the Dinner Table, to make us into barbarians by introducing bad manners, bad customs, and laziness. The Revolution, which is the Devil's campaign against the Kingship of Christ on earth (largely successful to this day) has tried to hide the importance of attacks on the Dinner Table. But I would argue these attacks against good manners and customs in dining are of similar importance as the attacks against the sanctity of the marital rites. Why? Because both eating and reproducing are common things. They are done with regularity. Their intrinsic attachment to the animal side of man often leads traditionalists to cast them aside as non-important: they are base, not grandiose. 

This is false, of course. The Catholic spirit, the counter-revolutionary spirit, seeks to elevate all things that are lawful from baseness to a state as close to heavenly as possible in this valley of tears; while the Satanic spirit, the revolutionary spirit, seeks to debase all things so that men become like animals and brutes. So in the same way we sanctify the marriage bed by adhering to the teachings of the Church, so too must we sanctify the dinner table by adhering to the good customs of Christian civilisation.

It is with this that we Enter the Coffee Saucer.

What is the Coffee Saucer, and what are its purposes?

This cup-and-saucer exudes a spirit of sanctity and natural beauty
I have mentioned before (and some traditionalist writers have also written about this) Satan's attacks on the Dinner Table, which is a broad category encompassing the degradation and debasement of manners, customs and concrete things relating to dining. However, I have only once or twice heard a traditionalist speak specifically about one particular concrete thing, now largely abandoned, forgotten and deemed unimportantthe Coffee Saucer.

Now, it is really just called a "saucer". "Coffee Saucer" is a kind of redundancy, because it used to be unthinkable that a coffee cup would be served not resting on a saucer. It is as absurd as serving a plate of butter without a butter knife. But, this redundancy is necessary to clarify the term for modern audiences, so habituated to those goofy "mugs" with ridiculous pictures and slogans painted to them.

Is the saucer a mere arbitrary convention? No. The Coffee Saucer sprang forth naturally and organically in Christian civilisation. In happier times, when our primary concerns were not grand campaigns against abortion (at the time virtually non-existent) or homosexual "marriage" (the stuff of comedy), but refinement of the common things of life, the drinking of coffee, tea and similar beverages became a more elevated activity. The Catholic spirit, which demands constant militancy and vigilance, is infused in the use of the saucer, for a common activity has to be done in a more prudent manner than uncommon activities:
  • The saucer helps prevent liquids from spilling out of the cup onto the also-necessary tablecloths or nice clothing.
  • It can be used to, in addition the coffee cup, place a spoon or a cookie or a tea strainer. 
  • It dignifies the simple action of drinking by providing a pseudo-throne for the coffee cup, which is a noble and pseudo-sacral instrument because it performs the noble task of providing liquids to a noble part of the human body, the mouth.
  • It allows coffee to be carried in a more dignified way—with two hands, instead of one. To carry a hot cup of coffee with two hands is difficult and can cause burns or irritation.
  • It functions as a coaster, helping to prevent inexpedient stains or burns on tablecloths or furniture.
  • It dispenses with the need for large tables, because it takes up so little space and can be carried virtually anywhere convenient.
  • Conveniently, it allows groups to have coffee somewhere else besides the table. A change of scenery—like to a parlour or other room—can help stimulate renewed conversation.
In the same way that none of the actions of our Adversary the Devil are insignificant, so too are none of the things to be considered frivolous or unimportant that emerged organically from the truly Christian spirit of the Middle Ages, a spirit that, however hampered by the Revolution, has continued in times and places even to our own day.

Good and bad coffee experiences

Several experiences surrounding the drinking of coffee—both good and bad—come to mind as anecdotes I think the reader might appreciate, illustrating the fact that saucers are by no means frivolous or unimportant.

During the earliest months of my time as a traditionalist, while working a humble job, I took a cup of coffee to pass the time since there was no work to be done. The thought occurred to me naturally and organically: I think it is the same thought that inspired our Catholic forefathers centuries ago—take your coffee and put a saucer under it. It will be more dignified and will set a better example of how a Catholic behaves in public. I did so, and although it was a bit difficult at first to carry the cup-and-saucer properly, I realised this was helping to spread a Catholic and counter-revolutionary spirit to my colleagues.

