PussyCatCorrection – It’s Mostly About The OPTICS…


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

Today your humble blogger will do some connecting the dots with some CONTEXT stuff thrown in and also introduce a new theme, namely OPTICS.

Right off the bat, being the good dye-in-the-wool Thomists that your humble blogger is, we begin with a definition: (see here)


plural in form but singular in construction :the aspects of an action, policy, or decision (as in politics or business) that relate to public perceptions

“… when a broken-down bailout recipient like Citigroup tries to pay its top executives gigantic bonuses or to acquire a new private jet, it has failed to reconsider the optics.” —Nick Paumgarten

Skilling said Baxter “was concerned about the optics of the conflict, but not about the ethics or propriety of the transactions,” according to interview memos. —Peter Behr and April Witt

Aside, hmmm… sounds like something Francis would say. But I digress…

Now that we are clear about the CONTEXT of the term OPTICS that we will be working with below, I would like to introduce you dear readers to Scott Adams. Scott Adams is a popular internet personality and creator of the Dilbert cartoons. He also does a lecture series on “persuasion techniques”. I like watching his videos because they appear to explain a lot of the OPTICS behind life in 21st Centrury Western Civilization.

Now to the subject at hand.

I have embedded a Scott Adams video in which he explains what is known in modern jargon as a “linguistic kill shot”. The specific example that he uses is the recent PATTERN of President Donald J Trump using the term “rocket man” when referring to the North Korean FrancisPolitician, Kim Jong-un. The reason that I am bringing this to your attention is that the CONTEXT behind using the “rocket man” epiteth when referring to Kim Jong-un is being done for a reason. And one underlying reason for using this epithet is for the OPTICS.

Please watch before you proceed further.

The reason that I have asked you dear readers to do all this preparatory work before proceeding, is to draw your attention now to the analogous situation that is presently playing itself out in the ECCLESIASTICAL sub-set of human activity.

As best I can tell, the Catholic world has been introduced to its very own version of a linguistic kill shot.

How so, you dear reader might ask?


What has happened is that sometime around the first half of the bi-Synod in 2014, various Catholic writers and especially bloggers began attaching “Francis” as a prefix to various novelties that the bishop of Rome appeared to be promoting. These OCCURENCES evolved into PATTERNS and were picked up by editors at the Pew Sitter Catholic news aggregater portal.

This development has gotten so widespread subsequently that these prefixed terms, such as FrancisChurch, FrancisBishops, FrancisPriests, FrancisMercy and FrancisAnnulment just to name a few, have become part of our day to day discourse.

One can say that the editors at the PEW SITTER website WEAPONIZED these prefixed terms. (see here)

The reason why I have begun to think that this is an EVENT of MAJOR SIGNIFICANCE is that I now understand that using the “Francis” prefix identifies a non-Catholic novelty and subjects it to the FrancisCatholic treatment.

To be more precise, this treatment of a FrancisNovelty, as opposed to your run-of-the-mill VIINovelty, is much, much more powerful in that it conforms exactly to Rule # 12 of the Saul Alinsky Rule for Radicals (see here), which states:

12. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.“ Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

And what better way to execute the above than with a “Francis” prefix!

Don’t believe me, let’s do a practical application exercise. Close your eyes and think about the image that comes to your mind’s eye when reading the following:

  1. FrancisBishop, then FrancisCardinalCupich
  2. FrancisBishopMcElroy
  3. FrancisArchbishopPaglia
  4. FrancisAnnulment
  5. FrancisMercy
  6. FrancisTheology

… and the list can go on and on.

See what I mean?

Aside, HERE are some examples from the most excellent Stumbling Rock blog where this technique is being used with surgical precision and to perfection.

I will stop there since you should have a good idea of the PROCESS at work. But please hold that thought.

Which brings me to today’s main event. Over at GloriaTV, we get this post: (see here)

Anonimi della Croce wrote on September 16 that Cardinal Raymond Burke disclosed in a private setting during the recent Congress on Summorum Pontificum in Rome, that a “correction” of the controversial Amoris Laetitia is imminent.

