“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.


FrancisGospel: God Fights On The Side With The Biggest Guns…


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

Today is a RED LETTER day.

Over at the AKA Catholic blog, Louie Verrecchio posted a piece that really nailed the logical implications behind the current situation behind the Sacred Vatican Wall that can be termed as the “two popes” dilemma.

On an unrelated, but not entirely unrelated note, we have information about Francis, the bishop of Rome going completely and utterly paranoid. It would appear that one of the powers behind the throne, Card. Angelo Sodano, the promoter of the papabile FrancisDavosCardinal Parolin, has “requested” that all cardinals living in Rome inform Francis, the bishop of Rome as to their whereabouts. Can ankle bracelets be far behind? And not only… But I digress…

So what can one make of the above two incidents and how they are related?

Here is my HYPOTHESIS. 

What everyone needs to understand is that the Francis bishopric of Rome was created and financed to be a “transformational” bishopric of Rome.

In order for the Francis bishopric of Rome to be transformational after the passing of Francis, it needs to find a foundation on which the “FrancisChanges” can be “cemented”, so as to make them permanent.

Up until the Second Vatican Council, that foundation was Aristotelian logic as refined and developed by the scholastics and specifically the 13th Century Dominicans.

But with the suppression of Thomism and by extension Aristotelian logic, the neo-Modernists were left with a huge dilemma. That dilemma was caused by violations of the Laws of Thought, i.e. Identity, Contradiction and Excluded Middle. I will not go into this now, but the Dr. Lamont post here explains it in painstaking detail.

To look at it another way, if a belief system does not abide by the Laws of Thought (Logic), then it will atrophy into relativism and die away. Think about a situation where a wife is balancing the checkbook. She spent too much money, and decides that to make here checkbook balance, 2+2=5, a la Fr. Spadaro. And since it worked this time, next month, the logically challenged house wife needs to make 2+2=10. Yet at the bank, 2+2 will always be equal 4. Needless to say, these two sides of the banking relationship need to be reconciled.

Which brings us back to Francis. There is a way for the logically challenged housewife to maintain here creative accounting practices and simultaneously maintain her banking relationship in good standing. If her brother or husband is a mafia enforcer let’s say, she can ask that relative to go over to the bank manager and make him an offer that he can’t refuse.

Issue resolved.

And it gets around the “magical thinking” dilemma.

But the question then becomes, is this situation sustainable?

Well, no it is not.

Say the enforcer happens to get a heart attack on his way to the bank and passes away in one month’s time.

Guess what will happen to that housewife and her banking relationship in two month’s time, or when the bank manager learns of the new situation?

Moral of the story, when using an “approach” that is not based on logical grounds, the substitute approach is at best transitory.

With respect to the post-conciliar church, the analogous situation we are referring to, is the part of the Lamont text that deals with “historical perspectivism”. NB: “Historical perspectivism” is the idea that the Church is like a ship that sails into different ports throughout time and adapts to the spirit of the time at that particular port. And from the Rorate Caeli post, it would appear that this TRANSRATIONAL substitute foundation of “historical perspectivism” has finally disintegrated.

And how do we know this?

The proof that what we are observing behind the Sacred Vatican Walls is the disintegration of the neo-Modernist post-logical construct of “historical perspectivism” on which the “new springtime” is built, is the appearance of the use of FORCE on the part of the neo-Modernists.

To be more specific, in order to save the illogical and TRANSRATIONAL status quo, the current occupant of the Holy See and his brain trust have been consigned to the use of FORCE to suppress their perceived enemies.

One can say that the post-Modernist’s “historical perspectivism” ship has sailed!

NB: Please remember that when dialogue breaks down, it is only the use of FORCE that remains as the means to maintain power. But I digress…

Here is how Rorate Caeli commented:

Maybe he should just lock them up in a prison in Vatican City State and release them only after thorough authorization. Who knows, they may be “conspiring” against him, or even worse, planning what to do in the case of an upcoming conclave — as Francis’ own supporters did long before Benedict XVI ever “thought” of abdicating (or “being abdicated”…)

The larger problem with the above resolution used by TeamFrancis to pacify their “how to maintain power” dilemma is that the next pontiff that comes along can change everything back, or do something completely different since he will then have the keys to the Vatican dungeon.

