Quote of the Day

From Sanne:

[A]ll traditional cultures/religions have always emphasized women’s chastity. Modern American Evangelicalism emphasizes male chastity, that’s the main difference between how American Christians react to things and how Europeans do. I mean, even prudish Victorians looked through the fingers when certain men visited the houses of ill repute. You were supposed to stay chaste yourself but cut guys some slack, however, a lot of modern American Christian sites make a huge deal of a man so much as watching a picture of girl in a bikini.


Oath of allegiance to Queen stays as requirement to obtain Canadian citizenship

Good news.

Would-be Canadians will have to keep taking an oath to the Queen after the Supreme Court of Canada on Thursday refused to hear a challenge to the citizenship requirement.

The decision by the top court leaves intact an Ontario Court of Appeal ruling that upheld the “symbolic” oath.

At issue is a provision in the Citizenship Act that requires would-be citizens to swear to be “faithful and bear true allegiance to Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, her heirs and successors.”

The challenge to the requirement was launched by Michael McAteer, Simone Topey and Dror Bar-Natan — longtime permanent residents who want to obtain citizenship but, for different reasons, do not want to pledge allegiance to the monarchy.

Informed of the Supreme Court decision that ends the battle, McAteer, 81, of Toronto, said he was disappointed but not surprised.

“It’s been a long haul,” said McAteer, a staunch republican who came to Canada from Ireland 51 years ago.

“(But) I feel the same: If the oath stands, then I won’t take Canadian citizenship.”

Topey, a Jamaican Rastafarian, said her religion forbids taking an oath to the Queen. Bar-Natan, an Israeli, argued that the oath represents entrenched privilege he opposes.

Hey, if’n y’all don’t like it, go back to Ireland, Jamaica, and Israel, and get the fuck out of Canada!


Posted by on February 26, 2015 in Canada, good news, law, The Kulturkampf


Gregoire vs Valenti

Will S.:

Yep. “I can’t see the difference. Can you see the difference?”, to borrow the famous line from some old Canadian ABC detergent ads.

Originally posted on Dalrock:

Rollo commented on the similarities between Sheila Gregoire and Jessica Valenti, founder of Feministing.

Let’s play the one degree of feminist separation:

“But…I’m not a feminist. I’m a Strong Independent Christian Woman®”

I touched on this in the original post, but it is worth showing a few bits side by side. The similarity between Gregoire’s funeral sandwich rant in Faith Today and Valenti’s Christmas rant at The Guardian is uncanny:

Valenti on feminist resentment: (actual title) No, I will NOT wrap all the presents. Why are women still responsible for the holiday joy?

Gregoire on feminist resentment:  (paraphrase) No, I will NOT make all the sandwiches. Why are women still responsible for feeding mourners?


Valenti on gendered expectations:

We all know that women do the majority of domestic work like child care, housework and cooking. But the holidays bring on a whole new set of gendered expectations…

Gregoire on…

View original 149 more words


Posted by on February 25, 2015 in Uncategorized




Am I the only one to notice the latest term contains ‘FAG’? :)


Conservative MP’s bill to ban sex-selection abortions is defeated

Will S.:

WK thinks this is unfortunate. I understand that perspective.

I beg to differ, in that I don’t want fetuses which are members of particular groups, whether females, or racial minorities, or whatever, to receive protection, while others do not.

I am not a utilitarian, nor a femiservative, femingelical; no asinine comparisons of saving some children on a bus for me. I oppose the murder of all unborn, and want equal protection under the law for all fetuses, and nothing less than that.

Originally posted on Wintery Knight:

Conservative MP Fiona Bruce Conservative MP Fiona Bruce

The leftist BBC reports.


MPs have defeated a cross-party bid to clarify in law that abortion on the grounds of gender alone is illegal in the UK.

Conservative MP Fiona Bruce, who spearheaded the move, said the law was being “interpreted in different ways”.

But her proposal was defeated by 292 to 201. A review of the extent of sex selective abortion was agreed to.

[…]Her amendment would not have changed the law, but sought to update 1967 legislation that was drafted before it was possible to identify the sex of a foetus.

[…]Making the case for the change, the Congleton MP said her amendment would “clarify beyond doubt in statute that sex selective abortion is illegal in UK law”.

Now you might think that the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats would be against killing unborn girls, just because they are the “wrong” sex.

View original 403 more words


Visit to a ‘megachurch’

I recently had the opportunity to visit a full-blown, giant megachurch; I went because I was curious, but also because it happened to be the church of family I was visiting. (I’d been in some very large evangelical churches before – very large by Canadian standards, that is, but not like this super-sized American behemoth). Because I was with family, for privacy reasons, I’m not going to give many more details, except that it was a ‘non-denominational’ church, which apparently had multiple campuses in the region.

The parking lot was like that of a giant mall, with attendents directing people into spaces, wearing bright green safety vests, waving wands like those of air traffic controllers.

Just like in the King of the Hill episode, there really was a second vehicle to take people from where the car was parked up to the front entrance of the worship centre, though not a bus with a loudspeaker, but rather an oversized golf cart type thingy.

