News just recently hit the internet that the U.S. Navy’s new class of air craft carriers—the Ford Class carriers—are going to be designed without urinals. Which highly-placed Naval bureaucrat made this decision has not been disclosed—probably for his (her?) own safety’s sake. It is said that the change is intended to improve the sailors’ quality of life, but it is difficult to see how removing urinals is much of a benefit to men, who, of course, represent the vast majority of persons on carriers.
This move is—alas, I fear—motivated by latent, or perhaps not so latent, misandry. It might be motivated by political correctness gone amok. It could also be motivated by an effort to feminize the Navy, in line with the general tendency toward the feminization of society and anti-Christian animus. Finally, an particularly ominously, it could be some incipient Islamism—the first sign of dhimittude rearing its ugly head as we accommodate to the urination practices of the Muslims. In any event, this latest assault on the tradition of urinals is something which, I believe, must be resisted: for the sake of urinals and for the sake of men and the virtues of masculinity. Conservatism of our mores and our culture demand it. Indeed, it may be required for the preservation of our Christian manliness.
This move against urinals should be fought on artistic grounds. We should do everything we can to recruit the aesthete on our side. Urinals are beautiful. They are a mainstay of serious art. For example, Marcel Duchamp’s piece Fountain (1917) was nothing but a sideway-placed urinal signed “R. Mutt 1917.” Many—including the German literary critic Peter Bürger who wrote Theory of the Avant-Garde (1974), so he must know—consider Duchamp’s piece a vanguard of the avant-garde, which though it sounds like a tautology is not really a tautology. The value of the urinal has been recognized by the avant-garde, and so it has had to be defended from those who have tried to gain fame by urinating on its or by destroying it. Additionally, Marcel Duchamp approved the making of a number of replicas in the 1960s, which can now be seen in a number of museums around the world. Given the fact that the urinal has been used for art, we might suggest that the bureaucrat who made the decision not to put urinals on the Ford class carriers is nothing but a philistine.
Indeed, we can go further. Goethe stated that a philistine “not only ignores all manners of life which are not his (her) own, but he (she) also demands that the rest of mankind should fashion its mode of existence after his (her) own way.” The philistine in Goethe’s day argued that it was foolishness to suggest the need for horse and carriage because he (she) had feet.* Likewise, the modern philistine argues that it’s foolishness to suggest the need for a urinal because God has given him (her) a . . . . [censored].
The urinal has been embraced by other artists. Ernest Hemingway—the man who wrote the Old Man and the Sea, for example, converted a urinal from the famous Sloppy Joe’s bar—a bastion for free thinkers and drinkers in the age of Prohibition, and a place he frequented and whose urinals he as frequently used—into a water fountain for his cats, from which even now they drink. So Hemingway preserves urinals for his cats, but our Navy cannot preserve urinals for its sea dogs? I think our unimaginative fellow (fella) bureaucrat at the Navy could learn a thing or to from the free-thinking Hemingway.
This latest attack on urinals is nothing other than part of a pattern which—I fear—is accelerating. As an example of this, one might point to the famous street urinals in Paris—the so-called vespasiennes. In the 1930s, there were 1200 of these in service, and up until the 1990s these urinals were a sufficiently common site throughout the city. However, progressively these male-oriented vespasiennes were replaced with unisex Sanisettes--the name sounds hideous, like a receptacle for sanitary napkins. Today, there is only a lone vespasienne remaining in the entire city of Paris—on boulevard Arago—and it is still used by hearty, biblical men.
There are some pockets of hope. I don't want to be a Debbie (Dick, Peter, Jimmy, Johnson) Downer. The Dutch seem to buck the trend a bit, they have some very attractive pissoirs situated throughout their cities which are self-cleaning and are on hydraulic lifts, so that they can be hid at the touch of a button. London and Belfast have followed the lead of the Dutch and—in an apparent effort to cater to the manly drinkers at the pubs—have placed these high-tech “Urilift” urinals in strategic areas. The enlightened mayor of Marikina City in the Philippines Bayani Fernando installed some delightfully pink street urinals in his city,** and, when appointed chairman of the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority, he installed the urinals in the capital. Now, here’s a real manly Statesman! A man who relieves himself in a pink urinal is very secure in his masculinity!