It will not openly confront Francis but will take the form of letter or document signed by Cardinal Burke and other prelates, who in a magisterial way will correct those parts of Amoris Laetitia that contradict the Catholic Faith.

So how do we analyze the above, given the preceding CONTEXT?

What your humble blogger would suggest is first to set out the PREMISE for the analysis. The best way to do this is to identify those Rumsfeldian “Known Knowns”. Here is my list:

  1. Francis wants to make his FrancisNovelties permanent. (see here and here)
  2. Francis knows that he can create a split in the post-conciliar NUChurch. (here)
  3. Francis pushing for split to get rid of remaining Catholics in positions of authority. He needs to keep the tangible assets and cash in the hands of the FrancisHierarchy. (see here)

On the opposite side, the Catholic opposition knows that:

  1. FrancisBishopric will pass. What is important is to be in the decision making positions when that eventuality comes.

So given the Known Knowns identified above, one explanation for the CONTENT of the above GloriaTV post is that the CORRECTION of the FrancisHeresy will correct the FrancisDocument and not TheFrancis.

This is most likely being done to keep open the door to PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY (But you never said anything your “Holiness”…) and not draw the direct wrath of TheFrancis.

Now folks, I am not trying to be soft on our “pussy-cat” prelates, but am just offering an explanation behind their thinking and actions…

Which brings me to the conclusion of this post.

Looking into the futures, what this PussyCatCorrection will mean is that the PussyCatPrelates do not want to confront Francis directly.

Yet, they are leaving the door wide open… actually, they are taking off the door and burning it, to a future correction. Most likely post-mortem.

A Councile of Econe, maybe?

But I digress…

What they are also doing is setting out that which constitutes the Catholic Magisterium. The PussyCatCorrection, along with the 5 Dubia will define what was, is and will always be Catholic. 

Whatever is not in accordance with the PussyCatCorrection, is not Catholic.

But what’s more interesting is that the PussyCatCorrection is also very Alinsky-esque in its construction. What it has done is that it took the “Joy of Adultery” Francismagisterium and : 

“targeted it, froze it, personalized it, and polarized it.”

And if Francis does something stupid, like take revenge against the signatories, … well…

the OPTICS will not be favorable.

But regardless, the Rubicon will have already been crossed…

And with the Catholic writers and bloggers continuously using the term Francis”magisterium”, the shelf life of this FrancisNovelty will not be too long.

Actually, this below video is most likely a good representation of what the next “popemobile” will do to the Francis”magisterium” post the FrancisBishopric

And I think TeamFrancis know this…

… and they are worried.

Damn those bloggers…




So Just How OBJECTIVELY CORRECT Was Steve Bannon?


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

Today we return to our topic of FUNDING. And this means that your humble blogger will revisit the Steve Bannon Interview that appeared on the “news” magazine 60 minutes. Here is the Breitbart story and commentary.

So today, your humble blogger will focus on the “bishops”. For those who still haven’t figured out what is the underlying “faith” of our post-conciliar “bishops”, your humble blogger has been trying to shine some daylight on this matter.

As my long time readers know, when analyzing a certain OCCURRENCE or PATTERN, one can examine it on different levels. The level at which the analysis will allow one to understand the given OCCURRENCE or PATTERN best, is by analyzing it on the philosophical level. Given that the study of philosophy is the study of essences, universals and absolutes, understanding the philosophy behind any actions gives one a good handle on why that action occurred in the first place.

And obviously, “essences” is the operative word in our case here.

Or to put it another way, the reason why looking at the “essences” of a given OCCURRENCE or PATTERN is so effective, is that it can allow one to understand the INTENT behind the given OCCURRENCE or PATTERN.

So given the above, what we will do today is a practical application exercise. What I would like you dear readers to do, is read the below post written by Ann Corcoran and appeared at the Refugee Resettlement Watch blog.

Once you have read it, please think about the scale at which the US Catholic Church is being subsidized by the US Federal Government. Specifically, think about how many Pew Sitters this government funding has replaced.

