is something as conspicuously
absent in as many
men today as there is something extraordinarily absent in
many women — and
both pertain to a privation — in this case a self-inflicted
evil (the privation of any good is, by definition, always an
evil) that is relentlessly promoted through every
possible organ of liberal, social, and ideological
It is the ideological repudiation
of unmitigated gender.
What do I mean? The clear (readily apprehensible) distinction between
men and women, both in behavior, appearance, and expectations, has been
radically altered in the present generation; in fact, by a very clear
agendum — a political and social correctitude foisted upon us by the
liberal apparat — the distinction has become so attenuated in
some circles as to have become permeable. This is particularly true
in academia, and exceptionally true in the Church.
Before the priest-pedophile scandal — the epicenter of which was here,
in Boston — it was not uncommon to find a parish priest with all the
effeminate mannerisms, vocal inflections, and physical sashaying associated
with “liberated/outed” homosexuals. The excessively affected hand gestures
more typical of a woman than a man, the lisping speech and delicate
affectations did little to conceal his being homosexual. We all knew
it. And we “correctly” said nothing … until he raped our little boys
and scores of other boys. It was only when the secular law
took the moral high-ground (to the damnable shame of the bishops)
that we recognized our own complicity in it by giving the “gay” priest
a pass through overlooking the obvious.
The Cross and Dressing
… or Cross-Dressing?
Men have become increasingly feminized
and submissive and women have become increasingly masculinized and dominant.
Effeminate men and butch women. How did this happen? And how
did it manage even to pervade the Church despite three millennia of
unequivocal teaching explicitly prohibiting it?
God Himself is quite clear about this:
woman shall not be clothed with man's apparel, neither
shall a man use woman' s apparel: for he that doeth
these things is abominable before God.”
Part of carrying ones Cross has always
been radicated in gender and the temptations of the flesh — as we see
above for both men and women. This is the clearest proscription against
homosexuality together with that of Saint Paul:
this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections.
For their women have changed the natural use into
that use which is against nature. And, in like manner,
the men also, leaving the natural use of the women,
have burned in their lusts one towards another,
men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving
in themselves the recompense which was due to their
How have the divine commandments been
supplanted by municipal ordinances, state and federal sanctions? And
how can we conscionably comply with these ordinances when:
and the Apostles answering, said: We ought to
obey God, rather than men.”
loss of Masculinity, Femininity,
How is a society to be deemed “free” when
it not only prescinds from, but legislates against
the most fundamental freedom of the individual conscience that has been
informed by over 2000 years of Catholic teaching — teaching which explicitly
contradicts current State “policy”? With whom, then, do we stand? With
God or man? With the Apostles or the politicians?
Conscience cannot be “legislated”. We have learned nothing from Nazi
Germany or Stalinist Russia. The Nuremberg Laws of 1933 were
State policy: Jews, Slavs, and the handicapped are non-persons. It was
law. It was policy. It was the steel fist of the state
driven by the engine of uncompromising ideology. Its stamp was final.
You either thought “correctly” — or literally ceased to think. Are there
parallels here? If there are not, then we are blind or cognitively impaired.
But we digress. Let us look a little more closely at this mutation,
or permutation, between the sexes that is the fundamental ideology
behind the superficial agenda of feminism and how it appears
to have unfolded under the guise of “equality”. Being equal is not being
the same. Being equal in the polity does not equate with being
the same in gender, still less the broader effort to abolish
the concept of gender despite its biological intransigence.
Men and women — if we admit the distinction — are not the
same, unless you are a fool or a hopeless ideologue. Often they wear
the same clothes and the same hair styles (women with hair as short
as men, men with hair as long as women — though, happily, less so now
than 30 years ago) and more than once you have asked yourself in genuine
perplexity, “Is that a man or a woman … a manly woman or a womanly man?”
Sometimes you have been unable to reach an honestly definitive conclusion.
Perhaps the precursor to the vector of this mutation lies in “Rosie
the Riveter” of the World War II era when women assumed jobs in dominantly
male industries (welders, riveters, machinists, etc.) because the men
were shipped off to war and needed the matériel to sustain it). Dressing
themselves appropriately for the job, they donned slacks and other forms
of erstwhile exclusively masculine attire — which they promptly put
aside upon returning home and disposed of altogether when the war ended.
However, another war followed;
one that did not pit nation against nation, or one political theory
against another antagonistic to it, but something far more fundamental
— a unilateral war, in fact, between biology and ideology; a war instigated
and perpetrated by man — upon his very nature as human. Biology (apart
from man’s manipulation of it), most would agree, is, at its most basic
level, immutable: your gender, the color of your eyes, your anatomical
structure, is determined at the most irreducible cellular level — in
the DNA encoding that determines every physiological aspect pertaining
to you even before your birth.
