In this landmark episode, Ann and Mark “Ed McMahon” Docherty debate the validity of Supernerd’s putative abdication of the ministry of the production of the Barnhardt Podcast, thus becoming the Producer Ahm-ah-RAH-tus, necessitating that Ann assume the Barnhardt Podcast Production See HERSELF, lest the Sede be Vacante. Expect production quality of the Barnhardt Podcast to revert to AM-radio-via-cellphone-whilst-driving-down-the-interstate-in-a-convertible quality levels for the foreseeable. We then do a general catch-up and rumination on the vomitous surrender cry of the men of the post-Christian west, “But there’s nothing we can doooooooooooo….” Our Lord only gives open-book tests at roughly the first grade level, and yet, somehow, the Remnant Church is managing to fail. Spectacularly. In all seriousness, if you are moved to cruise over to SupernerdMedia.com and thank Supernerd for his seven years of hard work and top-notch skills with a donation, that would be absolutely wonderful, and would warm all of our hearts..
The Infant Jesus of Prague handles Ann’s financial stuff. Click image for details. [If you have a recurring donation set up and need to cancel for whatever reason – don’t hesitate to do so!]
“Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included.”
-Karl Marx
Do you know when things really started to go – literally – to hell in this country? When women were given the right to vote separate and apart from their husbands. What a disaster. This is when the war against marriage and the family began in earnest – and it has taken less than 100 years for both institutions to be almost completely destroyed. And it all started with the damn suffrage, specifically the 19th Amendment in the United States.
Here’s the deal. Up until women’s suffrage, a man was the head of his marriage and his household, and his vote represented not just himself but his entire family, including his wife and his children. When men voted, they were conscious of the fact that they were voting not just for themselves and their own personal interests, but they were also charged with the responsibility of discerning and making the ultimate decision about what was in the best interests of their entire family. Wow. Isn’t that nuts? Men being . . . responsible?
As soon as the 19th amendment was passed, men were effectively castrated, and in many, many cases disenfranchised by their wives. No longer was the man the head of the household. No longer was he responsible for his wife. Now the wife was a “co-husband” at best, or a flat-out adversary at worst. The notion of a man making the final decision about what was best for his wife and family per his God-given vocation as husband and father was now over. Now all he was good for was bringing home the bacon – but even that wouldn’t last.
Women are made with a healthy, innate desire to be provided for and protected. I know this because I am a woman, despite the pair of enormous brass balls I have to carry around. Those are merely an anomaly. Back to the point, women want someone or someTHING to take care of them. For this reason, women tend to lean socialist, and are generally in favor of the expansion of government when the government promises to “provide” for them.
If you have read me for any length of time you could probably write this next paragraph yourself. Satan has used this healthy feminine dynamic, perverted by suffrage, to systematically replace men with the government as the providers in society. A woman no longer has any need of a man. Marriage no longer serves any practical purpose. A woman can whore around and have as many fatherless children as she pleases, and Pimp Daddy Government will always be there to provide. Men have learned well from this, too. Men can also horndog it up to their groin’s content knowing that the government will take care of their “women” and raise their children for them. Fathering children no longer binds a man to a woman in any way. Men didn’t vote to societally castrate themselves, and never would have. No – in order for this system to have come about, women’s suffrage was an absolute necessity. Women themselves voted the system into place which objectifies and devalues both them AND their children.
Next, the issue of disenfranchisement. I believe that the 19th amendment actually DISenfranchised more people than it enfranchised. Many, many married couples quickly found themselves voting against one another. The man would tend to vote for the more conservative platform, and the woman would vote for the more socialist platform. When this happened, the effective result was the nullification of BOTH individuals’ votes. What this did was massively reduce the voting influence of the married household, and magnify the voting influence of the unmarried – and the unmarried tend to be younger, and thus more stupid, and thus vote for big government. It was all part of the plan, kids. All part of the plan.
Those dishes aren’t going to wash themselves, Girls.
I’ve probably ticked even one or two of you conservatives off with this post. Here is the question I would ask you: Why? Why are you ticked off? If you’re a woman, the reason you are ticked off is because you put yourself and your desire to assert your will above the well-being of society in general. I don’t feel that way. I would give up my vote in a HEARTBEAT if it meant that right-ordered marriage, family and sexuality were restored to our culture. I would rather that little girls today grow up in a world where they did not have the so-called “right” (voting is NOT a right) to vote, but were treated with dignity and respect, were addressed as “ma’am”, had doors held for her, and wherein men stood up when she entered the room. I would rather she be courted properly and then marry a man who would never, ever leave her, and would consider it his sacred duty and honor to protect and provide for her and their children because he LOVED them. Oh, HELL yes. I’ll give up my vote in exchange for that any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Why wouldn’t you?
