“Red Pilling” And The Road To Damascus…


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Today your humble blogger will stay on the “definition” theme. As a quick refresher, in the last couple of post, we have been introduced to such terms as “platforming”, “normalization”, “tone policing” and “privileged rage”.

Today we add two more. One comes by way of Ann Barnhardt’s excellent blog. The term is “Ghira”. Ghira is defined as: Rage In the Face of Logic. Please venture over to Ann’s website and get the load down on this quite prescient observation. Last word, it is a very post-Modernist thing.

Our term for today is “Red Pilling”. Red Pilling is a situation where a person, upon coming into contact with an objective truth that resonates with that person (pscyche), is so overpowered by the objective truth, that it forces that person to substantively change their approach to the decisions that that person subsequently makes.

Here is how the Urban Dictionary defines the term:

‘Red pill’ has become a popular phrase among cyberculture and signifies a free-thinking attitude, and a waking up from a “normallife of sloth and ignorance. Red pills prefer the truth, no matter how gritty and painful it may be.

Before we go on, one word about the “red pilling” PROCESS itself. This PROCESS is an “individualistic” PROCESS. Actually, it is very similar to what we call conversion in the Catholic Church. One can say that “red pilling” can be seen as either a first step toward conversion or maybe a “transitional” PROCESS along the individual’s very own “road to Damascus”.

Now this doesn’t mean that the “red pilled” individual will actually travel the entire road, but it is a first step and a rather large one at that. I would also go as far as to say that this is the end point of the second source of the Catholic Faith, i.e. that is known through “natural light of human reason from the things that are made”. 

Everything past this point requires the intervention of a really good priest. 

So that’s the theory.

Now to reinforce the above HYPOTHESIS about what constitutes a “red pilling” EFFECT, I bring you one link and three video.

I will start with a post that appeared at Fr. Z’s website. In the post titled: Wherein another reader does indeed “throw in the towel”. The following passage can be read:

Last weekend, I traveled home to Milwaukee for a wedding. I attended Mass at St. Stanislaus, which I am sure you have visited.[Indeed I have.]In a way, I felt like I was attending Mass itself for the first time ever. This was my first Latin Mass outside of my new small Latin Mass parish.

Again, I don’t understand the Latin Mass. But I feel dedicated and energized by my experience to understand it the way so many in my generation understand it.

If we want to fix the world, we have to [with reliance on the grace of God] fix ourselves. I have known for a long time that this is something I needed to do. And I am going to figure it out.

So what we can observe in the above passage is that an individual, upon coming into contact with an objective Truth that resonated with his psyche, is forced to substantively change his approach to the decisions that this person subsequently makes, i.e. attend the proper Catholic Mass in this case.

What we see in the above example can be considered a “supernatural” red pilling EVENT.

And now for an example of a “natural” red pilling EVENT. On the You Tube channel, I found a new “personality” who is producing video about her own individual “conversion”. Now this conversion is strictly limited to the that part of our Faith that is known through “natural light of human reason from the things that are made”. 

The individual goes by the name of Robyn (hope I spell it correct) and her channel is called CRITICAL CONDITION. The background of this limited conversion is that this young lady, upon moving to Ireland, was unhappy because the types of people she was meeting were of what we call the TRANSRATIONAL variety. In other words, they were what is commonly called Social Justice Warriors or leftists. So Robyn adopted their “belief system”, but deep down inside, she was not happy about it.

Robyn was in this unhappy state for the better part of four years. What changed her life, i.e. the red pilling EVENT, was  due to coming across a video produced by Dr. Jordan Peterson.

I will stop with the story here and will embed three of Robyn’s videos. They are approximately 18:00 long and worth the watch. I will start with her first video, where she explains here conversion. I will include the follow-up video of the relief she had that the first video really resonated with others on You Tube. And the third video is her application of one of Dr. Peterson’s metaphor in her own relationship with her father.

NB: What I have come to understand is that the “Rescuing the Father” metaphor can be viewed as a sort of half way house into the full Catholic Faith. The “Rescuing the Father” metaphor comes from the literary work Pinocchio. The father figure, as explained by Jordan Peterson, appears to be nothing more than the First Person of the Most Holy Trinity, and it is not the individual who saves the father, but rather it is the individual who becomes “re-aquainted” with the Father. But more on that in a follow-up post.

So for your viewing pleasure, I bring you Robyn of the CRITICAL CONDITION You Tube Channel:



3. Application of rational thought

Concluding, what I think is important to understand, and is quite evident in the above three videos, is the state of mind of your typical individual from the age demographic commonly referred to as MILLENNIALS. We can observe that these children have been completely destroyed by the educational establishment. Furthermore, as in the case of Robyn, she came from a broken home, which only exacerbated her fragile emotional condition.

However, what is also apparent from the above videos is that, that part of our Faith that comes from that which is known through “natural light of human reason from the things that are made” is so powerful, that it can breach any ideological filters or blockades that the eduction establishment has been able to put up over the span of that child’s formative years.

What is also striking about these videos is that an intellectually honest person, when coming into contact with basically one video (Dr. Jordan Peterson) and being introduced to a number of definitions (how Thomist?) contained in that video, was able to reason out a quite rational understanding of OBJECTIVE REALITY and their predicament in that REALITY.

Now this above conclusion by no means implies, that this is the end of the road for Robyn. She has found some good advice that will put some MEANING back into her life. To be more precise, the Peterson advice will provide her with a better, more natural, rational and individualistic definition of MEANING than that which she had before. If she had any at all, that is to say.

But she still needs the help of a good priest to fill in the rest of the missing blanks in order to give her life true MEANING, not to mention set her on the road to working out her “salvation in fear and trembling”.

But this is a personal decision, and as we know from the Catholic Canon, Our Lord came to save pro multis…

So the takeaway from the above is that “red pilling” could just describe the first step toward salvation…

American Thinker – Why Germany Is Once Again a Threat to the West


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Why Germany Is Once Again a Threat to the West

In the mainstream media, the policies of the German prime minister, Angela Merkel, are often portrayed as a form of atonement for Germany’s past sins of imperialism and genocide. Letting in a million refugees is supposedly the absolute negation of the Holocaust, and pressing for further European cooperation is seen as the opposite of Germany’s old attempts to violently bring the rest of Europe under its control. And for these very reasons, progressive politicians and intellectuals around the world are now looking up to Merkel as the defender of pluralistic Western values.

At first sight, this praise for Merkel doesn’t seem so far-fetched, even for conservatives who fundamentally oppose her policies. After all, she is acting out of genuine goodwill and charity towards the downtrodden of the Middle East, isn’t she? And we may disagree about the feasibility and consequences of further European integration, but given Europe’s bloody past it seems perfectly understandable that Germany’s prime minister is calling for more harmony among European nations.

Nonetheless, it is important to point out that the popular image both of Angela Merkel and of modern Germany is deeply flawed. Because far from representing a negation — or a misguided attempt at negation — of past German policies and attitudes, the modern German mentality is in many ways a mutation or an update of the same mentality that has guided Germany since the eighteenth century, and especially since the unification of the country in 1870.

Let us begin with the more obvious parallel: German support for further European integration. Despite all the German talk about subordinating narrow national interests to the European project, careful observers must have noticed the coincidence that the Germans always see themselves as the leaders of this disinterested project, and that the measures deemed to be necessary for further European cooperation always seem to be German-made.

Are the Germans really such idealistic supporters of the European project? It is more probable that in reality they see the European Union as an ideal instrument to control the rest of Europe. Indeed, in 1997 the British author John Laughland wrote a book about this subject, The Tainted Source: the Undemocratic Origins of the European Idea, which is still worth reading for anyone who wants understand what kind of organization the EU actually is. According to Laughland, the Germans are such big supporters of the European ideal because they know that all important decisions in a confederation of states can ultimately only be taken by or with the approval of the most important state — in this case, Germany.