Here is a simple spreadsheet:

So what the table above tells us is that if the average Pew Sitter contributes $1 per Sunday, given that he or she attends each week, the total contribution to the US Catholic Church is $52. Given that the Total Government Contract and Grants Revenue that the US Catholic Church received from just these 6 government programs was a staggering $95 256 272, this represents the equivalent of…


Pew Sitters.

So let’s do a back of the envelope calculation, shall we?

Given that there are roughly 77.4 million Catholics in the US, and that the average weekly mass attendance is roughly about 20%, this would mean that one can expect approximately 15.5 million Pew Sitters attending the “celebration” of the mass of Paul VI on any given Sunday.

Given that this is the case, and assuming that the average Pew Sitter gives $1 per Sunday, the funds obtained from the Federal Government for providing human trafficking resettlement programs in 2016 represents … ready for it… approximately…


of the total take from Sunday collections.

And this is just one set of Government programs directed at the illegal immigrants.

I will leave off here. Below is the Ann Corcoran post, original can be found here.


US Catholic Bishops rolling in federal dough according to financial statements

Yesterday I said that it is time for the US Conference of Catholic Bishops to add one important detail to every press release or news story where they lecture us (or Donald Trump) about humanitarianism, about social justice, about “welcoming the stranger.”

That important missing piece of information is how much of your money (not freely given) goes to them directly from the US Treasury.

Thanks to reader Joanne for pointing us to recent audited financial reports for the Bishops, here.  And, specifically the most recent one available.

As you look at the numbers, don’t miss the millions going to the Bishops for the Unaccompanied Alien Children!

For fun I went back to the 2010 report for comparison. Wow!

During Obama’s time in office they went from $58 million to $95 million!

You need to know too, that individual Catholic Charities (usually through the local diocese) are also getting money separately from the feds for many activities.  Use USASpending.gov to research your local “charities.”

As we have said repeatedly: refugee resettlement is a business!

FrancisChurch Is Bad For This Elephant’s Mental Health…


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

And others are beginning to notice!

The Catholic Church’s Push for a Multicultural Utopia Gets Weird

Motivated by the Gospel of Jesus Christ, who they claim was himself a migrant and a refugee; the Catholic Church is set to kick off their “Share the Journey” campaign on September 27, 2017.  With left-leaning Pope Francis at the helm, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) intends to instruct all Catholics to get with the program and accept all kinds of immigrants in the U.S. — or face eternal damnation.

Worse yet, I’m going to outline how the Catholic Church is putting young people through questionable psychological exercises in an odd game of “be the refugee.”

Hot off the presses and hitting a church near you comes the pamphlet, “Our Faith Teaches: Welcoming the Refugee and the Migrant.”  The pamphlet begins the church’s two-year mass education effort to condition (especially United States) Catholics to support programs like “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” (DACA) and apparently accept “global migration” by any immigrant group — no questions asked.

The “Share the Journey” website first introduces us to immigrant “Ruth” — a name obviously meant to invoke the Biblical Ruth who was widowed and then followed her mother-in-law into a strange land — and famously gave the world, “Whither thou goest, I will go.”  Today’s Ruth, however, sadly “lived in the shadows” until President Obama introduced DACA. We are told that, “Over 780,000 youth have received protection from the DACA program since its inception by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2012.”  The USCCB official statement is pretty clear on the subject and reads in part:

“The cancellation of the DACA program is reprehensible.  It causes unnecessary fear for DACA youth and their families.  These youth entered the U.S. as minors and often know America as their only home…This decision is unacceptable and does not reflect who we are as Americans…As people of faith, we say to DACA youth — regardless of your immigration status (emphasis mine), you are children of God and welcome in the Catholic Church.  The Catholic Church supports you and will advocate for you.”

So they aren’t just welcoming illegals into the church spiritually and offering hot meals, they’re also saying “come to us and we’ll help you fight the government.”