There were two buildings on the ‘campus'; one was the size of a high school; that was their old worship building, apparently, now used by teenager Bible study groups in mid-week.

Then there was the bigger building, where worship was now being held, which was the size of a very large sports complex, but which more resembled a large university / college campus building.

It was huge inside. There was a café on the right, with some people still seated at tables there, even though service had already begun (we were slightly late).

Entering the ‘sanctuary’, was akin to entering a giant movie theatre / lecture hall, in terms of the rounded shape of rows of plush seats with bottoms that folded up, though really, it more reminded me of a sports arena, given how big it was. It could hold over a thousand, though it seemed only half full.

The ‘worship team’ was up on stage, and there were three megascreens behind them, simultaneously broadcasting more close-up views of the worship leader. Typical rock music, with uplifted hands, songs about ‘I’ and ‘me’ more than about Christ.

The audience congregation clapped at the end of each song, and at the pastor’s announcements, both before and during the ‘sermon’, of just how well certain programs and series were going, sometimes spontaneously, sometimes prompted.

The ‘sermon’ was a typical evangelical application-based, “how to model yourself after Scriptural precedents to improve your life”, citing David vs. Goliath. It was what they wanted to hear, clearly. The pastor mentioned Rick Warren, and how he overcame obstacles in his life, naysayers telling him he couldn’t do what he did, etc.

As I exited the sanctuary on the right, I walked past the café, where they had laid out row upon row of cups of coffee, both regular and iced.

Just before I exited the building, I noticed a huge castle-imagery-sporting wall, apparently for the kids, complete with cut-outs for kids to insert their faces and pretend to be a knight, etc.

There were three places for sheriff’s cars near the front entrance; I later learned that the pastor has three private bodyguards.

Police directed traffic as we left the parking lot, because it was that busy that they deemed it necessary to have extra traffic control.

Overall impressions: it was much as I expected; I was in evangelicalism for many years, and so was familiar with many elements of what I found there, and knew what to expect regarding the rest, from everything I’ve ever read / heard about megachurches. That said, it still was a little bit of a surprise, that megachurches really are quite that big, and that awful. (Even though I knew that.)


Posted by on February 22, 2015 in America, churchianity, evanjellyfish


October Baby

I recently got the opportunity to finally see ‘October Baby’, a Christian movie from a few years back dealing with abortion (as longtime followers of this site may recall). At the time, Wintery Knight linked to a review of it.

I am disappointed.

Spoilers follow.

Near the start of the movie, just a little bit into it, it is revealed that the girl’s adoptive mother (the girl didn’t yet know she’d been adopted) stumbled upon the daughter’s open diary in her bedroom, noticed some apparently suicidal thoughts, told the father, who then emailed part of the entry to the family doctor. When this comes to light, the parents are holding hands, sitting next to their daughter in the doctor’s office, and the mother gets upset and unlinks her hand from her husband. That annoyed me, as it does in real life when women use that technique to try to emotionally blackmail their boyfriends / fiancés / husbands. The mother should have taken her husband’s side, even if she disagreed with his actions, and not the daughter’s – and the movie shouldn’t have apparently endorsed the mother’s behaviour, as it unfortunately did.

On learning suddenly that she had been adopted, the daughter is only upset at her father for not telling her, not her mother; the movie frames it as the father alone being responsible, as if (a) he had actually done something wrong (on what basis must an adopted child be told he or she is adopted? I see no Scriptural basis for that.) and (b) as if it was all his ‘fault’, and none of it the mother’s, also. This anger at her father, but neutral feeling towards her mother’s equal silence, continues throughout the movie.

And when the father doesn’t want to reveal anything further to the daughter, the mother goes against her husband and gives the girl her birth certificate.

So the mother denigrates male authority within marriage, and this isn’t shown to be a bad thing, just the way of things…

Apart from the male character who is the daughter’s best friend, all the young men in the movie are doofuses, with various character flaws of one kind or another.

And the film did in fact blame the man for the unwanted pregnancy and subsequent botched abortion then premature birth; it was subtle, but those with a Red Pill POV, with ‘They Live’ glasses, should be able to pick up on it.

The abortionist’s nurse aide to the daughter:

“She told me she didn’t even know the fella, didn’t know his name. Met him at a bar, and had a night together, and then he was gone.”

See that?

“He was gone.”

Not “they went their separate ways” after fornicating, but “he was gone” (presumably meaning she had brought him back to her place, then he left – but it’s his fault, doncha know, even though it takes two to tango).

I could go on and on, I have more complaints (e.g. the usual evanjellyfish hypersensitivity towards fears of accusations of racism makes them have a black girl and a Hispanic guy among the group of friends who go on the road trip together, though giving them very few lines, which demonstrates they’re just for show; the nauseatingly endless scenes of moody girl contemplating beside a lake or the ocean (felt like a Beverly Hills 90210 episode, with Brandon jumping in his car to go brood by the ocean), but I’ll leave it at that.

Typical, man-bashing, women-are-all-victims, P.C., churchian evanjellyfish Blue Pill worldview bullshit, with tradcons being just as male-bashing as feminists

Save your time / money; skip this one.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 349 other followers