Dignified clergy and seminarians drinking coffee
In a similar way, during meetings with a priest I know, he was courteous to always offer me a cup of coffee during our conversations, and I always accepted. The priest edified me by always bringing the coffee on a saucer. This small gesture of hospitality set a cordial tone for our deliberations. I know this gesture is thoroughly Catholic in nature, because I have seen saucers employed at traditionalist conferences I've attended in the past, with hundreds in attendance, no doubt involving plenty of extra dishwashing. One conference comes to mind where several meetings—sometimes three or four—were held on a single day, and a 15 minute coffee break held between each meeting. Each time we adjourned, there were always tables filled with hot, freshly-washed coffee cups, saucers, and spoons, and veritable gallons of fresh coffee waiting in dispensers for the conference attendees, ever-desiring-refreshment.

Having described these experiences, what are some times that come to my mind where saucers were abandoned, and what are my opinions of these experiences?

First, I would say that although politesse can be employed even in the rudest of circumstances, to intentionally (or, habitually un-intentionally) neglect the saucer is to establish a whole new state of soul while drinking coffee. Repeated on a daily basis, this state of soul will translate into other areas of life—mealtimes no doubt being the first casualty—and eventually create in you and your ambiences a rustic, hillbilly mannerism. I know from experience as someone working to overcome these deficiencies in myself and my own household.   

That said, without naming names, I can say many gatherings I've attended have been completely neo-barbarian. Foam or plastic plates and cutlery replace even rudimentary, non-plastic, alternatives. Metal thermoses and paper napkins; abuse of serving implements...the list goes on, and it is something you have to witness to believe. I have seen this spirit even at gatherings among traditionalists, such as a lunch party held a few months ago that I attended, where egalitarian, blockish and comically large mugs were used to serve coffee instead of the simple, refined, and not-much-more-expensive alternatives. It doesn't surprise me that the conversation turned to more disagreeable themes as a result.

Absurd and disproportionate
Even a "fine" (actually pretentious) restaurant I visited earlier this year surprised me when saucer-free coffee was served to my mother and I. What made it all the more ironic was the great efforts made at presentation: spotless china in all the courses, polished silver, grandiose presentations by the waiter on the "exotic" ingredients...and yet, neglecting the saucer proved the suspicions I had developed throughout the meal's increasingly-small courses: it was all a big, pretentious ruse, and a waste of money.

As I begin to close this article, I am reminded of an amusing story I know. Two traditionalist friends, a woman from America and a man from Brazil, went to a lunch meeting at a nice restaurant. Now, Brasilians have an entirely different temperament than the typical American: they are far more straightforward and frank. Thanks to the salutary influence of Prof. Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira, Brazil was also preserved from the Revolution in a way America was not. So it is funny to visualise what followed from the lips of the Brazilian counter-revolutionary: coffee was brought out sans saucer, and with the charming mock confusion, the man queried the waiter on the coffee cup lacking its proper seat: "Where is the bottom?".

If I have not established beyond doubt that this use of the saucer is not a frivolity, but something necessary that reflects a Catholic state of soul, I have failed.

An appeal to traditionalists: take up the saucer once more

There are few things more appalling or unnerving as hypocrisy. Of course, we all sin and have our dominant defects. However, there is no excuse for the "Sunday Catholic" who puts on a good façade: fine clothing, a smile, charm, piety—and then changes into his underwear as soon as he (or she!) gets home. In a similar way, it is appalling to think that there are some self-described traditionalists who, whether by ignorance or, heaven forbid, bad-will, do not make efforts to sanctify and elevate all aspects of their home life.

Thus, what else could I say to them, except: Use the saucer! Get rid of the egalitarian "mug" (for which there is no place except Oktoberfest) and obnoxious thermoses. Consider this: What sort of implements will we use to drink coffee at the Heavenly courts, in the presence of Our Lord and Lady?—Certainly not mugs or plastic things! So, if you find it unthinkable to do it in Heaven, and aren't bound by necessity or poverty to do otherwise here on earth, Why Do It? 