Thus, on closer scrutiny, there is a strong continuity between the foreign policy of Wilhelm II, Hitler, and Merkel. And this continuity can easily be explained by looking at Germany’s position within Europe. On the one hand, Germany is the strongest and largest country in Europe, but on the other hand it is not strong or large enough to dominate the rest of Europe automatically. In consequence, ever since German unification in 1870, the country has been presented with the choice either to subordinate its wishes to those of the rest of Europe — which has always appeared rather humiliating — or to attempt the conquest of Europe, in order to ensure that Germany’s wishes would always prevail. Unsurprisingly, the Germans have consistently chosen the second course, and both World Wars were attempts to permanently bring the rest of Europe under German control.

The most prominent foreign policy decisions of Merkel can also be interpreted as attempts to expand German dominance in Europe. For instance, during the refugee crisis Germany tried to force Eastern European countries to take in refugees, not only because Merkel wanted to ease the burden upon her own country, but also because it was an ideal way to find out to what extent Germany could impose its will upon the new and independent-minded Eastern European members of the EU. Another example of the new German attempt to dictate policies to the rest of Europe is the Greek banking crisis. Whatever the considerable economic blunders successive Greek governments have committed over the years, it is undeniable that the ultimate goal behind Germany’s harsh demands towards the Greeks was the extension of German economic influence over other EU members.

However, the most frightening thing is that the parallels between Merkel’s mentality and that of her authoritarian predecessors go deeper than mere geopolitics. Because the philosophical premises underlying modern German policies are also at least partly similar to those that motivated Germany in both World Wars.

First of all, Merkel’s ideas about both immigration and European integration have a decidedly utopian character, an echo of the old obsession with the construction of a New World Order, which motivated both Hitler and the German leaders in the First World War. Merkel dreams of a society where immigrants and natives will together build some kind of ideal new world, opposed to the selfishness and materialism that has characterized Western societies until now. Also, Merkel’s attitude has a strong emotionalist undertone, which has been a characteristic of German philosophy since Immanuel Kant. Germans often derided the cold rationalism of the French and the money-grubbing of the Americans and British, as opposed to their own emphasis on the inner workings of the soul, love of the fatherland, and so on. Now, the Germans are reprimanding the governments of other countries, especially America, because they do not seem to share the German optimism about mass immigration, and only seem to care about hard facts.

Another parallel with the old German ideology is the collectivist strain in Merkel’s multicultural project. The German government seems to assume that the rights of German citizens must always be subordinated to those of Third World immigrants, which ultimately simply means that individual rights are subordinated to whatever the state wants. Besides emotionalism, collectivism has also been a prominent characteristic of the German ideology since the eighteenth century, once again in opposition to the “atomic” individualism of classical liberalism that prevailed in the United States, England, and France. When Germans talked about freedom, they did not mean individual freedom in the conventional sense, but rather the good fortune of citizens to live in a country that is efficiently governed by an all-powerful state. This is also what Merkel, and presumably her American and European supporters, mean when they are talking about freedom.

To conclude: far from being the defender of Western values like individual liberty and individual rights, the modern Germany is acting in a very German way indeed. After an adjustment period of some decades following the Second World War, during which the country had to atone for its past misdeeds and keep quiet, Germany is once again trying to impose its rule and a new form of its vicious ideology on Europe and the West. It is of crucial importance that we all recognize Merkel’s policies for what they are, and take decisive action to stop her.

“Tone Policing”, “Anger Privilige” And You…


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Today we stay with our parallel theme, what one may call: understanding the operational aspects of post-Modernism.

The reason I am interrupting the main theme, i.e. the interdisciplinary attempt to form an understanding of where the post-conciliar church went wrong and to define a “cure” that would allow it to return to its mission, as defined by its Founder, namely: the salvation of souls, is that the parallel theme provides invaluable insights into the manner in which the post-Modernists are attempting to overthrow the existing societal order, be it in the POLITICAL or the ECCLESIASTICAL sub-set of the Visibilium Omnium, et Invisibilium, an order that took anywhere from 4000 (if we date it back to Mosaic Law) to 2500 (if we date it back to the Greek Academy) years to put in place.

Given the above, and if you recall dear reader, in the recent post we learned about such contemporary concepts (strategies) as “platforming”, “normalizing” and the “normalization” NARRATIVES.

Today, we add “tone policing” and “privileged rage” to our post-Modernist lexicon. I will not go into detail in this post, since the below republication does an excellent job of explaining these concepts. But one thing I will note is that some anger is “privileged” while other anger is not. Excuse the small digression…

What I will mention though is that there are a lot of people catching on. Not only are they catching on, they understand the danger in allowing this TRANSRATIONAL behaviour to become rooted in our legal and societal… let’s call them “conventions”.

Furthermore, they are beginning to organize the resistance to this post-Modernist ideology.

Today I post two videos, for your weekend viewing pleasure. The first is from Stefan Molyneux titled: The Ugly Truth About Relativism. Aside, doesn’t that title just give you dear reader a warm and fuzzy feeling inside? It does me… But I digress…

What I find interesting in this video is that Stefan takes one more observable step towards Catholicism, or what we call on this blog: the CONVERGENCE PROCESS.

The second video comes by way of Dr. Jordan Peterson. This is a two-hour video but definitely worth the watch. In this video, Dr. Peterson also takes some large steps toward Catholicism. In this video, he inadvertently crushes Francis, the bishop of Rome and the entire FrancisMercy and Bergoglian Theology of Hate cult. One such face smash comes when Dr. Peterson talks about borders. Both material borders, like walls, and immaterial borders, like the Law. In this monologue, Peterson succinctly explains why Francis and the rest of the Death cult (without naming them) are nothing more than your typical run-of-the-mill Nihilists.

But what is the most interesting aspect of this video is that Dr. Peterson provides guidance for a strategy to combat the above mentioned death cult. And the strategy is so clear and reasonable that it should easily register with the average citizen, those who will subsequently go into a voting booth and have to make an educated decision. After watching even one video like this, that decision should be much easier to make and should be of a much better quality.

On the ECCLESIASTICAL side, watching this video should allow the pew sitter to make a much better decision at the time when the collection plate is being passed around. Like these folks here.

And since we have touched on ECCLESIASTICAL matters and “privileged anger”, one more thing needs to be mentioned here and that is this: Francis’ anger is “privileged”...

So without any further comment, I bring you… (see original post here)


“Tone Policing” And The Left’s Anger privilege.

Authored by Daniel Greenfield via CanadaFreePress.com,

If you want to know who has privilege in a society and who doesn’t, follow the anger…

There are people in this country who can safely express their anger. And those who can’t. If you’re angry that Trump won, your anger is socially acceptable. If you were angry that Obama won, it wasn’t.

James Hodgkinson’s rage was socially acceptable. It continued to be socially acceptable until he crossed the line into murder. And he’s not alone. There’s Micah Xavier Johnson, the Black Lives Matter cop-killer in Dallas, and Gavin Long, the Black Lives Matter cop-killer in Baton Rouge. If you’re black and angry about the police, your anger is celebrated. If you’re white and angry about the Terror travel ban, the Paris Climate treaty, ObamaCare repeal or any leftist cause, you’re on the side of the angry angels. But if you’re white and angry that your job is going to China or that you just missed being killed in a Muslim suicide bombing, your anger is unacceptable.

If you’re an angry leftist, your party leader, Tom Perez will scream and curse into a microphone, and your aspiring presidential candidate, Kirsten Gillibrand, will curse along, to channel the anger of the base. But if you’re an angry conservative, then Trump channeling your anger is “dangerous” because you aren’t allowed to be angry.

Not all anger is created equal. Some anger is privileged rage.

Good anger gets you a gig as a CNN commentator. Bad anger gets you hounded out of your job. Good anger isn’t described as anger at all. Instead it’s linguistically whitewashed as “passionate” or “courageous”. Bad anger however is “worrying” or “dangerous”. Angry left-wing protesters “call out”, angry right-wing protesters “threaten”. Good anger is left-wing. Bad anger is right-wing.

Socially acceptable displays of anger, from Occupy Wall Street to Black Lives Matter riots to the anti-Trump marches to the furious campus protests, are invariably left-wing.