In Hollywood’s G.I. Jane of 1997, Demi Moore sports a recruit
haircut to the scalp, ambitious to prove herself (as a paradigm for
all women) as equally masculine, physically strong and strong-willed;
as adept at close-hand combat, mano-a-mano, as in uttering a
string of expletives after soundly stomping her seasoned, war-tested
(Ranger, Navy Seal, Green Beret) drill instructor, 100 pounds heavier
and one foot taller — as any man. In fact she just beat the best
of them! The other (male) recruits, following the tiresomely predictable
script, adulate her with cheers and embrace her as one of their own,
as “one of the guys”, and off they go to have a beer, spit lungers,
adjust their crotches, and pepper their speech with F-bombs. G.I. Jane
is definitely “high-speed”.
Another, and far more likely contributor, was the implementation of
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which mandated
that public education treat males and females equally: dresses could
not be required of female students and dress codes changed in public
schools across the United States.
The Mother of All
Apart from sin against God, this gender
war, which — illogically — is at the same time a gender transmutation,
is the most vile and contemptuous war ever waged. It is the most basic
war ever waged — greater than nation against nation, culture against
culture, or religion against religion. All such wars pale in significance
because the malice is far more fundamental, cutting across all borders,
all languages, all ethnicities in every culture and in every civilization
in which this poisonous seed has been sown, nourished, and cultivated
by Militant Feminism and an absolutely intolerant homo-fascist lobby
that sashays through the halls of Congress, state houses, and the halls
of academia (not having children, there is much money to spend lobbying,
and no small number of venal politicians). It is the mother of all wars,
to use one madman’s infamous phrase.
It is nothing less than the seed of destruction
for every nation, every religion, every population … and in the end,
of humanity itself.
More accurately understood, it is a bitter, uncompromising, unilateral
and ideological war by one species of humans against another
species of humans (an intraspecific war, if you will, between
species of the same genus) predicated solely on biological and ontological
differences inherent within and constituting the definition
of the genus itself to which both species belong. This is not simply
a philosophical and biological perspective, but is necessary to understand
the magnitude and the madness inherent in such a war.
It is instigated solely by one species to the end of effectively abrogating
the differentiation within the genus itself, either by eliminating
the species (which would eo ipso eliminate the genus) or, that
failing, attempt to assimilate the species by negating any differentiation
The insanity, or perhaps better yet, madness, is instigated
by an unrelenting malice toward one human gender by the other: the malice
toward men as men by women as wannabe men.
Simply put, it
Its genesis lies in the unabashed triumph
of masculinated Feminism over a once unapologetic masculinity. Let me
It has little to do with the aspiration to acquire what are viewed as
the prerogatives of men, and much, apparently, to do with the aspiration,
not to abolish masculinity, but to acquire it; and if this cannot
be achieved biologically, then it attempts to acquire the semblance
of it, the closest proximity to it, through legislation, agitation,
“social action”, and so on. There are, apparently, many women who, quite
frankly, envy men. No, not just the presumed prerogatives of
men, but masculinity itself. Far from being the champions
of women, Feminism, in its ideological DNA, appears to wish to
abolish women, to extirpate femininity, as
though womanhood were inferior to manhood; as though femininity were
an epithet rather than a virtue. Many do not simply want parity with
men, or even superiority over them … but to be men. Hence,
the masculinized woman: short hair, assertive, aggressive, powerful,
working out with weights, body-building, tattooed, having Harleys and
helmets as much as business “powersuits” … any similitude that accrues
to masculinity. Didn’t Freud say something about this?
But this is the logical surd: women ideologically antagonistic to men
and expressing this antagonism by striving for masculinity, that is
to say, for the very thing they purportedly detest. Another way of looking
at it is the desire to abolish the masculinity of men by supplanting
it with the masculinity of women. Unable to abolish it biologically,
they co-opt it (as von Clausewicz would say) “by other means”. They
will avenge themselves on the other species … by becoming
the other species!
Of course, there is a reciprocal partnership
is this war on biology: the men who wish to be women. It is the complete
inversion of Feminism. Attempting to abolish their own masculinity,
they strive precisely for what Feminism repudiates. They are not the
casualties of feminism; to the contrary, they are its closest allies.
Homofascisti and Feminofascists. This alignment
forms, well, an Axis around which complementary ideologies revolve.
Neither Hitler nor Mussolini tolerated any opposing view, and any opposing
party was summarily dealt with — demonized, marginalized, and worse.
There is little difference between character assassination and summary
execution: the opposition is rendered ineffective, inert. The propaganda
machine of feminism and homofacism is no different. Intolerance is
not to be tolerated! There is only one correct way of thinking.
And if you value your livelihood, your character, your own integrity
… you had better step in line …
Watch what you
In a free and open
society that is less afraid of its own government than any foreign enemy
possibly lurking at its borders, the right to freedom of speech, expression,
and especially religious belief is the definition of a free and open
society. There is no Party line to toe … and which to breach, would
cost you your freedom. But who is the guarantor of this freedom of speech,
expression, and especially religious belief and its observance? In America
it is not invested in a person, but in a much abused parchment we call
the United States Constitution. The freedoms we cherish are indited
therein. While a small, elite, moneyed, and privileged few are allowed
and encouraged to enjoy their curious perversities … “We the people”
(at large) exercise them at our peril. In our history was our own freedom
ever more precarious?
Geoffrey K. Mondello
Boston Catholic Journal
PDF Printer Friendly Version