Use the Saucer.

 Posted 18 December 2018

The Suspicious Conspiracies Against Kavanaugh

M. Williams

I remember waking early on the morning of 13 February 2016 and learning Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had died: a relative told me the news over breakfast. Although I did not know much about Scalia, I did know he was a conservative Catholic who apparently opposed abortion and who had voted against the same-sex "marriage" decision the previous year. You can imagine my satisfaction—for many of you felt the same way during those critical months—when the Republican Senate majority announced it would not deliberate on a replacement for Scalia until after the 2016 election. The Senate took a gamble that Trump would win the election (and he did), and Obama's nominee to replace Scalia never took office. Instead, a nominee of Trump's own choosing took office 14 months later, in April 2017.

This was good, but not significant. It was simply a preservation of the status quo, since the leftist, secular Jewish liberals still had a large presence on the Court, in addition to a reliable "swing vote" in the fickle Justice Anthony Kennedy, a "Republican" who nevertheless had provided the necessary votes in favour of abortion and gay "marriage" decisions in the past. The state of the Court until the present-day had been a 5-4 leftist majority. This changed, however, with the resignation of Justice Anthony Kennedy on 31 July 2018. President Trump deliberated and decided to nominate a (Novus Ordo) Catholic, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, to replace Kennedy.

The state of things today is very significant. With the presumption that President Trump will be re-elected in 2020, it is possible Trump will not only replace Kennedy's seat, but also the seat of the aging secular Jew, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Perhaps other leftists on the Court will resign in exasperation, and the older conservatives on the Court will resign to give Trump the opportunity to appoint young, traditionally-minded Justices who will guide the nation for generations to come.

We can hope the recent burning of a sodomite flag in
Chicago is a good omen for the future destruction
of secular Jewry and homosexuality in the United States

Leftist fright


Obviously, this scenario of a traditional and conservative Supreme Court is something that was not only unfathomable three years ago, but the "stuff of nightmares" to the liberals of America today. It is totally natural and to be expected, then, that liberals would do everything in their power to prevent this. "It was hard enough for us to accept the nomination of Gorsuchwe will not accept another Trump nominee," the leftists are saying. Leftists fear a traditional Supreme Court: the possibilities are endless—chiefly coming to mind are a possible overturn of the civil "rights" decisions of the '60s, and repeals of Roe vs. Wade (the Court order legalising abortion) and Obergefell vs. Hodges (the 2015 decision imposing sodomy-marriages on the country). In this happy turn of events, such a dramatic change from the political milieu during the Obama times, we can certainly see the working of Divine Providence. Now, it is our duty to cooperate with this work of Providence.

Quite unsurprisingly to the seasoned political watchers today, Kavanaugh is being accused of sexual crimes in the past, and this is being used to undermine his potential confirmation to the Supreme Court. Also unsurprisingly, the usual pseudo-conservatives—Sens. Jeff Flake of Arizona and Ben Sasse of Nebraska, to name a few—try to make themselves appear "fair" and "bipartisan" by giving credence to the unproven allegations.

The allegations

But what are the allegations?

To date, there have been claims from three separate women, all dating to the 1980s:
  • Christine Ford, who claims Kavanaugh "groped" her at a party in the 1980s;
  • Deborah Ramirez, who claims Kavanaugh forced her to touch his penis at a party;
  • Julie Swetnick, who claims Kavanaugh and friends gang-raped her, also at a party.
To me, the most interesting theme underlying these allegations is that they all occurred at drunken parties. Although it appears Kavanaugh did attend parties and indulge in alcohol (a capital sin in our hypocritical age), witnesses cited by the three women for the three separate parties have refuted the respective women's claims, many denying the presence of Kavanaugh at the parties, some disavowing the women, and others even claiming to have been the real guilty party.