It’s much bigger than DACA, though.  Over the next two years, the Catholic Church will attempt to convince every adherent to its faith that its long history of social justice is culminating in forcing every country, (but especially the United States) into accepting any and all illegal immigrants in the name of Jesus Christ.  One of the two greatest commandments was, after all, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” (the name of the church’s first upcoming campaign for immigrants and refugees;) and if one fails to comply, that would obviously be a sin; and Jesus — the scorned migrant — was crucified for the forgiveness of our sins.  If you think this is too over-the-top, consider that the “Social Justice” part of the church’s catechism is being invoked with a heavy-handedness not seen since its inception.  From Article 3, Social Justice, we find the phrases:

  • “Distribution of wealth…”
  • “Social justice is linked to the common good…”
  • “Society ensures social justice by providing the conditions that allow associations and individuals to obtain their due.”
  • “The duty of making oneself a neighbor to others and actively serving them becomes even more urgent when it involves the disadvantaged, in whatever area this may be…This same duty extends to those who think or act differently from us.”
  • “These differences belong to God’s plan, who wills that each receive what he needs from others…These differences encourage and often oblige persons to practice…sharing of goods; they foster the mutual enrichment of cultures.”
  • “The equal dignity of human persons requires the effort to reduce excessive social and economic inequalities”

(In an interesting aside, this article comparing Socialism to Catholicism, then subsequently rejecting the idea, reads like it was written in 2017 rather than 1913.)

This scrutiny of the Catechism of the Catholic Church is done now owing to the church’s current in-your-face activism and their upcoming agenda which begins with the “week of prayer and action for migrants and refugees.”  Set to run from October 7-13, the main webpage prominently features a Muslim woman; and since all of the pictures beneath her appear to be of Muslims, one assumes they are the only type of “immigrant and refugee” that the church is concerned with.

From “Pseudosacral Homopoetic Prose” To Transrational Brutalism And How We Got Here


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

So yesterday’s post was a primer.

And today we do literary criticism.

In yesterday’s post, your humble blogger wanted to set out the framework, or as we say on this blog – CONTEXT, for today’s post.

Before we go on to the subject matter itself, I need to make a short digression. On the 21 of May 2017, a post appeared at the Rorate Caeli blog titled Pope Francis condemns Catholic “Fanatics” about doctrinal clarity. In that post, the following appeared:

“But there were always those people who, without any commission, go about disturbing the Christian community with speeches that upset souls: “Eh, no, someone who says that is a heretic, you can’t say this, or that; this is the doctrine of the Church.’ And they are fanatics about things that are not clear, such as these fanatics who go about there, sowing discord in order to divide the Christian community. And this is the problem: when the doctrine of the Church, that which comes from the Gospel, that which the Holy Spirit inspires – because Jesus said, ‘He will teach us and remind you of all that I have taught’ –  that doctrine becomes an ideology. And this is the great error of these people.”

Since May, the “literary construct” used by Francis to express the above thought has undergone a metamorphosis. In grammatical terms, one can say improvement. What has happened is that Francis has reduced the level of ambiguity to the following:

“On the contrary, traditionalist ideology has a faith like this [the pope makes a gesture of putting on earmuffs]. “The benediction should be done like this. In Mass, fingers should be like this, with gloves, like before …” What Vatican II has done with the liturgy has been something truly grand, because it has opened worship of God to the people. Now the people participate.”

This latter passage is from the Vox Cantorix blog post titled Of Bergoglian earmuffs and socks, and appeared on the 4th of September, 2017.

So as we can observe is that over the span of 3 1/2 months, Francis the bishop of Rome has gone from using cryptic and enigmatic “literary constructs” to express a “certain thought”, to using outright clear and precise verbiage to express that same “certain thought”.

Aside, the latter construct is not very Jesuitical, if I do say do myself…

Reason being that the latter “literary construct”, i.e. “traditionalist ideology” is a very precise term.

Come to think of it, the expression “traditionalist ideology” is as specific and as precise and as understandable as anything that one can come across, when going through the various speeches, conversations, musings at the Domus Saencte Maerta, and other off the cuff comments of Francis,  i.e the Francis “magisterium”.

Actually, this “literary construct” is as precise and definitive as say… oh… this passage below is precise and definitive:

But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting for the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.

Now you can’t get any more precise and clear and definitive than the above, now can you?

Which brings me to the subject matter at hand.