Left-wing anger over the elections of Bush and Trump was sanctified. Right-wing outrage over Obama’s victory was demonized. Now that left-wing anger led a Bernie Sanders volunteer to open fire at a Republican charity baseball practice outing. And the media reluctantly concedes that maybe both sides should moderate their rhetoric. Before listing examples that lean to the right like “Lock her up”.

Not all anger is created equal. Anger, like everything else, is ideologically coded

Why were chants of “Lock her up” immoderate, but not Bush era cries of “Jail to the chief”?

Why were Tea Party rallies “ominous” but the latest We Hate Trump march is “courageous”?

Why is killing Trump on stage the hottest thing to hit Shakespeare while a rodeo clown who wore an Obama mask was hounded by everyone from the Lieutenant Governor of Missouri to the NAACP?

Not all anger is created equal. Anger, like everything else, is ideologically coded. Left-wing anger is good because its ideological foundations are good. Right-wing anger is bad because its ideology is bad.

It’s not the level of anger, its intensity or its threatening nature that makes it good or bad.

And that is why the left so easily slips into violence. All its ideological ends are good. Therefore its means, from mass starvation to gulags to riots and tyranny, must be good. If I slash your tires because of your Obama bumper sticker, I’m a monster. But if you key my car because of my Trump bumper sticker, you’re fighting racism and fascism. Your tactics might be in error, but your viewpoint isn’t.

There are no universal standards of behavior. Civility, like everything else, is ideologically limited.

Tone policing is how the anger of privileged leftists is protected while the frustration of their victims is suppressed

Intersectionality frowns on expecting civil behavior from “oppressed” protesters. Asking that shrieking campus crybully not to scream threats in your face is “tone policing”. An African-American millionaire’s child at Yale is fighting for her “existence”, unlike the Pennsylvania coal miner, the Baltimore police officer and the Christian florist whose existences really are threatened.

Tone policing is how the anger of privileged leftists is protected while the frustration of their victims is suppressed. The existence of tone policing as a specific term to protect displays of left-wing anger shows the collapse of civility into anger privilege. Civility has been replaced by a political entitlement to anger.

The left prides itself on an unearned moral superiority (“When they go low, we go high”) reinforced by its own echo chamber even as it has become incapable of controlling its angry outbursts. The national tantrum after Trump’s victory has all but shut down the government, turned every media outlet into a non-stop feed of conspiracy theories and set off protests that quickly escalated into street violence.

But Trump Derangement Syndrome is a symptom of a problem with the left that existed before he was born. The left is an angry movement. It is animated by an outraged self-righteousness whose moral superiority doubles as dehumanization. And its machinery of culture glamorizes its anger. The media dresses up the seething rage so that the left never has to look at its inner Hodgkinson in the mirror.

The angry left has gained a great deal of power

The left is as angry as ever. Campus riots and assassinations of Republican politicians are nothing new. What is changing is that its opponents are beginning to match its anger. The left still clings to the same anger it had when it was a theoretical movement with plans, but little impact on the country. The outrage at the left is no longer ideological. There are millions of people whose health care was destroyed by ObamaCare, whose First Amendment rights were taken away, whose land was seized, whose children were turned against them and whose livelihoods were destroyed.

The angry left has gained a great deal of power. It has used that power to wreck lives. It is feverishly plotting to deprive nearly 63 million Americans of their vote by using its entrenched power in the government, the media and the non-profit sector. And it is too blinded by its own anger over the results of the election to realize the anger over its wholesale abuses of power and privileged tantrums.

But monopolies on anger only work in totalitarian states. In a free society, both sides are expected to control their anger and find terms on which to debate and settle issues. The left rejects civility and refuses to control its anger. The only settlement it will accept is absolute power. If an election doesn’t go its way, it will overturn the results. If someone offends it, he must be punished. Or there will be anger.

The angry left demands that everyone recognize the absolute righteousness of its anger as the basis for its power. This anger privilege, like tone policing, is often cast in terms of oppressed groups. But its anger isn’t in defiance of oppression, but in pursuit of oppression.

Anger privilege is used to silence opposition, to enforce illegal policies and to seize power. But the left’s monopolies on anger are cultural, not political. The entertainment industry and the media can enforce anger privilege norms through public shaming, but their smears can’t stop the consequences of the collapse of civility in public life. There are no monopolies on emotion.

James Hodgkinson absorbed all this. The left fed his anger. And eventually he snapped

When anger becomes the basis for political power, then it won’t stop with Howard Dean or Bernie Sanders. That’s what the left found out in the last election. Its phony pearl clutching was a reaction to the consequences of its destruction of civility. Its reaction to that show of anger by conservatives and independents was to escalate the conflict. Instead of being the opposition, the left became the “resistance”. Trump was simultaneously Hitler and a traitor. Republicans were evil beasts.

James Hodgkinson absorbed all this. The left fed his anger. And eventually he snapped.

Anger has to go somewhere.

The left likes to think that its anger is good anger because it’s angry over the plight of illegal aliens, Muslim terrorists, transgender bathrooms, the lack of abortion in South Carolina, the minimum wage at Taco Bell, budget cuts, tax cuts, police arrests, drone strikes and all the other ways in which reality differs from its utopia. But all that anger isn’t the road to a better world, but to hate and violence.

Millions of leftists, just like Hodgkinson, are told every day that Republicans are responsible for everything wrong with their lives, the country and the planet. Despite everything they do, all the petitions they sign, the marches they attend, the donations, the angry letters, the social media rants, Republicans continue to exist and even be elected to public office. Where does that anger go?

Leftist anger is a privileged bubble of entitlement that bursts every other election

Either we have a political system based on existing laws and norms of civility. Or we have one based on coups and populist leftist anger. And there are already a whole bunch of those south of the border.

Leftist anger is a privileged bubble of entitlement that bursts every other election. Its choice is to try to understand the rest of the country or to intimidate, censor, oppress and eventually kill them.

James Hodgkinson took the latter course. His personal leftist revolution ended, as all leftist revolutions do, in blood and violence. The left can check its anger privilege and examine its entitlement.

Or his violence will be our future.

The Soap Bubble Papacy™ – The Missing Crowds…


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Today we stay off topic again, and return our attention to the 2016 US Presidential Election. As you dear reader will recall, one glaring anomaly that your humble blogger reported on quite regularly is what we called the FAKE POLLS. (see here and here and here just to mention 3)

What interested us back then was not the FAKE POLLS in and of themselves, but the fact that everybody knew that they were FAKE POLLS. Or at least should have known… Or maybe I should say that any rational individual with a modicum of intelligence and an iota of intellectual honesty should have known that these POLLS were FAKE. And if the above mentioned intellectually honest individual didn’t know before the Podesta emails (see here) came to light, they should have known afterward.

So why am I bringing this to your attention?

Well, we had another occurence of FAKE POLLS appear in the Georgia 6th Congressional District special election that was held this past Tuesday. The re-post from the Zero Hedge website below sets out the fact. (see original here) And it would appear as if these folks have learned nothing, as evidenced below.

The reason that this is important for us as Catholics is due to the proximity of… lets call them the main actors, in the WikiLeaks Podesta emails relating to FAKE POLLS and these same actor’s proximity to the “Catholic Spring” (see here) emails also released by WikiLeaks.

For those who are not familiar with the “Catholic Spring” issue, the background is that Mr. Postesta and his friends created front groups of purported “catholics” in order to create an uprising within the US Catholic Church in order to “re-order” its political priorities. You know, like the Catholic “obsession” with abortion. But I digress… More detail can be found here.

So to tie this information above and below into one tidy package, in January of this year, Pew came out with their survey data pertaining to the popularity of Francis, the bishop of Rome. What is important to note is that in one of the headlines, we can read that: Pope Francis’ popularity extends beyond Catholics. (see here) And there is evidence to support just this (check out the Unaffiliated column):

That is, provided that these polls are not FAKE POLLS.

And this is where the problems begin.

This past Sunday, Francis held the Corpus Domini (Corpus Christi) procession in Rome. He moved the Feast Day from its standard Thursday observance to Sunday in order to  “allow more people to participate in the traditional procession through Rome”.