For you men who don’t like my position, you’re just a slave to political correctness and feminist (read: LESBIAN) wokism. It’s the same thing as the rap music. No one will criticize rap music because it is forbidden by the P.C. woke culture to criticize a non-white cultural phenomenon. To do so is “rayciss”. It’s the same with this. The P.C. woke culture has convinced you that if you criticize anything that has to do with women or the feminine culture that you must be a Taliban or a “fascist”. Don’t fall for that garbage. That manipulation is why sixty-five million babies have been murdered in this country over the last fifty years. Men knew that abortion was murder, but they punted on it and eventually legalized it because they didn’t want to be accused of being “misogynistic”. Filthy cowards.
So there you go. Print it, save it, PDF it. Because I acknowledge the objective reality and massively disordered consequences of female suffrage, am able to see beyond my own immediate self-interests on the matter, and have the stones to say it all publicly, I am permanently disqualified from . . . pretty much everything outside self-employment.
“The reason why we find ourselves in a position of impotency is not because the enemy has sent men to invade our shores, but rather because of the traitorous actions of those who have had all the benefits that the wealthiest nation on earth has had to offer — the finest homes, the finest college educations, and the finest jobs in Government we can give.” – “Enemies from Within,” Joseph McCarthy, ARSH 1950
“I can prophecy that your grandchildren in America will live under socialism — Our firm conviction is that sooner or later Capitalism will give way to Socialism. Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you.
We do not have to invade the United States, we will destroy you from within.”
-Nikita Khrushchev
🔴 “In Russia last year 400 people were arrested for what they said on social media”
Apparently Church Militant is already totally defunct as of February 29th after being found liable for defamation. Diabolical narcissists, something something, self-sabotage, something something….
I think we’ve all learned a lesson here. When a guy has been an ex-gay out of the hardcore gay bar scene for a matter of WEEKS, maybe it’s not wise to trail off after him as the great white hope of the Remnant Church. Oh, and if he sets up shop in the gayborhood of a major metropolitan area… run like hell. Literally. Like hell is after you. Because that was exactly the situation.
Hey, I didn’t read Voris as a sodomite initially either. I paid for him to speak in Denver in early ARSH 2012 on … God help us … masculinity. So I’m totally guilty of being duped too. BUT, thank God the truth is out and the trainwreck is over. Let’s pray for everyone who followed Church Militant and reverted or converted partially due to CM’s educational content, which was quite good for neophytes early on in the Real Catholic TV days. Let’s pray that the scandal and spiraling implosion doesn’t scandalize anyone out of Holy Mother Church. As Our Lord said:
Woe to the world because of scandals. For it must needs be that scandals come: but nevertheless woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh.
Vae mundo a scandalis! Necesse est enim ut veniant scandala : verumtamen vae homini illi, per quem scandalum venit.
Not that Curly Bill Brocius was any sort of role model, but…
If you haven’t, or don’t, then you’re missing out on one of the greatest graces in the earthly human experience. I’m not sure how one could even begin to understand Christ Crucified if they have never shared in the foundation of His Passion, what I will henceforth call “non-contingent love”. To look upon a crucifix is to look upon Love, but not just reciprocal love as most people experience it: I love you, but ONLY IF you love me back. If you don’t return my love, then I will stop loving you.
That is NOT love. That is egoism, in all of its narcissistic glory. And yes, here is where Ayn Rand’s “rational self-interest” gets smashed to dust and why her little world is every bit as disordered and doomed to failure as the Marxist world.
Let’s go through examples that everyone can easily relate to. First, the love of parents for children. Infants do not love. Infants are completely self-centered and are incapable of self-sacrifice for another. They are totally, completely dependent on others for their survival, and are incapable of feeling or showing gratitude, and beyond that will keep the people who provide for their survival up all night with no thought for their reciprocal well-being. Any yet… parents love their children. Grown adults in their prime feel such profound love for these screaming little poo factories that they would without hesitation die in order to save the lives of their children who as of yet do NOT reciprocate their love. This is a form of non-contingent love.
Even as children grow older and become adults and fall into drugs and crime and perversion, some of whom viciously betray their parents in the process, most parents report that a wounded yet unshakable love always persists. They can never, ever truly hate or be completely indifferent to their children, no matter how horrific the childrens’ descent and betrayal may be. Sadly, many children are put on the path to ruin by parents who do indeed inordinately desire reciprocal love from their children and thus do not properly form and discipline the children in their formative years.
Now you might be wondering how this could possibly apply to marriage. How could spousal love NOT be contingent upon reciprocity? Isn’t reciprocal love the point in marriage? Not according to the vows. Proper, traditional marriage vows actually STRESS non-contingent love between spouses. For better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health, ’til death do us part.