If one were to hear the expression “traditionalist ideology”, one might be excused if one experiences a feeling of cognizant dissonance. Yes, it is an oxymoron. One cause for the above could be due to reading the many posts about what constitutes an IDEOLOGY on this blog. But I digress…

So in an attempt to combat the dissonance, one might do a word search on a random search engine (hint: DuckDuckGo) and find the term IDEOLOGY defined as follows:

Ideology is a comprehensive set of normative beliefs, conscious and unconscious ideas, that an individual, group or society has.

Now in our case, we would be referring to Catholic society.

So drilling down into the definition, we notice the term “normative beliefs”. Here is what we would find if we follow the links:

Normative generally means relating to an evaluative standard. Normativity is the phenomenon in human societies of designating some actions or outcomes as good or desirable or permissible and others as bad or undesirable or impermissible. A norm in this normative sense means a standard for evaluating or making judgments about behavior or outcomes.

Which leads to the question of where do “norms”, or to be more precise, “moral norms” come from?

In Catholic Society, “moral norms” originate from two sources, namely: as known through “natural light of human reason from the things that are made” and as known through “divine revelation.”

So naturally, something that is known as a “norm” would be closely associated with an underlying “law” from which that norm originated. Now, when I use the term “law” I am speaking in a very general case.

In the specific Catholic sense, the origin of the law is defined as follows: (see here)

1952 There are different expressions of the moral law, all of them interrelated: eternal law – the source, in God, of all law; natural law; revealed law, comprising the Old Law and the New Law, or Law of the Gospel; finally, civil and ecclesiastical laws.

1953 The moral law finds its fullness and its unity in Christ. Jesus Christ is in person the way of perfection. He is the end of the law, for only he teaches and bestows the justice of God: “For Christ is the end of the law, that every one who has faith may be justified.”

So from the above, it is plainly obvious that any “moral norm” must originate in Natural Moral Law which originated in God and was divinely revealed by His Son.

Which then begs the question, how does one get from:

But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting for the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery


The divorced who have entered a new union, for example, can find themselves in a variety of situations, which should not be pigeonholed or fit into overly rigid classifications leaving no room for a suitable personal and pastoral discernment. One thing is a second union consolidated over time, with new children, proven fidelity, generous self giving, Christian commitment, a consciousness of its irregularity and of the great difficulty of going back without feeling in conscience that one would fall into new sins. The Church acknowledges situations “where, for serious reasons, such as the children’s upbringing, a man and woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate”.329 [emphasis added] (see here)?

The obvious answer is: one can’t.

So the question that is in need of an answer is: by what thought process can one get from A to B, given that both cannot be correct? I.e. they are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive positions.

The answer is that this circle can only be “squared” by a POST-MODERNIST thought process. Here is another short video that sets the proper CONTEXT for the above. When viewing this, think about how closely Dr. Peterson comes comes to explaining the phenomenon of Francis, bishop of Rome.

And the reason that the POST-MODERNIST thought process can explain this logical contradiction is that…

…the post-Modernists to some degree, because their in-coherency is one of their least of their sins, but they don’t care about that. No, no, you got to understand, it’s Modernists and Enlightenment people, even traditionalists who care about coherency. The post-Modernists don’t believe in coherency, and I’m not making this up. This is part of their philosophy. They don’t believe in logic.

So what’s the point of this exercise and why am I beating this POST-MODERNIST dead horse again? Where is the “newness” you dear reader might be asking right about now?

The “newness” of the above has to be the “novelty”, in Jesuitical terms, whereby a pathological, consummate and seemingly incorrigible Jesuit is now using clear, precise and specific language to argue his position.

Yes, he is using the term IDEOLOGY!

And please ignore the fact that that word doesn’t mean what Francis thinks it means.

So the point of the above 1500 or so words, is to NOTE that this new game being played, is no longer a game based on a sleight of hand nor nuance nor even acts of omission. The game now being played presently is one of negation of OBJECTIVE REALITY. It is a game of explicit and overt negation of the NATURAL LAW and it’s source NATURAL MORAL LAW. 

And the implementation is being done by F. O. R. C. E.

Here is the Jordan Peterson quote: ( the 4:00 minute mark)

Jordan Peterson: It was no longer specifically about economics. It was about power. And everything to the post-modernists is about power.