And needless to say, it did not work as can be seen from the picture above.

What’s worse is that Francis didn’t even show up to the procession. (see here)

PS. The empty space in the middle is where the popes kneel during the procession.

Like here:

And everyone in Rome is talking about it!

But back to the subject at hand, i.e. the “popularity of Francis”. In the Pew Research post that asserted that Francis popularity extends beyond Catholics, which is an objective correct claim, we can read about how popular Francis is.

Yet in a New York Times (yes, that New York Times) piece, written a couple of months earlier, we can read the following: (see here)

But are Catholics actually coming back? In the United States, at least, it hasn’t happened. New survey findings from Georgetown’s Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate suggest that there has been no Francis effect — at least, no positive one. In 2008, 23 percent of American Catholics attended Mass each week. Eight years later, weekly Mass attendance has held steady or marginally declined, at 22 percent.

So what accounts for this “Francis popularity” that Pew Research is picking up, but is not translating into increased church attendance, not to mention the horrible Corpus Domini mass and procession attendance that we have witnessed this past Sunday?

Here is that explanation, once again as opined by the New York Times:

Francis has built his popularity at the expense of the church he leads. Those who wish to see a stronger church may have to wait for a different kind of pope. Instead of trying to soften the church’s teaching, such a man would need to speak of the way hard disciplines can lead to freedom. Confronting a hostile age with the strange claims of Catholic faith may not be popular, but over time it may prove more effective. Even Christ was met with the jeers of the crowd.

Oh my!

And finally, about the FAKE POLLS. There is an old saying about believing nothing that you read and only half of what you see, I think it would be a good piece of advice to use as guidance when reading about how popular Francis is.

When reading something like this here.

Besides, the missing crowds give the game away.


Democrats, Stop With The Poll Rigging…It’s Getting Embarrassing

Last fall, in the months/weeks leading up to the presidential election, we spent a fair amount time talking about how Democratic pollsters were setting themselves up for a massive embarrassment on election day with their obviously rigged polling data that consistently suggested Hillary had a commanding lead.  In fact, just weeks before the election, the Washington Post published a poll showing that Hillary was well on her way to a ‘blowout’ 12-point victory (we wrote about it here:  This Is How WaPo’s Latest Poll Gave Hillary A 12 Point Advantage Over Trump).  Needless to say, that never happened and those pollsters suffered the humiliating consequences of their biased ‘math.’

Unfortunately, as last night’s special election in Georgia makes all too clear, no one on the left seems to have learned any lessons from their presidential poll rigging debacle last November.

In fact, one prominent pollster even declared just 6 days before the election that if Ossoff failed to win it would mean that “MATH IS DEAD AND DATA IS BROKEN.”

Of course, the problem isn’t that “math is dead” or “data is broken”…the problem is that rather than using data to arrive at a solution pollsters have resorted to starting out with a solution and then solving for the data.

Which is exactly what appears to have happened in Georgia.  As the following chart points out, with just 9 days left until election day, pollsters were predicting a fairly easy win for Democratic candidate Jon Ossoff in Georgia’s 6th district runoff…shocking, we know.  But, just over a week later, the Republican candidate ended up easily walking away with the win, and served up another embarrassment for pollsters in the process as actual results swung 8.6 points from predictions peddled to the public just a week earlier.

So how does this keep happening?  Well, it’s not that surprising in light of the fact that Democrats literally wrote a playbook on how to rig polling data through “oversamples.”  As we noted last October in a post entitled “New Podesta Email Exposes Playbook For Rigging Polls Through ‘Oversamples’“, it all apparently has a lot to do with “oversampling” various minority groups.

The email even includes a handy, 37-page guide with the following poll-rigging recommendations.  In Arizona, over sampling of Hispanics and Native Americans is highly recommended:

Research, microtargeting & polling projects
–  Over-sample Hispanics
–  Use Spanish language interviewing. (Monolingual Spanish-speaking voters are among the lowest turnout Democratic targets)
–  Over-sample the Native American population

For Florida, the report recommends “consistently monitoring” samples to makes sure they’re “not too old” and “has enough African American and Hispanic voters.”  Meanwhile, “independent” voters in Tampa and Orlando are apparently more dem friendly so the report suggests filling up independent quotas in those cities first.

–  Consistently monitor the sample to ensure it is not too old, and that it has enough African American and Hispanic voters to reflect the state.
–  On Independents: Tampa and Orlando are better persuasion targets than north or south Florida (check your polls before concluding this). If there are budget questions or oversamples, make sure that Tampa and Orlando are included first.

Of course, the intent of publishing these ridiculous polls is presumably to ‘chill’ the Republican vote…afterall, why go through the hassle of long lines at a polling station if your candidate has no shot at winning?

That said, the strategy only worked BEFORE the media and pollsters lost all credibility…so, why bother keeping up the charade?  As we mentioned above, it’s just getting embarrassing at this point.

Normalization Narratives And The Dubia Cardinals Poisoning The FrancisWell…


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Today we go off theme, or rather go off the theme that your humble blogger was developing over the last few posts. Those posts dealt with an interdisciplinary attempt to form an understanding of where the post-conciliar church went wrong and to define a “cure” that would allow it to return to its mission, as defined by its Found namely: the salvation of souls.

So today, we will do a post on an aspect of a recent and presently developing story, which isn’t getting the attention that it deserves. The recent development is the letter sent by the Four Dubia Cardinals, requesting an encounter audience with the bishop or Rome, Francis.

The reason that this said aspect of the story isn’t getting the attention it deserves is that most of the Catholic blogo-sphere doesn’t quite grasp the post-Modernist mindset of the prevailing culture, especially the post-Modernist culture that is presently prevailing behind the Sacred Vatican Walls.

Just to refresh that which in fact constitutes the post-Modernist mindset. As we know, post-Modernists don’t believe in Truth. Everything is relative and all existing structures, whether they are physical (government, institutions, etc.) or immaterial (science, literature, language, etc.) can only be judged through the power dynamic.

Furthermore, there is no such thing as individuality, since all individuals belong to “identity groups” and it is these identity group that fight among each other to obtain power, for those specific groups and their group interests.

The manner in which these identity groups fight in this Hobbesian battlefield is through the use of NARRATIVES. Presently, that is… So what we have in fact are just individual NARRATIVES that are developed by special interest groups that are fighting other NARRATIVES developed by other special interest groups, in a social Darwinian death struggle for dominance.

Here is a more graphic representation of the above information.

Now for the Four Cardinal’s Audience Request (FCAR).

Into this above framework, we get a new piece of information, i.e. the Four Cardinal Audience Request (FCAR). So how do we properly interpret this FCAR in our post-Modernists post-conciliar church “intellectual” framework?

The starting point is that this FCAR appears to collide with the Francis dialogue NARRATIVE. Remember, it’s all about “dialogue”, yet we know, from the Peterson lectures that post-Modernists don’t believe in dialogue.

Moreover, the neo-Modernists don’t believe in the objective meaning of words and their common usage. Words, like everything else, are only social constructs. (Here we need to point out one exception, intrinsically disordered behavior, which is always biological… naturally.)  Words represent “power structures” that need to be overcome.

So the “sin” that the FCAR document commits is that it causes a negative emotional reaction against the dialogue NARRATIVE, i.e. the implication that “Francis doesn’t want to dialogue”. Therefore, this situation is bad not from the absence of an objective good, i.e. no dialogue, but rather from the point of view of the visual,… the optics of Francis evading dialogue. The situation created by the FCAR produces an emotionally detrimental situation since it makes Francis look like a hypocrite.


Next, and the far larger problem that the FCAR represents is found in the following text:

We do not share in the slightest the position of those who consider the See of Peter vacant, nor of those who want to attribute to others the indivisible responsibility of the Petrine munus.

In light of the above defined post-Modernist framework, this is the most egregious form of material “heresy” that can exist in a post-Modernist pseudo-religious sect. The issue is as follows: not only does “naming” a counter NARRATIVE bring it to life, naming it also “platforms” it.