If your spouse comes down with Alzheimer’s Disease and in the early-to-mid stages becomes cruel and hateful toward you (as is not uncommon among Alzheimer’s patients), do you stop loving them? Once your spouse is incapable of returning your love due to some physical limitation does your love for them then automatically evanesce? The answer should be “no”. “Divorcing” a stricken spouse is, of course, morally illicit and betrays the deeply flawed nature of the love between the two when both were in full health.
I heard a very moving anecdote once about a traditional Catholic woman who was stuck in a Novus Ordo parish with, naturally, an extremely poorly educated priest. As is sadly common these days, the woman’s husband left her out of the blue after 30 years of marriage and took up with another woman. This woman’s parish priest urged this lady to get an annullment and join the parish’s “mature singles” club and “move on”. This was the woman’s reply:
“Father, I am still married and will be married until the day either I or my husband die. Just because my husband has chosen to not honor our perfectly valid marriage vows and no longer loves me does not alter the validity and permanence of those vows or my love for him. Just because my husband has chosen to commit adultery within our marriage, this does not void our marriage and certainly does not give me some imagined “right” to also commit adultery. I am Mrs. John Q. Smith, Father, and I would appreciate it if you would kindly remember that.”
Pow. While reciprocity in marital love is certainly a wonderful thing, even marital love should NOT be contingent upon reciprocity.
And this brings us to the true manifestation of caritas (charity, or love) in the world. We must love people in TRUTH and in HONESTY, not allowing our desire for our love to be reciprocated to prevent us from loving in ways that appear or seem “unkind”. If your toddler child is about to drink from a bottle of drain cleaner, do you not lunge at the child, yelling, and then smack the bottle out of the child’s hand – even though the child will speciously perceive your actions to be “mean” or even “violent” and then cry in anger at your reaction, which was borne completely on love?
In the same way, do we not tell the drug addict, the sodomite, the transvestite, or anyone else engaging in physically and/or spiritually lethal behavior that what they are doing is wrong and it is imperative that they stop even if that admonition means a reduction or elimination of their esteem for us? How is their reciprocal esteem for us even relevant at that point?
True, non-contingent love yields honesty.
False, narcissistic love is a seedbed of lies and manipulations.
We cannot properly understand Christ’s admonition to “turn the other cheeck” unless we understand non-contingent love. “Turn the other cheek” does not mean that we must allow evil and lies to run unchecked. “Turn the other cheek” does not mean commit de facto suicide before stating harsh truths, and this includes imposing justice, which is itself a fully-enclosed subset of Truth.
“Turn the other cheek” means that we do and say what we must in true charity, and then KEEP LOVING even when our love is returned with a blow, be it physical or emotional. Have you ever seen a young child get angry with his parent who has taken something dangerous away from him, to the point of kicking or hitting his parent? What did the parent do? The parent took the blows from the angry child, but continued to keep the dangerous item away from the child, because surrendering the dangerous item back to the child in order to appease it and stop the blows would be an act of profound evil.
An emotional blow can be either in the form of hatred, or in the form of indifference, which is the pure opposite of charity, remember. The point is, the more you love someone in truth, the more likely it is in this fallen world, and particularly this day and age, that your love will NOT be reciprocated, and then *THE MORE YOU MUST LOVE THEM* with no expectation or demand that they ever love you back.
Given all of this, consider our current political and social system. Is our culture not totally contingent upon reciprocal esteem and quid pro quos? Is not every word and every action measured by the amount of popularity it generates or maintains, with power and wealth coming behind as corollaries? Is the need to be “liked” not central to most people’s existence? No one will do the right thing or stand up for the truth because to do so would mean scorn and ridicule, followed by loss of wealth and property, and THAT is the worst possible outcome according to this horrifically perverted culture.
Oh, it hurts. It hurts, it hurts, it hurts. It hurts when your beloved is indifferent toward or hates you. But think of how Christ feels, and then realize that YOU are the one who callously and maliciously refuses to return His love with every sin and every ingratitude. Then realize that He still burns with unquenchable love for you, and use that realization to turn around and love others without requiring or demanding reciprocity.
He told us. Repeatedly. He told us that we would be hated by the world. He told us that we would be persecuted, both in macro contexts and in little ways in our individual day-to-day lives. And then He showed us by dying for us at our own hand, never for a second depriving any of us of our freedom to choose our own actions or whether or not to love Him. Only tyrants demand reciprocal “love”, which is no love at all, and is at its core, extremely cowardly and selfish. Be brave. Love. Ferociously. And when your love is not reciprocated, persevere, love more. That’s how you know it’s genuine.
The Mocking of Christ, Gerrit van Honthorst, ca. ARSH 1617