And that’s actually why they are so dangerous. Because if your engaged in a discussion with someone who believes in nothing but power, all they are motivate to do is accrue all the power to them. 

What else is there? There’s no logic, there’s no investigation, there is no negotiation, there’s no dialogue. There’s no discussion. There’s no meeting of minds and consensus. 

There’s power. 

And here is how this power play is playing ECCLESIASTICAL sub-set of human activity. Below is a series of posts that appeared at the Rorate Caeli blog:

Here is the original post written by Joseph Seifert that appeared at the Rorate Caeli blog titled Does pure logic threaten to destroy the entire moral doctrine of the Catholic Church?  

And here is the post about FrancisSuppression of Dr. Josef Seifert titled: Note: more on Josef Seifert’s “retirement” for Amoris Laetitia critiques.

And here is the Dr. Roberto Mattei post about the Seifert Case titled: The Seifert Case: Who is separating themselves from the Church?

There is only one adjustment that I would make to one of the above titles and that is: Does pure logic threaten to destroy the entire moral doctrine of the FrancisChurch? 

And the answer to the last re-phrased question is: YES!

But this necessary adjustment raises another question in its own right.

Concluding, it is worth noting that since the POST-MODERNISTS have gone so far as to negate everything that human society has learned and received, i.e that which is known from the “natural light of human reason from the things that are made”, and are forced to ERRONEOUSLY deconstruct interpret that part of our Faith that comes from known through “divine revelation”, even their fellow post-conciliar neo-Modernists are revolting.

The reason the neo-Modernists are revolting is that they now see that the POST-MODERNISTS are not able to make a positive, rational case for their post-conciliar “theology” any longer. The neo-Modernists, to their credit, realize that it is one thing to omit the nature of Truth, but quite another to overtly and explicitly negate it. The neo-Modernists also realize that negation of OBJECTIVE TRUTH is not only a non starter, but is not sustainable for the post-conciliar “theology” in the long run.

Eventually NATURAL LAW will reassert itself. And that is the point of the Seifert article.

I would also suggest that this is the motivation for scenes  from the packed conference dedicated to the 10 year anniversary of the Summorum Pontificum in Rome like this:

As we start… in one view Martin Mosebach, Cardinals Burke and Müller. – Fr. Z blog

Yes, you read that right. The former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was there.

This is YUGE. 

And finally, it is also this observation that is borne out in the changed literary style of the FrancisChurch. Whereas the neo-Modernists were happy to cloak their Modernist heresy in what Louie Verrecchio coined the “pseudosacral homopoetic prose”, FrancisChurch has been forced to resort to a new style, one that can be correctly termed as POSTMODERIST TRANSRATIONAL BRUTALISM. 

Here is that catalog.

And I will end here and wish you all a nice weekend.



A Genuine Post-Modernist Bishop Of Rome


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

Before we start, I came across this great flowchart posted by The Radical Catholic on Twitter. It is an elegant representation of the thought process involved in the discernment of Truth.

And now to the business at hand…

As the scales are falling off the eyes of all the observant Faithful, and with at much higher levels and with much greater frequency, your humble blogger has decided to revisit a thread started some months back.

Although that thread was not specifically named, it was presented through a series of Dr. Jordan Peterson videos. In these videos, Dr. Peterson describes the difference between the IDEOLOGICAL movement that became labeled as MODERNISM and the subsequent antithetical IDEOLOGICAL movement that arose as a direct response to MODERNISM, i.e. POST-MODERNISM.

Given the above skeletal framework, we can put some proverbial meat on them bones.

The first piece of meat that needs to be affixed is the understanding of what constitutes MODERNISM. In Catholic terms, MODERNISM is a heresy that arose from what are called the “Enlightenment” “philosophers”, or rather “free thinkers” who rejected OBJECTIVE REALITY. What these folks claimed was that the Aristotelian definition of TRUTH was not correct. Their claim can be summed up as follows: “bringing the mind into conformity with reality (‘adaequatio rei et intellectus’)” was replaced by “an account of truth as bringing thought into line with life (‘adaequatio realis mentis et vitae’)”.