Now for those uninitiated or those who are not up to speed on what the concept “platforming” entails, I will refer you to a Harvard Business School publication that explains the concept below: (see here)

We typically think of companies competing over products — the proverbial “build a better mousetrap.” But in today’s networked age, competition is increasingly over platforms. Build a better platform, and you will have a decided advantage over the competition.

So to put our FCAR in this “platforming” CONTEXT, we see that by identifying the “product(s)”, i.e. counter-NARRATIVES, as

the “position of those who consider the See of Peter vacant”


“those who want to attribute to others the indivisible responsibility of the Petrine munus.”

… and further by referring to these two “counter-NARRATIVES” by name in the FCAR, the Cardinals not only allowed these two “products” to arise, but far worse, allowed these two counter-Narratives to be “platformed” on a Catholic Church Cardinal’s platform.

Furthermore, by not criticizing these TWO new counter-NARRATIVES in the FCAR, what the Cardinals have done, in this framework of course, is to grant these counter-NARRATIVES legitimacy. In other words, the Cardinals are treating these TWO counter-NARRATIVES as legitimate positions, while only implying that their position is the more preferable one for the bishopr of Rome.

But even if they had criticized the named TWO counter-NARRATIVES in that document, the Cardinals would still be engaged in something that is now in the post-Modernist framework known as “normalization”.

And naturally, there are such things as “normalization NARRATIVES”.

Aside, please see the link here for an example from the POLITICAL sub-set of the Visibilium Omnium, et Invisibilium.

So concluding, the most interesting aspect of the Four Cardinal Audience Request, from a post-Modernist point of view, is twofold: the appearance of not one, but TWO counter-Narratives being “platformed” by the Cardinals and the “normalization” of the TWO counter-Narratives.

Just to stress how important the “normalization” issue currently is, here is a link to the critique of the Alex Jones interview done by Megyn Kelly which appear last Sunday on her new show on NBC. This comes by way of the National Review post titled: Megyn Kelly’s Gift to Alex Jones. Here is the pertinent text:

A broader indictment is that she’s mainstreaming or normalizing Jones.

And then the author goes on to relate the following:

This is a huge gift to Jones. Even if Kelly does everything possible to avoid the appearance of “normalizing Jones,” he comes out of this a winner because his fans will love it and be re-affirmed in their belief that he’s important. And at least some people who haven’t heard of him will think this joker is more significant than he is.

On an aside, what’s funny about the author of this post is that he can’t even be bothered to research who is normalizing whom, in that Jones has a much larger audience that Megyn Kelly. Kelly got 3.5million viewers for her Jones Interview show, while Jones got approximately 22 million for the parallel transmission while the NBC show was running and corollary videos.

On another aside, whatever happened to the National Review? Excuse the digression…

Which brings me to the final point, and an answer to the question posed by the Call Me Jorge Blog, namely:

What was Francis reaction when he read this letter?

Here is my guess…

Never Interrupt Your Enemies When They Are Making A Mistake…


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Repost from our old friend Antonius Aquinas which appeared at the Zero Hedge website. (see here)

Are Pope Francis & Angela Merkel Enemies Of European Civilization?

Authored by Antonius Aquinas,

Two of Europe’s greatest contemporary enemies recently got together to compare notes and discuss how they were going to further undermine and destabilize what remains of the Continent’s civilization.  Pope Francis and German Chancellor Angela Merkel met on June 17, in the Vatican’s Apostolic Palace to discuss the issues which will be raised at a Group of 20 summit meeting in Hamburg, from July 7-8.

The Vatican said that Frau Merkel and the Pope discussed the need “for the international community to combat poverty, hunger, terrorism and climate change.” Ms. Merkel, in an obvious swipe at US President Donald Trump, said that “we are a world in which we want to work multilaterally, a world in which we don’t want to build walls but bring down walls.”  The reference to “walls,” of course, was to President Trump’s promise to construct a wall on the Mexican-American border.  The pope, too, has been critical of Mr. Trump’s proposed plan.

Ms. Merkel also lamented about the Trump Administration’s decision to opt out of the 2015 Paris climate accord.  Pope Francis urged President Trump to remain in the accord and gave him a copy of his encyclical, “Praise Be,” when they met earlier this spring.  The encyclical elevated “climate change” and protection of the environment as “moral obligations” while it criticized “perverse” economic development models that “enrich the wealthy at the expense of the poor.”

As has been the case since the Second Vatican Anti-Council (1962-65), popes have spent most of their time on secular concerns in which they have little competency and less on matters of the Faith.  Pope Francis has taken this to a new level and rarely preaches on doctrine.  This, in one sense, is good because when he does speak on religion, he usually spouts out some heresy or falsehood which scandalizes the Church.  His many blasphemies and heresies, plus the fact that he was never ordained as a priest in the traditional Catholic rite or traditionally consecrated as a bishop (neither was Benedict XVI), makes him ineligible to be a true Catholic pope.

The latest fraud that these two cretins are now pushing is the supposed threat of global warming.  The idea that “climate change” has had some nefarious effect on the environment has long ago been debunked by legitimate scientists and scholars.  Climate change is a ruse used by global elites to further tax, regulate and enslave humanity.

Facts and sound theory, however, do not bother the collectivist minds of Pope Francis and Angela Merkel. What they are interested in is power and control and they intend to keep it through lies like global warming and by coercive massive migration which will fundamentally alter Europe’s demographics to their New World Order masters’ advantage.

Had it not been for the likes of Pope Francis and Ms. Merkel, it is unlikely that Europe would be under a deluge of mostly Mohammedan “asylum seekers.”  The claim that the invasion was “spontaneous” due to the turmoil in the Middle East from US and Western nation-states military intervention is implausible.  The region has been unstable for decades.  Why all of a sudden is there a mass exodus and why it is mostly of young single Muslim men?

The invasion of Europe was carefully orchestrated and planned by the world’s power elite whose goal is to eliminate what is left of the Continent’s white Christian heterogeneous male population.  Pope Francis and Ms. Merkel are the New World Order’s puppets carrying out their marching orders.

While the outlook for Europeans may currently appear grim, it is not hopeless.  While Pope Francis and Angela Merkel cannot at present be deposed for their crimes, they can be defeated in the court of public opinion.  For Europe to become once again the center of human civilization, the ideals of multiculturalism and the fraud of global warming must be slain on ideological grounds.

This is the duty that confronts those that seek a return of Europe’s previous glories.  While the task appears monumental, it must be remembered that the pagan Roman Empire was eventually converted by the teaching of twelve men and one indomitable former Pharisee from Tarsus.

“Faithless Old Man Who Is Going Through The Motions” Uses That Word…


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Repost day today.

In the last post, your humble blogger began a thread about the ROOT SOURCE of the crisis in the post-conciliar church. Furthermore, the crisis in the post-conciliar church has exacerbated the crisis in that part of society whose traditions are founded in the Catholic Faith, i.e. Western Civilization.

The official HYPOTHESIS of the Deus Ex Machina blog is that the ROOT CAUSE of the degeneration of Western Civilization can be traced back directly to the Nominalist Heresy, initially espoused by William of Ockham. (see here)

Nominalism in turn created the environment for Cartesian philosophy, which appeared in the first half of the 17th Century. Cartesian “philosophy”, or rather it’s significance is captured in this Wikipedia entry quite well:

Descartes has often been dubbed the father of modern Western philosophy, the thinker whose approach has profoundly changed the course of Western philosophy and set the basis for modernity.[10][64] The first two of his Meditations on First Philosophy, those that formulate the famous methodic doubt, represent the portion of Descartes’ writings that most influenced modern thinking.[65] It has been argued that Descartes himself didn’t realize the extent of this revolutionary move.[66] In shifting the debate from “what is true” to “of what can I be certain?,” Descartes arguably shifted the authoritative guarantor of truth from God to humanity (even though Descartes himself claimed he received his visions from God) – while the traditional concept of “truth” implies an external authority, “certainty” instead relies on the judgment of the individual.