But whatever the next pontiff does, there is no way in which he himself will be able to be “transformational” either, since his and Francis’ “transformations” will have no OBJECTIVE STRUCTURE underpinning their changes, but instead those changes were and will be, based on the capricious nature of just another wretched sinner.

And no matter how hard any future Roman Pontiff, be he legitimate or False, tries to interpret the “mind of Francis”, some adversary will come along and claim that his interpretation of the “mind of Francis” is wrong and that the adversaries interpretation is in fact the correct one.

And what will be the basis for the then “correct interpretaion” of the “mind of Francis”?

The same one that Napolean identified a couple of centuries ago, namely: God fights on the side that has the biggest guns.

It’s that simple…

And now, the AKA Catholic post that needs to be READ an DISCERNED in its entirety…


“Dogmatic certainty” that Francis is pope

Consider, if you will, the following hypothetical scenario:

A Catholic man and woman are validly joined in holy matrimony.

At some point, the man abandons his wife.

No annulment is obtained.

The man, still validly wed, proposes marriage to another woman; managing to deceive even their pastor into believing that he is single.

Marriage vows are exchanged at the altar with the pastor as witness, and the “newlywed” couple is widely embraced by the entire community as man and wife.

QUESTION: Is the couple validly married?

ANSWER: No, the conditions for a valid marriage, in spite of the convincing outward appearance to the contrary, did not exist.  

We might sum up the general principle being applied in this case as follows:

An act of deception, no matter how cleverly conceived or convincingly executed, cannot change the objective reality of a given situation.

Needless to say, this principle applies always and everywhere; i.e., there are no exceptional cases where it does not apply.

So far so good?


Now let’s consider an analogous hypothetical scenario:

A certain cardinal is validly elected pope.

At some point thereafter, enemies of the pope secretly pressure him via threats of harm, perhaps either to himself or to the Church, in order to force his resignation.

The pope acquiesces to this pressure and declares his intent to resign the Office of Peter.

The resignation is invalid, of course, given that “it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely.” (See 1983 Code of Canon Law, Canon 332 §2)

The pope, still the valid occupant of the Office of Peter, manages to convince the faithful – both laity and hierarchy – that the See of Rome is vacant.

A conclave assembles and promptly elects another cardinal who is then presented to the world as the new pope, and he is widely embraced by the entire community as the Holy Roman Pontiff.

QUESTION: Is cardinal #2 the pope?

ANSWER: No, the conditions for a valid conclave, in spite of the convincing outward appearance to the contrary, did not exist.  

Now let’s set our sights on reality:

There are any number of reasons to suspect that the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI was in some way forced. Whether or not you see them, stick with me here…

Oh, but Benedict said that his decision was freely made!

Yes, he did, but as Cardinal Walter Brandmüller recently acknowledged:

“The simple declaration of free resignation on the part of the person in question [the pope] is not enough, because depending on the circumstances that statement could easily be forced, and the resignation therefore invalid.”

I’ve had the pleasure of debating this situation with some well-informed and intelligent friends who will readily concede that the circumstances of Benedict’s resignation suggestthat it may very well have been forced.

They insist, however, that even if it was forced and technically invalid, the simple fact that a moral unanimity of the Church has since accepted (and continues to treat) Francis as pope provides “dogmatic certainty” that he is, in fact, the pope.

In other words, even if the See of Rome was not truly vacant as conclave 2013 assembled, they firmly believe that Jorge Bergoglio is now the valid occupant of the Office of Peter.

Look, I don’t know for certain that Benedict acted under duress, but what I do know is that an act of deception, no matter how cleverly conceived or convincingly executed, cannot change the objective reality of a given situation.

To suggest otherwise in this case is to imagine that a forced resignation can be valid (i.e., God will remove the papacy from the extorted pope) under the solitary condition that the crime is carried out in such a way as to fool a moral unanimity of people.

Sorry, I’m not buying it.

At this, let’s take a closer look at this claim of “dogmatic certainty” arising from Francis’ acceptance to see if it holds up to scrutiny.


It is a matter of dogmatic certainty that a man once made pope remains pope until such time as either he dies, validly resigns, or is deposed (which has never happened).