And naturally, since OBJECTIVE TRUTH didn’t matter any longer, and thought was brought into line with life, individual experience was all that mattered. Thus the alerting “of the Catholic world to the heretical doctrine of Vital Immanence and its central role in Modernist thought” by Pope St. Piux X in the encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis. Here is one great definition of what constitutes Vital Immanence: (see here)

[Vital Immanence] is the wholly psychological process of the human consciousness unfolding itself, which has not the remotest likeness to the presence of a transcendent reality abiding within us. God as transcendent is lost to sight; no room is left for any kind of revelation; God is the permanent possibility of progress, He is ever projected as the ideal in advance of each successive stage of evolution and changes as the advance proceeds. 

While one can easily identify this heresy in that which Francis, the bishop of Rome spouts out on a regular basis, to confine oneself to simply thinking of Francis in terms of a “modernist” or even a “neo-modernist” misses the point.

Francis has moved way beyond MODERNISM.

The reason Francis has move way beyond MODERNISM is that MODERNISM does not provide a mechanism for dealing with unruly peasants subjects. MODERNISM is an ideology whose promulgation depends on subterfuge and errors of omission. It is an emotion based IDEOLOGY that needs a gullible, dumb-ed down audience if it is to be effective.

What works even better is if that targeted audience is crying out in desperation for attention and secretly for help, and therefore has a self interest in promulgating this IDEOLOGY.

IDEOLOGY does follow self interest after all!

But for the well formed, rational, logical and educated Faithful Catholic, MODERNISM doesn’t resonate. The Catholic Faithful see it for what it is, as per Pascendi. So Francis, the bishop of Rome’s “shtick”, in these cases is worthless.

So the question then becomes, what IDEOLOGICAL mechanism is available to Francis in order for him to force his will onto his subjects?

And the answer to that question is POST-MODERNISM.

Below is a good abridged view of the transition made from MODERNISM to POST-MODERNISM: (see more in-depth explanation here)

To the despair of artists and intellectuals, the positive and uplifting worldview fostered through Modernism has become corrupt and oppressive. Riddled with doubt about the continued viability of the notion of progress, the façade of modernism has begun to crack, and conservative forces that have long been opposed to modernism have rushed, wedge–like, into the interstices to fill and expand the space with their own worldview.

So this “unfortunate” turn of events, with the real God of surprises’ fingerprints in full view, forced those despairing artists, intellectuals et al, to turn to a more radical solution. And that solution is what is known as POST-MODERNISM. Here is that passage:

Many now believe that the period defined by the modernist doctrine has come to an end and that we are now in a period of transition into a new period called, for lack of a better term, postmodernism.


Here is Jordan Peterson to explain:

I’m more of a scientist type but, and if I read philosophy, I tend not to read second rate philosophy and so I’ve tried to avoid the post-Modernists to some degree because their incoherency is one of their least of their sins, but they don’t care about that. No, no, you got to understand, it’s Modernists [- to a point] and Enlightenment people, even traditionalists who care about coherency. The post-Modernists don’t believe in coherency, and I’m not making this up. This is part of their philosophy. They don’t believe in logic.

So what do they believe in?

Back to the post-Modern type. Well you know, this was all revealed in painful detail, where even the closed minded ideologue Norman referred to, just couldn’t quite muster up the moral courage to keep beating the same drum. So what they did was instead, being highly intelligent individuals was play a game of sleight of hand and transformed these Marxist pre-suppositions into post-Modernism in the 1970’s.

They sure did.

But what happens when the POST-MODERNIST NARRATIVE goes the way of the MODERNIST NARRATIVES?

Well, you revert back to the underlying IDEOLOGICAL underpinnings of POST-MODERNISM, i.e. Marxism:

So when the post-Modern narrative doesn’t suffice, say, to push forward the idea that Western civilization should be overturned, they just revert back to the overarching Marxism and say: those people are oppressed and that’s a bad thing.

And what is the underlying idea that powers Marxism?