This Cartesian anti-rationalism can be reduced to the notion that Truth is not as Aristotle had defined , i.e. what is, that it is. So what effectively happened is that capital “T” Truth, i.e.  bringing the mind into conformity with reality (‘adaequatio rei et intellectus’), became small “t” “truth”, i.e. bringing thought into line with life (‘adaequatio realis mentis et vitae’). And it is this “philosophical” tradition that was at the heart of the suppression of Thomism in the second half of the 20th Century, leading up to the Second Vatican Council.

And we have been living with the consequence ever since…

As to our understanding of this erroneous supposition, another refutation of the above Cartesian definition of “truth” has appeared recently, and is provided by none other than Dr. Jordan Peterson. Here is how he explained the ERROR of the latest iteration of Nominalist “thinkers”, i.e. the post-Modernists:

And this is also why I think that the bloody post-modernists are so incorrect. You know, they say something like: ‘there’s an infinite number of interpretations of the world. And that’s actually true. But then they make a mistake, and they say: ‘ no interpretation is to be privileged over any other interpretation.’  It’s like WRONG. WRONG. That’s where things go seriously off the rails because the interpretation has to be… and this is the Piagetian objection: ‘ if you and I are going to play a game, rule 1 is that we both have to want to play. Rule 2 is that other people are going to let us play. Rule 3 is we should be able to play it across a pretty long period of time without it degenerating. And maybe Rule 4 is that while we are playing, the world shouldn’t kill us. There are not that many games… you know, you don’t send your kids to play on the super highway right. They’re not playing hockey on the superhighway. Cause world kills them. So there is an infinite number of interpretations, but there is not an infinite number of solutions.

So the latest refutation of the Nominalist ERROR comes by way of the clinical psychologists.

Interdisciplinary verification, yes?

Which brings us to another example of a “philosophical approach gone horribly wrong”. Over at Evergreen State University, we get this report. I will reserve comment on the situation since I can’t for the life of me figure out what the position of the protestors is.

However, I have come across information that could help shed light on what is in fact happening there. There is this  “faithless old man, that is going through the motions” who made the following observation recently, and I think it is quite fitting:

Remember. Memory is important, because it allows us to dwell in love, to be mind-ful, never forgetting who it is who loves us and whom we are called to love in return. Yet nowadays, this singular ability that the Lord has given us is considerably weakened. Amid so much frantic activity, many people and events seem to pass in a whirl. We quickly turn the page, looking for novelty while unable to retain memories. Leaving our memories behind and living only for the moment, we risk remaining ever on the surface of things, constantly in flux, without going deeper, without the broader vision that reminds us who we are and where we are going. In this way, our life grows fragmented, and dulled within.

I think that sums up the below post quite well.

Looking for novelty!

To bad there is no evidence that would support, whether the author of those words actually appreciates what the definition of that “n” word entails.

But at least he is using it.

So that maybe others might…


“Shocking” Documentary Reveals The “Stunning, Infuriating” Death Of Free Speech At Evergreen College (see here)

As we have detailed numerous times, student protesters have effectively been in control of Evergreen State University for about a month now, forcing the school to hold its commencement ceremonies at an alternative venue 40 miles from campus. The protests – and the school administration’s decision to acquiesce to the students instead of trying to hold them accountable for their actions – have prompted some in the Washington State legislature to try and pull state funding from the school.

HBO and Vice published a documentary about the protesters’ relentless efforts to shut down all dissent on campus. In it, biology professor Bret Weinstein, who students have demanded be fired and is at the center of the unrest, has gained some notoriety in conservative circles after publishing an editorial in the Wall Street Journal about the situation at Evergreen.

The documentary explores how the Evergreen administration’s handling of the demonstrations only served to inflame the situation further, as university president George Bridges acquiesced to student demands – including a request for all staff to undergo sensitivity training, while promising that no students would be held accountable for their actions during the demonstrations. 

In video of the initial confrontation between Weinstein and the protesters, Weinstein can be heard pleading with students to listen to him, only to be repeatedly shut down. In the interview with Vice, he seems harried – like he’s been worn down by the attention and students’ exhausting demands.

“Would you like to hear the answer or not? No no no!”

“This is not a discussion. You’ve lost.”

Weinstein claims he’s not a racist, and that he considers himself an ally to minorities and

By virtue of the way they constructed this, you were making a statement by being on campus that you were not an ally and I feel I am an ally of people of color in their attempt to gain equity.

I feel I am an ally to people of color in their attempt to gain equity. Well, they think I’m a racist. If you stand up against one of these things, if you think it’s ill-considered, you will be branded as a racist.

One of the protest leaders interviewed by Vice accused the school of mismanaging the situation, arguing that Weinstein has “validated” white supremacists and Nazis even though there’s no record of Weinstein saying anything remotely hateful.

Vice News correspondent (and former Reasoner/current Fifth Columnist) Michael Moynihan visited the embattled campus to query the antagonists in the controversy, and the results are stunning, infuriating, bananas…

“We just wanted to be like until you’re held accountable for these actions you don’t get to teach students at evergreen. You don’t get to spread this problematic rhetoric and instill it in students. At this point we’d like Bret to be fired, but that isn’t happening, the administration isn’t choosing to take action, they’re choosing to protect this white cis professor instead of its students.”

They students are also blaming Weinstein for inciting violent threats against them because he appeared on Fox News. As one student admits…

“Although Bret has not personally said go out and attack these students go out and threaten these students, that has been the result of his actions. He has validated white supremacists in our community and in the nation and I don’t think that should be protected by free speech.”

Meanwhile, the faculty and administration aren’t the only ones who feel threatened by the protesters. One student, who asked not to be identified because she was fearful of being targeted by the protesters, said that she no longer feels comfortable expressing her “nuanced” opinions.

“I feel like I don’t have the ability to speak if I disagree with the methods used in the protest. I’m afraid that my opinions, and myself, will be stigmatized.”

In perhaps the most shocking scene, video footage shows students holding President George Bridges hostage by trying to prevent him from leaving to use the bathroom.  In the video, a student can be heard telling the university president to “hold it.”

Bridges claims he felt safe during that encounter, and that the students wouldn’t have been able to stop him from going to the bathroom unescorted, but one telling exchange between him and the Vice reporter belies his characterization of events as peaceful.

Why did they want to escort you to the bathroom?

I don’t know.

Did you ask them?

Of course not.

In another clip, one protester expresses open hostility to the concept of free speech, arguing that the “safety” of minorities and LGBTQ people is more important than free expression, without explaining the disconnect.

Fuck Free Speech. When we’re dead when people die and you’re sitting here saying at least they got to have their free speech.”

The protests erupted after Biology Professor Bret Weinstein objected to a planned “day of absence” demonstration where white students and faculty were “invited” to leave campus for a day. Weinstein argued that one group asking another to leave a shared public space is tantamount to oppression, regardless of the respective parties’ skin color. Students responded by crowding into his classroom, shouting obscenities at him, and demanding that he resign…for the crime of disagreeing with their far-left PC agenda.

The problem at the core of the protest movement is that the students only see extremes. A professor is either an ally, or a horrible racist. The irony is that worldview is just as reductive as the hateful racist ideologies they claim to oppose. Furthermore, by relentlessly hounding Weinstein and the school’s administration, they’ve effectively become the oppressors in this scenario. The worst part is that students attend Evergreen to learn, and not to protest, are the ones who’re being hurt most by the situation. Classes at Evergreen – a school that doesn’t give grades, instead favoring a “wholistic” approach to education – have faced frequent disruptions for more than half of a semester as the protests blossomed into a full-on occupation.

Twisting The “Fabric Of Reality” Has Consequences…


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I have come across “something” that I think is quite significant. I will try to lay it out over the next several posts, so please bear with me. I think this “something” is of major significance to not only understand the crisis in the post-conciliar church, but likewise serves to understand how to get out of this crisis and back to the core mission of the Church, namely the salvation of souls.

Furthermore, the implications from this material are that if we can arrest the “degeneration” of the Catholic Faith, by extension we can arrest the degeneration of Western Civilization in general. Or at least we can take one large step in that direction.

