Le Vrai Visage de Marianne la Gueuse

Why has this site been created?

Because today, 200 years after the genocide ordered by the Convention, the official history of France still denies the real facts. Whatever the Republic's hagiographers may think, Marianne [female symbol of the French Republic] was a blood-crazed ogress. "La Gueuse" [the villainous woman] set out to slit the throats of the children she did not consider her own, and thereby encourage others to acknowledge her maternal authority. It was decided that the département of the Vendée should serve as an example to the other insubordinate areas (Brittany, Maine, Normandy, the South of France, etc).And once chastised, it was proposed that the rebellious region would be rebaptised "Vendée-Vengé" [Vendée-Revenge] (see the excellent book of the same title by Reynald Secher).

The body as a piece of Samsonite

This was quite good, I thought:

But there are more profound reasons why the pill is so disruptive of marital happiness. It has to do with the nature of sexuality itself. Sex, we tell our audience, is a mystery which can never be reduced to biology. It has a meaning far beyond the physical act of love. You recall the scene in The Graduate when Mr. Robinson confronts young Benjamin Braddock about his adultery with Mrs. Robinson. Benjamin defends himself by saying that it was no big deal: "Mrs. Robinson and I might just as well have been shaking hands." Mr. Robinson gets even more upset, and rightly so; because behind Benjamin’s statement is a gnostic separation of spirit and flesh, of heart and body, which even the dimmest of cuckolds can sense is utterly wrong.

The problem goes back to Descartes, or maybe even Plato. Our culture has been able to turn sex into a casual activity because it has separated personhood from the human body. Most people have the idea that their real self is somewhere inside—the proverbial ghost in the machine—and that what they do with their bodies doesn’t make much difference. But this has never been the view of the Church, which teaches that the body is not a mere appendage, but is as much a part of us as our soul. After all, in the Nicene Creed we don’t say that we believe in the immortality of the soul, but in the resurrection of the body. In a very significant way, we are what we do with our bodies.

Mollycoddles

There's something about 'liberalism' that is becoming more and more clear.

There then follow several spooky paragraphs warning the media not to use freedom of expression as a “guise” to “target vulnerable groups and to further increase their marginalization or stigmatization.”

As a journalist, I found this part particularly chilling:

“It is the Commission’s view that the media has a responsibility to engage in fair and unbiased journalism. Bias includes both an unfair and one-sided portrayal of an issue as well as prejudicial attitudes towards individuals and groups.”

Actually, the National Post — like Maclean’s and every other media outlet — has no such responsibility — except inasmuch as we want to be respected, and our product bought, by as many people as possible. If we choose to be “unfair,” or simply to have an opinion that some people, or even everyone, disagrees with, that’s our right. We’ll pay the price in lost readers and advertisers.

There's a reason we refer to the leftist goal as the "Nanny state". Look at the difference in attitude here. On the one hand the CHRC, perhaps the ultimate expression in our 'liberal democracies' of the triumph of the socialist ideal, is telling journalists what they ought to be doing. It is an injunction based on a desire to bring about a particular kind of society, one that is closely reminiscent of the kind of senitmentalist Victorian art depicting beautiful glowing-cheeked, glossy-locked children dressed in immaculate pinnafores and Little Lord Fauntleroy suits playing noiselessly and tidily with wooden tops and kittens. Good children must play nicely, be tidy, look pretty and not disturb the neighbours. It is, essentially, the relationship between a nanny or a mother and children.

Contrast this with Mr. Kay's assertion that journalists and writers, including bloggers, have every right to charge about, chuck conkers at each other, shove each other into puddles, roll about the playing field getting covered in mud playing footie.

The difference is between the values of manliness and the feminine values. The stoic, vs. the female virtues. Kay says they must both give and take lumps and, in the end, square their shoulders and take the consequences...like men.

It is not a coincidence that bodies such as the CHRC are overwhelmingly governened and staffed by women and homosexual men. The one characteristic that defines modern woman, with her collaborators among the light-loafered, is her refusal to accept the proper ordering of things. Female virtues are necessary and good in their proper venue; indispensable. That venue is in the personal, the domestic, the homely and subjective. But taken out of their proper context and order and placed in supremacy over the objectivist and external manly virtues they turn into an infantilising tyranny. Women and woman's virtues, must know their place or we end up in the Star Chamber trying to explain why freedom and personal responsibility are needed in a free society. Indeed, we seem to be having trouble now even explaining to them what a free society is and why it is a good thing.