Wednesday, June 03, 2015

Cthulu Swims Left: President Edition

How does Cthulu swim left? Listen to the following video with a video transcript, and you'll hear President Nixon in May of 1971 explain how it happens with degeneracy and how dangerous it is for a society. With the help of our current president, I'll then show exactly how far Cthulu swam left from Nixon's monologue to June of 2015.

For those of you not wishing to listen to ten minutes of Oval Office banter, this sequence of the tapes and the transcript concerns the handling of gays on the television show "All in the Family". It springboards from there. Chief of Staff Haldeman mentions the power of television to leverage glorification of homosexuality because "the kids" will believe anything on it. If you listen the whole way through, you will hear President Nixon mention that they had to clear the Boy Scouts out of gays because of tendencies in the gay crowd. Didn't the Boy Scouts just cave on letting gays in? Decline. Nixon cites the problem of the Catholic Church. Hey, lapsed American Catholics, you want to know why the Church will never let married men become priests? If they did, married men would flock to the Church to become priests solving the priest shortage, but the gays would lose their club that they can dominate with the money, the ornate costumes, the assorted hats and the weekly showtime on the stage kneeling before a white guy with a six pack. Don't deny priests have a weird tendency or frequency of being homosexual. We Catholics can't deny it after watching thousands of them cost the Church millions in lawsuits for molesting children. This is a nearly half century old, 10 minute recap of gays, the media pushing gays, the Russians resisting gays, the Catholic Church being riddled with homos and yet no one in 2015 will admit 21st Century gay acceptance is coordinated brainwashing.

Almost to the day 44 years later, the current president of the United States, Barack Obama, reacted to the news of a former Olympic gold medal winning decathlete appearing on the cover of Vanity Fair in a funhouse mirror "female" photo shoot in the following manner:

As President Nixon was fond of saying, "Jesus Christ".

"Jesus Christ" 


DCThrowback said...

In other words, Joe Biden was right and the GOP, by giving up on the culture war in '92, totally misread the tea leaves. Enjoy the decline guys!

Suburban_elk said...

Ehrlichman: Hot pants.
Nixon: Jesus Christ.

That was a funny tape. It is a time warp to hear Nixon describe old "Arch" and recount those episodes - and in detail no less, all the while not knowing the name of the show.

The old man Nixon was a remarkable good storyteller, apparently. He recapped that stuff to the point where i can picture the scene, of Arch and his best friend, the ex-linebacker, sitting at the bar, and Archie's face as his friend half-way comes out and says "I think that i might be."

A great example of how television, when it is put in the context of realtalk (h/t Nixon), is revealed for what it is. (Archie Bunker's best friend just happens to be a fag?) But juxtaposed to that implausibility, is that it is supposed to be real, in the way that stories are.

The "hot pants" exchange quoted above is Nixon's reaction to the fashion of his times. He was saying that fags in fashion were taking out their hard feelings on women by making them look ugly, but then there was a reaction and they were bringing back some sexiness in the form of hot pants.

The contemporary version of hot pants are synthetic rather than denim, and are less flattering, but what do people care about that these days.

Anonymous said...

Listening the Nixon Tapes was a watershed moment for me, I was born in the '80s and never felt any indentification with the contemporary "political ideas", quite the opposite, Nixon is some one who would be one of the leaders of the Dissident/Alternative Right today.

guy said...

Sorry for the off topic post, but I didnt know where else to put this that might get your attention.

Im surprised you havent posted a commentary on the recent WSJ snarkfest posted by fed mouthpiece Hilsenrath. The comment section has to be seen to be believed. See the link above. Hatred of the government and banking elite looks like its reaching critical mass.

Anonymous said...

Cthulu on a shorter timeline, Obama himself was against gay marriage until he was campaigning for his second term. Now, the floodgates hath opened.

Cui Pertinebit said...

Forgive me if this comment is too long.

I agree with your whole article, save for one point: that the reason for disallowing married priests is so the gays can put on their "fancy show with ornate costumes." Priestly celibacy is something already encouraged by our Lord and the Apostles, which was already widespread in the Apostolic age. The Church is not a merely human institution, such that her immemorial and universal customs can be regarded as mere human contrivances. In the custom of celibacy, we have the wisdom of God to man, not a self-defense mechanism of corrupt faggotry. There have been hundreds of thousands of manly, celibate saints. I can direct you to some information, if you want to understand the Church's teaching on celibacy, and why it has always been encouraged as the superior path since our Lord and the Apostle Paul themselves recommended it.

And, let's also be honest: "the gays" are not the ones who put on the "ornate costumes" and have a fancy show. It was the straight men, the serious men, who honored God with the best possible art, architecture, music and ceremonial. The gays introduced the clown chasubles with the velcro clasps, the campy-sappy music, the casual be-bop show that they call "Mass" on Sundays. Faggots are incapable of the discipline that leads to high art and great beauty, which have always been hallmarks of masculinity; the false association of faggots with "high culture" at present, is essentially propaganda. They destroy high culture; the rise of the faggot has coincided not with a rise of high culture, but a rise of pop culture.