So let’s get started.

For the information of new readers on this blog, and there’s a quite a few lately, the most cited source on this blog is an essay by Dr. John Lamont titled Attacks on Thomism. (see here) This essay provides a detailed account of how the neomodernists in the second half of the 20th Century went about suppressing and eradicating Thomism as the foundational philosophical construct underpinning Catholic theology.

In this essay, there were quite a few observations made as to how the neomodernists went about suppressing Thomism and the unintended consequences of that suppression. One of the contentions drawn from this information is that the “instability” (non-iterability) of the post-conciliar neomodernists theology, had a causal effect on the disintegration of the Institutional Church in the West.

Fast forward to the present. Over the last couple of weeks, Dr. Jordan Peterson has been doing a series of lectures titled The Biblical Series. These lectures can be described as a clinical psychologist’s analysis of the Biblical narrative, let’s say.

What is of importance is that in these lectures, Dr. Peterson brings his clinician’s analytical toolbox to understanding processes that appear in the Bible, and by extension carry forward into the theological sub-set of the Visibilium Omnium, et Invisibilium.

So today, I will re-post a transcript of a 15 – 20 minute fragment from Dr. Peterson’s third lecture. I am republishing this fragment because it precisely details the ROOT CAUSE behind the disintegration process of post-conciliar theology and breaks down the process explained in the Lamont essay in clinical terms, into its primary components.

On a different note, I have also noticed a great example of what I call the CONVERGENCE PROCESS. The idea is that any new knowledge that is acquired, if it is OBJECTIVELY CORRECT (TRUE), will CONVERGE with that which is taught by the Catholic Magisterium. The example that I came across deals with the proper ends of Marriage. It was so good that I decided to put up an entire page titled “Reconciling Faith and Reason”. When you have time, please venture over there. It is intended to be a reader participation page, so if you dear reader come across other examples, please drop me a note in the comment box and I will post.

And now, the transcripts from the III Biblical Series. The transcript starts at the 1:30:00 mark. ( with emphasis, added emphasis and [comments])


Any group has a set of customs. Just like a wolf pack does. So then the customs are being manifest, and then someone who is a genius is watching and thinking, ‘so what’s the rule in this situation, what’s the rule in this situation, what’s the rule in this situation’. And then in his imagination, the rules turn into a hierarchy and he goes up on a mountain and he goes bang, he thinks ‘God, here are the rules we’ve been living by all this time’.  And that’s the revelation of the Commandments.

Well then you think: ‘how else can it be’. You think rules came first and obeying came second? (…)

The actions come first, the obeying them comes first, and then you figure out what everybody’s up to and say ‘hey look, this is what you’ve been up to all along’.  Everybody goes ‘oh yea, that seems to make sense’. And if it didn’t, who would follow them? No one would follow them if they didn’t match what’s already there. Just think about that as unjust.

And so that’s portrayed there as a cataclysmic human event. It’s like ‘oh my God, we’ve been chimpanzees, we’ve been in this hierarchy of authority for so long, we have no idea what we are doing, and all of a sudden POOF, it bursts into revelatory consciousness and we can say: ‘Here is the law’. And you say: ‘is it given by God?’ Well, it depends on what you mean by God. You can start with that presupposition, but it’s not like it just came out of nowhere. It took…

And this is something else that Nietzsche observed, so interestingly, he said a moral revelation was the product of a tremendously long process of initial construction and formulation. Thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of years of custom, of building custom before you get the revelation of the articulation of the law.

And that’s a description of the pattern that works. So you say, ‘what’s the pattern that works?’

It’s the game that you can play with everybody else day after day with no degeneration.

It’s another thing that Piaget (Jean Piaget) figured out that’s so brilliant and that’s the idea of the equilibrated state.

It’s an extension of Immanual Kant’s idea about the universal maxim. You can act in a way, that each action could become a universal rule.

That was Kant’s universal moral maxim, and Piaget put a twist on that. He said, no, no, it’s not exactly it. It’s act in such a way that it works for you now, and next week and next month and next year and 10 years from now. And so while it’s working for you, it’s also working for the people around you and for the broader society. And that’s the equilibrated state.

You can think about that as the intimation as the city of God, on earth. It’s something like that. And it’s base on this idea that a morality has to be iterable.

[NB:  Iterable: capable of being iterated or repeated.]

And you know, there’s been lots of simulations online already, artificial intelligence simulations of trading games. The people who have been studying the emergence of moral behavior, say in artificial intelligence systems, have already caught onto the idea that one of the crucial elements to the analysis of morality is the iterability. You can’t play a degenerating game (post-conciliar “morality”). Because it degenerates.  You want to play a game that at least remains stable across time (Catholic morality), and God, if you can really get your act together, it could slowly get better. Of course, that’s what you’d hope for your family. Right? That’s what you are always trying to do, unless you are completely hell bent on revenge and destruction. (explains Francis’ behavior to a “t”)

[NB: What the above passage infers is that “morality systems” that lack the element of “iterability” degenerate over time. And the inference here is that post-conciliar “morality”, due to the lack of “iterability” began degenerating, and it is this degeneration that caused the Faithful to not “want to play the game” any longer. So they left…

Example: Think about a “moral system” that allows a husband to abandon his wife, and “marry” another. What is the “appeal” (iterability) of this “moral system” to that abandoned wife and her children? And what if the wayward husband had more than one family that he abandaned? ]

Is there a way that we can play together that will make playing together even better the next day? That’s what you are up to and I don’t see anything arbitrary about that.

And this is also why I think that the bloody post-modernists are so incorrect. You know, they say something like: ‘there’s an infinite number of interpretations of the world. And that’s actually true. But then they make a mistake, and they say: ‘ no interpretation is to be privileged over any other interpretation.’  It’s like WRONG. WRONG. That’s where things go seriously off the rails because the interpretation has to be… and this is the Piagetian objection: ‘ if you and I are going to play a game, rule 1 is that we both have to want to play. Rule 2 is that other people are going to let us play. Rule 3 is we should be able to play it across a pretty long period of time without it degenerating. And maybe Rule 4 is that while we are playing, the world shouldn’t kill us. There are not that many games… you know, you don’t send your kids to play on the super highway right. They’re not playing hockey on the superhighway. Cause world kills them. So there is an infinite number of interpretations, but there is not an infinite number of solutions.

And the solutions are constrained by the fact of the world and our suffering in the world, and also by the fact that we constrain each other.

[NB: And the fundamental constraint on ANY and ALL “moral systems” is that it has to conform to the Laws of Thought, i.e. Identity, Contratiction and Excluded Middle. If the “moral system” doesn’t, then one side will not want to “play the game” because the game will be stacked against that side, i.e. is corrupted. And due to the corruption, the “game” degenerates.]

And so that’s where I think it’s gone dreadfully, dreadfully wrong.

It’s really fun to look at these old pictures once you know what they mean.

What I’ve discovered is that once I understand… the underlying rationale for the… You know, someone worked hard on that. That’s an engraving. They took a long time making that picture. (…) And when you understand what it means…

You know, all those people, they’re prostrate  at the revelation of the law. Well, it’s like no wonder, break the law and see what happens? Break the universal moral law man, and see what happens?

(…) It’s no joke. You break a universal moral law and things will go seriously wrong for you. No wonder you would be in wonder… of the revelation of the structure that governs our being.

[NB: Exactly what has happened to the post-conciliar church. They broke a “universal moral law” and is now bearing the consequences.]

One of the things about the Old Testament… This is another thing that Nietzsche commented on. He was a real admirer of the Old Testament, not so much the New. He thought it was a sin for Europe to have glued the New Testament onto the Old Testament because he thought that the Old Testament was a really accurate representation of the phenomenology of being.  It’s like: stay awake, speak properly, be honest or watch the hell out, because things will come your way that you do not want to see at all. And it might not just be you, it might be everyone you know and everything about your culture that is demolished for generation and generation. It’s like, stay awake and be careful.

