Kidist, what is this utter fucking stupidity?

[JesusFightClub]

The most difficult thing is to get the organically-growing patterns to start in the first place. He outlines his ideas for a traditionalist movement:

Traditionalists cannot choose withdrawal. They must take part in public life at least in self-defense…[p. 262]

The immediate practical function of a traditionalist movement would be to make life in accordance with traditions easier and more practical for those inclined to it…[p. 263]

Tradition is never far away. It does not invent but secures and fosters the good everywhere present…[p. 267]

Every man who starts his own business, every family that adds to its independence by reducing its expenses, every woman who stays home to run the household and educate her children, every local congregation that takes on more demanding standard of conduct, every independently minded scholar who writes a book, gives a speech, contributes to a little magazine, or sets up a website, establishes a zone of ordered freedom within the anarchic tyranny that is advanced liberalism…Eventually, we may reach a tipping point and social life begin to take on a different form.[p. 268]

The first three quotes are surreal and full of lunacy. Your own commentary makes no sense.

The whole point of organically growing ANYTHING is that it grows organically. So this, in case you don't have a dictionary, means it can grow without human intervention.

For the last quote, I wonder what the hell was going on your head. How can a tyranny be simultaneously liberal? How can you have an "anarchic tyranny"? That's like saying you can have a "catdog". Only in cartoons, sweetheart.

Women are supposed to educate children without being educated themselves because, you know, vaginas? Let me know how that works out for you.

If you need a wee bit help in sorting out your favourite fash authors, social life takes on a different form. Notice the "s" in "takes."

[SayNoToMullets]

Not to mention, nobody's stopping her from living this idyllic "traditional" life! Except for people of color, let it be neither here nor there that she is, in fact, a person of color. But would the law fail to recognize a "traditional" marriage? Is anyone forcing you to sin, and is this "anyone" the government? Is that a "no" I hear? Then let me tell you where you can take your "traditionalist" movement.

[wtylcf]

JFC, I don't even see that post on her website yet (unless it's an older one?) but in other news from her messed-up mind, her emotional calibration mechanism is broken. To illustrate:

This portrait is formal but apparently "affectionate." For example, the boy is touching his father's knee, and the mom is "more affectionate" towards her younger son because her right arm entirely disappears somewhere behind his back. Also, they look like a group of posed automatons, and this is a painting, not a photograph, but whatevs! PROPRIETY! AFFECTION! THIS IS HOW IT'S DONE!

Meanwhile in the family portrait of Mr. Communist Marxist leader of America, the Obamas "let it all hang out," while her shriveled little heart can't discern that this is what genuine affection looks like, for the life of her.

[SayNoToMullets]

^ Yes, what slobs they are. Not that we can see their feet, but their shoes need more of a heel, clearly.

[wtylcf]

^ Yes, what slobs they are. Not that we can see their feet, but their shoes need more of a heel, clearly.

Since Kidist is such a fan on the 19th century, how about slight heels for everyone, men included? I would not turn away a gentleman caller adorned in such fine footwear.

[FaustianSlip]

You mean someone like one of these two, perhaps?

Mmm, I wouldn't turn either of them away, either. Though somehow, I think the distinctly un-ladylike thoughts going through my head are hardly what Kidist had in mind.