A Democrat member of Congress quietly passes an envelope
to Ford's attorney—what more proof is needed of conspiracy?
Of course, the allegations are too convenient. The fact that there have been no reports against Kavanaugh until the present, at the most crucial hour, when he is about to be made a Supreme Court Justice, is too suspicious. It is possible all three women could have kept the matter a secret, though that is not the nature of women, and their mothers would have noticed if something was wrong with them. I believe this is just a re-use of the tactic used against Roy Moore during the 2017 special Senate election in Alabama—the leftist Democrats, in addition to false conservative Republicans, wanted to stop Moore's election, knowing he would fight abortion and same-sex "marriage", (topics the Republican Party has largely abandoned as allegedly inconvenient to their election pursuits), simply contrived the allegations to prevent Moore from being elected. Arrogantly assuming they will win the midterm elections and re-take control of the Senate, Democrats are simply trying to delay things as long as possible.

The same is done with Kavanaugh: since he potentially threatens the status quo, the Democrat Party is doing everything possible, through covert means, to stop Kavanaugh's confirmation. Of course, since Kavanaugh's moral positions pose a threat to the state of things today, it is beyond doubt that Satan himself is working against this. So it is not at all unreasonable to call this a "Satanic Attack".

The unsettling physiognomies of Christine Ford and Julie Swetnick

So what?


Of course, it is easy to show how very plausible it is that the allegations against Kavanaugh, like the allegations against Roy Moore, are a hoax, based only on half-truths. Simply look at the physiognomy, character and politics of the women accusing him.

A friend of mine, an older woman, recently made a comment to me: "Ford probably was assaulted, by someone. But she appears to be under the influence of hypnosis." This is possible. Her "dream-like" and childish manner of speaking reveal a clouded mind, under the influence of other Powers. The other accuser, Swetnick, with the Africanised hair style and absurd, toothy smile, reveals a leftist and a revolutionary. Her eyes reveal someone who is evil.

And, of course, all the parties opposing Kavanaugh have ties to the Democratic Party.

But let's suppose for a moment the allegations are all true. I would say: "So what?" These women have no one to blame but themselves. Going to a drunken party and getting drunk is an invitation to trouble. When both parties are drunk, there is no such thing as "consensual" activity of any kind. In my assessment, the women are just guilty, self-righteous sluts looking to earn millions and gain lots of attention.

And even if Kavanaugh did the crime, he can atone for his sins a million times over by ensuring Roe vs. Wade and the gay "marriage" decisions are repealed.

A sobering reminder...and a Novena to Our Lady

Our hope is in Jesus and Mary, not in the Courts

This whole affair, which may even end in Kavanaugh failing to meet our expectations, is a reminder that the Supreme Court is not our hope. It is just a tool to be used in the hands of Divine Providence, to impose justice or injustice on our country. We can only hope it will be used for good ends and Kavanaugh, once confirmed, acts in a Catholic manner and puts away his present shtick of "non-partisanship".

Irrespective of what happens, our hope for the reform of the United States into a Catholic and truly Christian nation is in Jesus and Mary, not in the Supreme Court.
 Posted 1 October 2018

No, Roy Moore is Not a Pedophile

M. Williams

Judge Moore
In 2017, after U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions was confirmed the new Attorney General of the United States, he resigned his Alabama Senate seat. The vacant Senate seat necessitated a special election, and it was widely expected a Republican senator would be elected, since Alabama is a strong state for the Republican Party, and Sessions himself, the former senator, is a Republican. With more leisure time, I am able to take interest in political matters, even concerning states in which I do not live. 

So, when I learned the former Chief Justice of Alabama, Judge Roy Moore, was the Republican nominee for the election, I was very pleased.  Moore is known for being absolutely opposed to abortion, and, perhaps even more significantly, unlike most other Republicans, he has courageously and publicly opposed sodomitical "marriage". He was even deposed from his office as Chief Justice for refusing to accept the Supreme Court-imposed legalisation of sodomy-marriage.

Unfortunately, Roy Moore is a Protestant and a strong supporter of Israel. However, these are both positions that many take without intellectual consideration, and it is possible a man of his learning will eventually repudiate these positions. But ultimately, were I a citizen of Alabama, voting in the 2017 election, I would certainly have chosen Judge Moore over the Democratic candidate: a supporter of sodomy and abortion. This choice of the "lesser of two evils" is an unfortunate component of our illegitimate democratic system, and a necessary—or really unnecessaryevil. 