[NB: In our case, one can say that by suppressing Thomism (an iterable – non-degenerative moral system), and adopting an approach that was based on the “historical perspectivism” fallacy as the foundation of post-conciliar theology, the post-conciliar church, as a consequence, has “twisted the fabric of reality” by violating the “universal moral law” and is suffering from the consequences of that violation.]

I think people only don’t believe that when they are being hubristic. I think that most people know that deep in their hearts. You know, when you get high on your horse that happens fairly often. If you have any sense, you would think ‘ gee I’d better be careful. I better tap myself down a bit, because if I get too puffed up man, something is going to come along and take me out at the knees and everyone knows that: pride comes before the fall.

That’s why it says in the Old Testament that: Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.

[NB: I have not come across a better piece of advice that anyone can offer to the post-conciliar hierarchy at this point in time, than this above.]


Something happens. Someone twists the fabric of reality. And they do it “successfully” because it doesn’t snap back at them that moment. And then two years later, something unravels. And they get whalloped. And they say: That’s so unfair. And we track it. And then we say, what happened before that? This, and then before that this, and before that this… oh this. And that is where it went wrong.  

 [NB: A great way to describe what happened in the middle of the last century. The neomodernists “bent the “fabric of reality” and it is snapping back. But instead of stepping back and correcting the error, they are doubling down.]

Yea, because you can’t twist the fabric of reality without having it snap back. Because it doesn’t work that way. Because what are you going to do, twist the fabric of reality? I don’t think so. Because it’s bigger than you. Because I think that one of the things that temps people is that ‘ I can get away with it’. Yea, try. You’ll see how well that works. It’s like, you get away with nothing. And that is the beginning of wisdom, and that’s something that deeply terrifies me…

Because there are rules. And if you break them: God help you.

And I would just add: …because there is a just GOD!

To be continued…



Reading Francis Through Marx – Heralds Of The Gospel Explained…


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Today a quick repost from the Eponymous Flower blog. 

The reason I am bringing this to your attention is that a debate has broken out in the Catholic blogosphere about what in fact is Francis’ main motivation. Specifically, is this motivation:




In the humble opinion of your even more humble blogger, I think that the above question posed in this manner is a logical fallacy, of the false choice variety.

If we look at Francis’ background, what we see is that Francis doesn’t care about finances. He has no problem with running down dioceses, religious orders or even the entire Roman Catholic Church, bringing it to a state of economic ruin.

On the ideological side, Francis doesn’t care about ideology either per se. He has adapted a radical leftist ideology, but that is just because of the forces who brought him to power, i.e. the German Episcopate ( in reality, the extension of the German state “soft power” operations) and Soros, the Foundations and the state subsidized International NGO’s (in reality, the extension of the UN power grab ONE WORLD ORDER with the ONE WORLD RELIGION component, and most likely backed by German “soft power” operations likewise) need the leftist ideology to easily promote their HIDDEN AGENDAS. A good example of the veracity of this ASSUMPTION is the joint statement that Francis and the Russian Patriarch Kirill issued after their Cuba meeting.

So what is Francis about?

Francis is about power. He did whatever it took to attain power and now is doing everything he can to maintain it. This is why The “Dossier” has been deep sixed. It has been “sight unseen” since it threatens the constituency that provides the administrative snitches backbone to Francis’ bishopric of Rome. Remember, personnel is policy. But it’s not that he or his people likes them.  Necessity, like politics makes for strange bedfellows. Excuse the pun.

What Francis also cares about, is his legacy. Being a megalomaniacal narcissist, not to mention a Peronist (not Juan, but the Evita-type and a beta male) populist, he cares about how posterity will perceive him. He has pandered to “the poor” because he knows that there will always be “the poor”. And it’s not because Our Lord said the same thing. What is most likely the case is that he sees the “love” that “the poor” have for Evita, and he says: I want to be like that.

So at the end of the day, Francis is a dyed in the wool Machiavellian.

So that is the background.

Now we get to the post below. The reason that Francis is dismantling the “traditional” religious orders is not because they want to Restore Catholicism to that which was taught by it’s Founder. What he fears most is that successful religious orders demonstrate the failures of Francis. So what Francis has to do is to destroy everything, so that he can claim that the destruction, and by extension his EPIC FAILURE, was inevitable.

It’s called plausible deniability.

On an aside, with respect to the “mystery” of why Francis liked the SSPX in Argentina, it was most likely because he needed a “stick” to beat up the other Traditional Order that set up shop in his diocese. So he did a classic SSPX = good (because they are “irregular”) and the Institute of the Incarnate Word = bad (because they are regular and against the “spirit of the new springtime”).

So summa summarum, what Francis hates is success. And Francis hates success of other religious orders and dioceses, (think Bishop Livieres or Bishop Oliveri) is because he is a complete and utter EPIC FAILURE.

So that is the official Deux Ex Machina HYPOTHESIS.

Given the above, now we can go and read Francis latest move against the Heralds of the Gospel in Brazil.


General Superior of the Heralds of the Gospel Resigns (Avoiding the Fate of the Franciscans of the Immaculate?)

(Rome) The founder and first Superior General of the Lay Community of the Heralds of the Gospel (Evangelii Praecones) and the Order, Community of Virgo Flos Carmeli, Monsignor João Scognamiglio Clá Días, has resigned from office. He announced this step in a letter of June 2nd, yesterday. Is there suspicion in the Church, of that which attracts many vocations?

João Scognamiglio Clá Dias, founder and Superior General of the Heralds of the Gospel and Confreres.

Monsignor João Scognamiglio Clá Dias, founder and Superior General of the Heralds of the Gospel.

The Heralds of the Gospel and the male and female branches are a young, traditionally based foundation, which originates from Brazil and is now represented in 80 countries of the world. The charism of the community is strongly missionary and Marian. The Heralds originated in the 1970s, when the founder and other young men personally felt the need for a deepened religious and communal life. The actual development as a lay community and then as a branch of the Order took place in the mid-nineties.

The Heralds of the Gospel are the first lay community of pontifical right, recognized by Rome in the third millennium. They therefore also see themselves as “Heralds” of the third Christian millennium. Not for a progressive, but for a renewed, faithful Church. The recognition of the lay community took place with Pope John Paul II. The recognition of the two branches of the order (societies of the Apostolic Life without perpetual vows, but with promises of celibacy) took place in 2009 with Pope Benedict XVI.

In 2005, the first priests were consecrated, including the founder, Monsignor João Scognamiglio Clá Días, whom Pope Benedict XVI. conferred as a sign of appreciation and recognition in 2008, the title of honorary canon at the patriarchal basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome.

Fast-growing, missionary community – Numerous vocations

Today the priestly branch of the Community already has 120 priests and 20 deacons. The two societies of the Apostolic Life include more than 4,000 members. Heralds of the Gospel are over 40,000.

Quickly Growing, Missionary Community. They are Now Available in 80 Countries.

While John Paul II and Benedict XVI. completely stood behind the traditional, missionary community, Pope Francis suddenly changed this relationship. The tradition, the special worship of Our Lady of Fatima, the community discipline of an army which is already expressed in the name of “Heralds,” the rigor in youth formation, rapid growth and numerous vocations, have aroused suspicion, envy and resentment in other ecclesiastical circles. It’s a negative attitude of which even the Holy See is not free of under Francis.

João Scognamiglio Clá Días will complete his 78th birthday on the Feast of the Assumption. By his resignation he seems to want to save himself from the like that of the Franciscans of Immaculata. The Congregation of Religious, which has already unjustly and acquisitively subjected the Franciscans of the Immaculata, had already set up in recent weeks to take action against the Heralds of the Gospel.

See the background story of the Heralds of the gospel: Is The Pontifical Commissioner Ready for The next “Too Pious” Order?

Text: Giuseppe Nardi

Fr. Tim’s First Mass…


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

More good news. Just came across the picture of Fr. Timothy Szydlo’s first mass. For those who have not been following this story, Fr. Tim is the son of the Polish Prime Minister Beata Szydlo.

On the 4th of June, Fr. Tim offered his first mass and photos appeared on the Polish language New Liturgical Movement website’s Face Book page. So I have reproduced some below.