The banning of urinals from the U.S. Navy Ford class carriers is also deeply anti-Scriptural. Moderns have already “cleansed” our Scripture from the references to men as “those who pisseth against the walls.” The modern translations disguise it. Compare, e.g.,as I do below for you, the New American Standard Bible with the old Douay Rheims (which in this regard mimics the King James). This seems part of a demonic plot. First, sever the Biblical tie between pissing against the wall and manhood. Second, sever the cultural tie between pissing against the wall and manhood.
τάδε ποιήσαι ὁ θεὸς τῷ δαυιδ καὶ τάδε προσθείη εἰ ὑπολείψομαι ἐκ πάντων τῶν τοῦ ναβαλ ἕως πρωὶ οὐροῦντα πρὸς τοῖχον
כֹּה־יַעֲשֶׂה אֱלֹהִים לְאֹיְבֵי דָוִד וְכֹה יֹסִיף אִם־אַשְׁאִיר מִכָּל־אֲשֶׁר־לֹו עַד־הַבֹּקֶר מַשְׁתִּין בְּקִיר׃
haec faciat Deus inimicis David et haec addat si reliquero de omnibus quae ad eum pertinent usque mane mingentem ad parietem
May God do so and so, and add more to the foes of David, if I leave of all that belong to him till the morning, any that pisseth against the wall.
1 Samuel 25:22.
Now look at the modern translation (New American Bible):
May God do thus and so to David, if by morning I leave a single male alive among all those who belong to him.
Another example of this vicious trend:
πλὴν ὅτι ζῇ κύριος ὁ θεὸς ισραηλ ὃς ἀπεκώλυσέν με σήμερον τοῦ κακοποιῆσαί σε ὅτι εἰ μὴ ἔσπευσας καὶ παρεγένου εἰς ἀπάντησίν μοι τότε εἶπα εἰ ὑπολειφθήσεται τῷ ναβαλ ἕως φωτὸς τοῦ πρωὶ οὐρῶν πρὸς τοῖχον
וְאוּלָם חַי־יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר מְנָעַנִי מֵהָרַע אֹתָךְ כִּי לוּלֵי מִהַרְתְּ [כ וַתָּבֹאתִי] [ק וַתָּבֹאת] לִקְרָאתִי כִּי אִם־נֹותַר לְנָבָל עַד־אֹור הַבֹּקֶר מַשְׁתִּין בְּקִיר׃
alioquin vivit Dominus Deus Israhel qui prohibuit me malum facere tibi nisi cito venisses in occursum mihi non remansisset Nabal usque ad lucem matutinam mingens ad parietem
Otherwise as the Lord liveth the God of Israel, who hath withholden me from doing thee any evil: if thou hadst not quickly come to meet me, there had not been left to Nabal by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
1 Sam. 25:34
Now look at the modern emasculation:
Otherwise, as the LORD, the God of Israel, lives, who has restrained me from harming you, if you had not come so promptly to meet me, by dawn Nabal would not have had a single man or boy left alive.
Without question, the Hebrew, the Greek Septuagint, and the Latin Vulgate are correctly and literally translated by the Douay Rheims.
Other scriptures that identify men as those who "pisseth against the wall" are 1 Kings 14:10, 16:11, 21:21; 2 Kings 9:8.
Finally, we must fight against the demise of urinals because it is incipient Islamism. Many in the West do not know, but urinals are a Western invention. Except in extreme circumstances (necessity is a defense), Muslims are encouraged to follow the example of their "prophet" who urinated in a manner contrary to the men of the Jewish (and Christian) Scriptures. One of his wives--his favorite A'isha--relates in a hadith considered authentic (sahih): "Whoever tells you that the Prophet (peace and blessing of Allah upon him) used to urinate standing up, do not believe him. He only ever used to urinate sitting down."
Christian men! Western men! Traditional men! Cultured men! Unite to save the Urinal!
________
*“Der Philister negiert nicht nur andere Zustände, als der seinige ist, er will auch, daß alle übrigen Menschen auf seine Weise existieren sollen. Er geht zu Fuß und ist sein Leben lang zu Fuß gegangen. Nun sieht er jemand in einem Wagen fahren. "Was das für eine Narrheit ist", ruft er aus, "zu fahren, sich dahinschleppen zu lassen von Pferden! Hat der Kerl nicht Beine? Wozu sind den die Beine anders als zum Gehen? Wenn wir fahren sollten, würde uns Gott keine Beine gegeben haben." Letter to Rimer, Aug. 18, 1807.
**The pink color is genius. It helps disguise the pink urinal cakes.
No comments:
Post a Comment