No one contests this.

If my friends are correct, then what we would have in this case, at best, are two competing dogmatic certainties, and that, my friends, cannot be; i.e., one of them does not apply in every conceivable situation, most notably, the present one.

My friends have cited the writings of certain venerable theologians in order to demonstrate the “dogmatic certainty” that they believe applies in the present case.

On close inspection, however, one will find that none of said writings speak to the specific circumstances of a conclave assembling under false pretenses; a situation that is not altogether unprecedented.

On April 7, 1378, less than two weeks after the death of Pope Gregory XI, the cardinals who were present in Rome assembled in conclave and validly elected the man who would be known as Pope Urban VI.

For various and perhaps even good reasons, Pope Urban was unpopular with the College of Cardinals.

So, on September 20th of that same year, many of these same cardinals assembled in conclave and proceeded to elect another man who took the name of Clement VII.

History clearly recognizes Clement as an anti-pope; the first of the Western Schism.

This recognition is not based upon the fact that only a portion of the Church recognized and accepted him as pope. (Indeed, the same could have been said of Urban VI thanks to the confusion that followed).

The fact that Clement was not universally accepted was merely a sign of the objective underlying truth that he was not a true pope.

Likewise, when a moral unanimity of the Church accepts a man as pope it is also merely a sign of the objective underlying truth that the man is pope.

NB: In neither case does this sign [of acceptance or non-acceptance] create the underlying truth; it simply reflects it, and the truth, whatever it may be, in no way depends on it.

As such, even if a moral unanimity of the Church had embraced Clement VII as pope in 1378, Pope Urban VI still would have been pope and Clement a pretender.

With all of this said, the reason Clement VII was an anti-pope is very simple and entirely objective; the See of Rome was not vacant when the cardinals proposed to elevate him to the papacy.

That’s it.

The subjective intentions of the cardinals that proposed to elect him – good, bad or otherwise – are irrelevant; i.e., even if every last one of them was somehow convinced that the Chair of St. Peter was vacant as they met, it would not matter one iota.

In light of the points raised here, my interlocutors have responded:

God will not allow the Church (again, a moral unanimity) to follow a false pope. This would be tantamount to the ‘gates of Hell prevailing’!

To which I would point out two things:

One, we know that God did allow arguably 2/3 of the Church to follow a false pope at certain points during the Western Schism and the gates of Hell did not prevail then.

So, why not 7/8 of the Church? How much is too much?

In 1958, if you were to describe the Second Vatican Council and the destruction of the liturgy that followed to a devout Catholic, he likely would have laughed it off, saying, God will not allow it as this would be tantamount to the ‘gates of Hell prevailing’!

If little else is crystal clear these days, it’s that God is willing to allow far more evil to enter the Church than most of us can imagine.

Secondly, my friends are essentially insisting that God will allow certain devious men to force His hand in removing the papacy from His Vicar if only they are crafty enough to extort the pope into resignation with sufficient stealth.

Is anyone really willing to hang their hat on this proposition?

I’m not.

In conclusion, make of these observations what you will, but just know that to insist that Francis’ acceptance provides “dogmatic certainty” that he is pope – in spite of any shenanigans that may have taken place with respect to Benedict’s resignation – you are also necessarily making claims that fly in the face of both faith and reason.

They Hate You…


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


I hope all my dear readers had a lovely mid-June weekend.

So if you did, today’s headline will not “trigger” you.

And yes, they really, really hate us.

But more about that later.

So back to the subject at hand…

Given that we have been hitting the philosophical aspects of His creation’s existence quite hard lately, today we will turn to the practical. In the video above, you will observe a self proclaimed “nominal atheist” giving one of his best “homiletics” to date, one of a supernatural character at that, about the necessity to fight EVIL.

Yes, Stefan Molyneux has hit another one out of the ball park.

One reason why I bring this video to your attention, is to make amends for an older Molyneux video that I linked to in the previous post, one in which Stefan derided some dogmatic aspects of Catholicism. Now, as I noted in a comment to that post, this earlier video that I posted was made in mid 2015. If we look at and compare the Stefan of 2015 and the Stefan of literally yesterday, we see a CONVERGENCE PROCESS taking place.