Nevertheless, in spite of his courageous stances, which are unpopular today, against gay "marriage" and abortion, he was still predicted to win the Senate seat with a comfortable majority. As is to be expected in this deceitful age of ours, however, Judge Moore was suddenly barraged with accusations of pedophilia a few weeks before the election. Ultimately, assuming the election was not rigged (which is a possibility), these accusations cost Judge Moore the election. I would like to address these accusations and present my thesis that Judge Roy Moore is not a pedophile. 

In addition, I want to expose some of the false ideas underpinning popular notions today: the age of consent, the definition of "pedophilia", and so on.

A necessary clarification

It is important to clarify that I do not believe the accusations against Judge Moore. I believe these women are opportunists who regret bad decisions in the past and now want money and fame to reward their imprudencies. A good colloquialism for them is "sluts", because that is the impression I have of them I also believe in presumption of innocence until proof of guilt. Presumption of innocence is a Catholic notion that evolved under the healthy influence of Christian civilisation. The exact opposite was found in Protestant and "Enlightened" countries, particularly during the bloody, violent Revolutions from the 17th century to the Present.

Beverley Nelson, one of the accusers
Who were the accusers, and what were the accusations against Judge Moore? Interestingly, all the accusers allege events that supposedly occurred decades ago:
  • Leigh Corfman accused Moore, then 32, of taking her on a date when she was 14, and trying to have a sexual liaison. 
  • Wendy Miller said Moore, also then 32, asked her on dates, on several occasions, when she was 16
  • Two women report dating Moore: one, Debbie Gibson, aged 17 while Moore was 34; another, Gloria Thacker, aged 18 while Moore was 32.
  • Beverley Nelson claimed a sexual assault by Moore when she was 16 and Moore 30.
  • Another woman, Gena Richardson, claimed Moore asked her on a date when she was 18 and he 30.
  • Tina Johnson claimed Moore made bad comments and "groped her" when she was 28, and Moore 44.
It is interesting, of course, that these allegations were never publicised when Moore was holding other positions of high importance and running for office: as the Circuit Judge, as Chief Justice (elected twice, even after being once removed); and during two important campaigns for Governor of Alabama, not to mention one proposed presidential campaign. Only whenever Moore decided to run for Senate, and stood a chance of winning and actually becoming a major influence in national politics, did these accusations become public. I believe the Democratic Party had some involvement in these suspicious allegations, knowing every seat is essential in order to re-gain control of the U.S. Senate, especially to prevent President Trump from continuing to legislate his agenda.

Is Judge Moore a pedophile?

However, I think there is some truths to the reports that Moore dated "underage" women.

The reality is, whether Moore did any of the things he is accused of, it is absolutely false to call him a pedophile. Of course, it is not proper to engage in dating without the intent to marry, as I've shown in previous materials. And, if the sexual crimes are trueassault, etcthis is censurable and worthy of punishment. However, the descriptor of "pedophile", which popular culture is still ascribing to Moore, is completely inaccurate.

Still, in the 1970s and 1980s, when these events allegedly occurred, Society's morals had not been as thoroughly compromised as they are today. Thus, the general Societal opinion on relationships between adults and "teenagers" was more informed by traditional thinking than by false modern notions. In fact, it was natural, and even encouraged, for young women to seek the attentions of older men, because this ensured they would enter into a stable relationship with a likely successful and relatively well-to-do man, rather than a less-advantaged man their own age.

Some months ago, I was debating the Age of Consent laws in the United States with a leftist. He was saying some truly absurd things. "The age of consent should be 21, perhaps even 25, since the brain is not fully developed by then." "So, a person is not an adult until he is 21?" I asked. "Yes," he said. I believe he seriously held these opinions. Unfortunately, many people share this view.

I continued. "So, if someone has a relationship, even an albeit immoral sexual relationship, with someone who is 18, is that pedophilia?" I was amazed to hear the reply: "Yes, it is."