Perhaps you have been robbed of your heritage and raised in a Novus Ordo parish. What you see in your parish on a Sunday is simply not the Church; it is a monstrosity and an impostor, which was overrun by faggots and leftists in the 60s - something which a dozen popes in the 150 years prior had specifically said was coming, in numerous encyclicals - and is no longer the Catholic Church. Gramschi openly called for an infiltration of the Church and other institutions; so did the Lodges, with the intent of ruining them. Is it any wonder that a bunch of lying humanists came in and trashed the place, by simply being themselves? Think about it: these folk re-wrote *all* the rites for *all* the Sacraments (an act forbidden by Trent and the Tradition), compelled objecting priests to use them (forbidden by Quo Primum), re-wrote the code of Canon Law to tolerate things contrary to Divine Law, jettisoned the corpus of chant and sacred polyphony, and went on a campaign of sacrilege and iconoclasm, smashing altars, removing statues, destroying beautiful vestments and sacred vessels, even to the point where women were invited to "participate" more, leading to frivolity and even pagan rites in the Churches. Yes, JPII himself even gave the pagans permission to use the Churches of Assisi and allowed them to worship their idols on consecrated, Catholic altars! Would you say that this is the activity of the Catholic Church? It is obviously not. I can say more about why, but at the very least it should be obvious that a group that rejects the Church's doctrine, discipline, Canon Law, rites, history, cultural and artistic patrimony, etc., is anything but Catholic, no matter how hard it tries to use the titles and institutions of Catholicism to advance itself.

Son of Brock Landers said...

Guy - The WSJ is deleting comments left and right. All a secession governor has to do is use the NYC-DC axis as the bad guy and millions will support him.

Laguna Beach Fogey said...

Hey, lapsed American Catholics, you want to know why the Church will never let married men become priests? If they did, married men would flock to the Church to become priests solving the priest shortage, but the gays would lose their club that they can dominate with the money, the ornate costumes, the assorted hats and the weekly showtime on the stage kneeling before a white guy with a six pack.

Yes. Good point. I hate to admit it, and I never had any trouble from the Jesuits at school, but you're right. The time line you're referring to almost exactly represents how long I've been around. It's really not that long, and yet so much decline in my lifetime. I can remember a better America. Can anyone else here? There's clearly been some sort of slow-motion coup. America-under-Occupation.

Lucius Somesuch said...

@guy, etc. I fell to the indignity of cut/pasting a handful of those WSJ comments, for history's sake. Nixon and tapes and all that. Were there anti-tribal diatribes in there too? I haven't attempted finishing the whole thing, but I assume that's the sort of thing that'd get nixed first. Nonetheless, the Main Street plebs' hearty naysays were most satisfying.

Nixon got drubbed by pedants for that "last six emperors" comment, but of course the thrust of his history lesson is all too sound. As noted, there's an uncanny delight in Nixon's detailed reenactment of AitF,-- it's the sort of thing we'd think of today as "Reaganesque", though apparently Reagan, like Eastwood at the '12 convention, loved to play up the doddering Old Man aspect.

--I think gays can do High Culture, but usually that happens from the celibates or at least the contemplatives. Film director Luchino Visconti was, I assume, a sexually active homosexual; but his film treatment of homosexuality, as in "Death in Venice", "Ludwig", or "Conversation Piece" is all of the distant-longing variety (and suffused nonetheless with death). In his gay Nazi horror "The Damned", meanwhile, homosexuality is utterly unredemptive against the rise of Naziism--it is entwined, in fact, with incest, rape, child abuse, drugs, matricide, and the triumph of Hitler.

@Suburban Elk: I assume you're thinking of those spandex hot pants made by American Apparel or their copycats. That perv AA honcho whatshisf**k is gonna burn in hell, but I admit I could think of worse ways to bide my time this moment than by examining such louche posteriors as would condescend thus to clad theyselves. Even if half the models on their website are mystery meat.

I wish I had a sandwich about now.

Portlander said...

That was awesome. I like the unabashed use of the fairy epithet. Reminds me of one of my favorite Merle Haggard songs. It has the line "two kinds of fairies... I'm told, I'm told." Just so no one got the wrong idea, he was careful to slip that "I'm told" in there. My wife and I snigger at that line in the song, but our kids have no idea. Even if they were old enough, which, OK, they aren't yet, but when they are they'll still have no idea.

As for the rest of it, yeah it's remarkable when you stop and think about the stuff that everyone was predicting 40 years ago has pretty much transpired as predicted. That discussion could have been exactly between my parents and grandparents when I was a kid. Nothing any of the three of them said was unique or insightful. 90% of the country felt the exact same way at one time. But it's been relentlessly chipped away at. Just like the Hemmingway quote on bankruptcy, and isn't that what we're talling about here -- moral bankruptcy, slowly at first, then quickly at the end. It starts out so slowly, little here little there, but it picks-up speed and next thing you know there's nothing left. It's all over but the recriminations.