The second reason I am brining this to your attention is to begin the discussion about RESOURCES.

Why RESOURCES you might ask?

Well, because of something that God told us when he cast out our original parents from the Garden of Eden. Here is what He said: (Genesis 3: 17-19)

“And to Adam he said, Thou hast listened to thy wife’s counsel, and hast eaten the fruit I forbade thee to eat; and now, through thy act, the ground is under a curse. All the days of thy life thou shalt win food from it with toil;  

thorns and thistles it shall yield thee, this ground from which thou dost win thy food.

Still thou shalt earn thy bread with the sweat of thy brow, until thou goest back into the ground from which thou wast taken; dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.”

Now to translate this into contemporary terms, what God told Adam was that he and his descendents would have to continuously acquire their RESOURCES through hard work.

Or as Milton Freidman would say: there is no such thing as a free lunch.

Note bene: Notice how nicely this concept works itself into the r/K Selection Theory?

Which brings us to our practical advice on how to fight EVIL.

One sure way to fight EVIL is to deprive EVIL of their RESOURCES.

Going one step further, the manner in which one can deprive EVIL of their RESOURCES is to STOP patronizing those businesses that promulgate EVIL, whether intentionally or not.

To this end, you humble blogger has created a new page titled “They Hate Us!” On this page, a list of businesses will be named (and shamed) that are promulgating EVIL. EVIL is defined as per Catechism of the Catholic Church. Therefore, if one patronizes these businesses, one is effectively promulgating EVIL.

And just to demonstrate that we will not be the only ones who have adopted this strategy of FIGHTING EVIL, I re-publish a Zero Hedge post that has some interesting information. (see here)

It would appear that approximately 25% of adults already boycott selective brands.

And finally, a few words about hatred.

Over at the Catechism of the Catholic Church, we can read the following:

1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).

The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts – such as fornication – that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

And Canon 1756 is subject to Canon 1789 which reads as follows:

1789 Some rules apply in every case:

– One may never do evil so that good may result from it;

– the Golden Rule: “Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them.”56

– charity always proceeds by way of respect for one’s neighbor and his conscience: “Thus sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience . . . you sin against Christ.”57 Therefore “it is right not to . . . do anything that makes your brother stumble.”58

And Canon 1789 is the best answer against sophist arguments about “an adolescent spirituality” as promoted by certain FrancisCardinals, and is being allowed by the bishop of Rome himself.

And pointing out these inconvenient inconsistencies is why they literally hate us.

So the moral of the story is, as per the LEX ARMATICUS: 

6th Principle:

Stop giving these leftists money!


25% Of Americans Admit Partisan Politics Drove Them To Boycott Brands

Amid the increasingly divided electorate, it appears the most important part of America – the consumer – is now caught up in the political partisanship like never before.

Think there’s more hoopla about brand boycotts than actual boycotting? Maybe not. As Adage.com reports, a new Ipsos survey found that 25% of Americans said they had stopped using a brand’s goods or services in the previous three months because of protests, boycotts or the brand’s perceived political leanings.

A quarter of the U.S. population amounts to around 80 million people according to US Census data.

That’s a lot of people that are saying politics are driving their purchasing behavior,” said Chris Jackson, VP and strategic communication research lead at Ipsos Public Affairs.

“Socially conscientious consumerism has been on the rise for years,” said Ronn Torossian, CEO of 5W Public Relations.

“Given the combination of that trend and the current politically charged climate, it’s not surprising to see that such a significant number of Americans have changed their shopping habits due to politics.”

The big takeaway according to Ipsos: Marketers can’t always avoid the political fray any more, and are well-advised to at least know their consumers’ political leanings.

“It’s really important to understand are your customers liberal or conservative, or do they cross the line or are they both,” Jackson said.

Daniel O’Connell, managing director and Brand Definition, a agency that works primarily with tech clients including Hitachi and Philips, was not convinced, arguing that brands shouldn’t worry about political biases of consumers and should refrain from getting caught up in politics.

“Swaying one way versus another to mollify or pander maybe to one part of the group — that makes no sense whatsoever,” he said.

“As a brand, you’ve got to stand for something yourselves and it’s got to be your values.”

Just ask Starbucks, Nordstrom, or Uber…