The truth is just the opposite, of course. Pedophilia is sexual attraction to children, hence the root "pedo", which derives from the Latin paedo, meaning child. Who are children? 14 and 15 year olds are not children. A 14 and 15 year old is an adult. This is why, in the more morally solid times, when commonsense Catholic morals prevailed, it was normal for people as young as 12 and 13 to marry. This is also why the age of consent in the Vatican, the laws of which have largely been passed down from the Pontifical States, is 12 years old. 

Ultimately, since Moore's alleged relationships were with young women from ages 15 and up, all of whom were clearly biological adults in terms of their sexual development, Roy Moore is not a pedophile.

Hebephilia? Ephebophilia?

Some have said, "No, Moore is not a pedophile. But he is a Hebephile." Others will say, no, he is an Ephebophile. 

To me, these terms are pointless. The term hebephile was invented in 1955, corresponding to the unfortunate revolutionary social changes. A hebephile is simply someone who has a romantic relationship with someone who has gone through puberty already, and who is between the age of puberty and approximately 14.

Age of consent in the U.S., by state
—foolish and arbitrary
Ephebophile is an even more absurd term, also invented recently, in the 1980s. It is used in different contexts, depending on which state you live in. Usually, it means someone who is attracted to a young woman aged 15-18, or thereabouts. In some states, the age of consent is 16, in others, 18. Thus, in Alabama, one is an "ephebophile" if the subject of his attention is between the age of 14 and 16. But in California, it is 14 and 18. But if ephebophile actually means anything, it just describes normal, healthy masculinity.

In other words, these are arbitrary terms; in fact, they are as arbitrary as the "trimester" system, something invented by the judicial system to justify abortion. They are not based on science or reason, but the false and revolutionary idea that one is only an adult at 16. Or 18. Or 21. Or 25.

No, Judge Moore is not a pedophile

For the sake of argument, assuming the accusations against Moore are true—that he pursued relationships with young women aged 15 up—this only proves that Moore committed indecent and immoral acts with women. It does not make him a pedophile, since these were not children, but young women. These young women only came into the spotlight either to invent these stories to gain money, or to embellish the stories with exaggerations to gain money. The motivations, however, are the same.

As to the age of consent laws, whether Moore violated them, this is to me a false argument. It would appear, if the allegation is true, that he may have violated them in one case. But in terms of Natural Law, the only offence Moore committed was not obtaining permission of the young woman's father to marry her, and for having sexual relations prior to marriage. 

Do I advocate for the repeal of age of consent laws? Under certain conditions, I do. The sensible benchmark seems to be, and this is purely to draw a line between a criminal offence and a civil one, 12 years for young women and perhaps 14 for young men. In America, where young people tend to mature more slowly, perhaps this could be raised somewhat. You see how a sweeping age of consent, applicable to all, is almost impossible. Persons of "European" descent tend to mature slower than persons of Hispanic or Italian descent. Either different laws should be made for different races, or age of consent should be scrapped entirely, and just replaced with a law against fornication, and a universal minimum age for marriage, at the lowest common denominator: say, 14 or 15. This is still a difficult problem to resolve, since the legal and moral novelty of age of consent has been entrenched in all 50 states.  But in my opinion, it would be more sensible to simply leave marriage to the judgment of the father. Once a girl reaches legal adulthood (18 or 21), however, then she should be free, with or without her father, to marry as she pleases. In a Catholic society informed by Natural Law and the good example of history, something along these lines would be followed, and men like Moore would only be demonised for having sex outside of marriage, not for having natural attraction to attractive young women. I need not mention that the change of these laws would drastically prevent unwed pregnancies and other moral ills of our time...Yes, the rollback of frivolous age of consent laws will go a long way in restoring Christian civilisation.

Yes, the concept of pedophilia, in the modern sense of the word, is propaganda deliberately designed to attack masculinity and promote "consent morality" and feminism. It demonises natural male attraction and groups a vast number of normal men into the same categories as sodomites and child predators. It is truly a wicked and revolutionary scheme.

I believe, however, that my point has been made. Roy Moore is not a pedophile.

 Posted 18 September 2018
Updated 29 April 2020