And that’s partly because post-Modernism was influenced by Marxism and that of course because that’s what the Marxist think about any  situation where there is a power status differential. The people at the top are only there because they stole everything from the people at the bottom.

So POST-MODERNISM is nothing more than Marxism in disguise, and the underlying idea behind Marxism is the acquisition of POWER.

And just in case any further corroboration of the above PRE-SUPPOSITION is needed, here is a passage that appeared at the OnePeterFive blog recently. The individual responsible for the quote is non other than the former Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine for the Faith, Card. Gerhard Muller: (see here)

Instead of the Congregation [for Doctrine], the Vatican’s Secretariat of State is now considered to be the most important institution. “Diplomacy and power questions now have priority, that is a wrong crucial development which needs to be corrected.” It should be rather the Christian belief which should be at the center, and the pope should merely be a “servant of salvation.”

Of course they do.

And it is because a POST-MODERNIST cum MARXIST is the bishop of Rome.

As Cardinal Muller just confirmed.

Just The Facts, Ma’am…


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

Today we continue our thread from the previous post titled Steve Bannon Channels His Internal Armaticus… In that post, your humble blogger pointed out that Steve Bannon has noticed the same thing that has been noticed on this blog. And that “same thing” is the “profiteering” that elements within the Catholic Church have been realizing from the human trafficking operations which are run by various Non Governmental Organizations.

A minor digression, these human trafficking operations are depopulating many of the Central American countries and have gotten so destructive that even the Costa Rican bishops have complained directly to the human trafficker bishop of Rome, Francis at their last Ad Limina (I will put up the link once I find it) session on the 13th of February of this year.

So today, just in case there are any open questions as to the where, what and most importantly WHO is benefiting from these ILLEGAL HUMAN TRAFFICKING activities, I am re-posting a piece (see HERE) that was written by the official Deus Ex Machina authority on all things having to do this unseemly business, one Ann Corcoran.

NB: Ann runs the Refugee Resettlement Watch blog which can be accessed HERE.

In the below post, Ann lays out the OBJECTIVE essentials supporting Steve Bannon’s contention that the Catholic bishops “need illegal aliens to fill the churches. … They have – they have an economic interest.”


Catholic Bishop Dolan says that the USCCB is not after more money when defending DACA kids, I beg to differ

Posted by Ann Corcoran on September 11, 2017

You can read about all of the back and forth as Steve Bannon maintained that the Bishops want more immigrants because it means more cash in their coffers and more bodies in their pews (see Michael Leahy at Breitbart).

Maybe more cash isn’t reason number one (‘social justice’ is), but it is most assuredly reason number two!

They were discussing mostly illegal immigrants, but you need to know that all of the federal refugee resettlement contractors*** (including the US Conference of Catholic Bishops) supported the Gang of Eight Amnesty back in 2013 because it would have expanded their taxpayer-funded role from resettling refugees (getting them their social services) to helping all the newly amnestied file their paperwork and get their government-supplied goodies.

The Gang of Eight Amnesty contained a “slush fund” for our usual gang of contractors (euphemistically called immigrant-serving organizations) according to an analysis by the Center for Immigration Studiessee here.

Up until this point in time, I wondered why refugee contractors would support amnesty for millions of immigrants who would then compete for limited jobs with refugees that those same ‘non-profit’ groups were tasked to find employment for! It made no sense on a humanitarian level, but it does on an economic level.

Jon Feere for CIS:

Section 2537 of the Schumer-Rubio bill provides “Initial Entry, Adjustment, and Citizenship Assistance” grants to public and private, non-profit organizations that promise to help illegal immigrants apply for the amnesty (p. 384). For example, this includes help with “completing applications”, “gathering proof of identification”, and “applying for any waivers”. But the recipients of these funds are given a lot of discretion, as the funds can also be used for “any other assistance” that the grantee “considers useful” to aliens applying for amnesty. The bill appropriates $100 million in grant funding for a five-year period ending in 2018, plus any additional “sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2019 and subsequent fiscal years”. (p. 392). There are no limits to the amount of money that may be given out to pro-amnesty groups.

So the Bishops have (and had in 2013) every reason (social justice and money!) to support amnesty (which is what DACA is). The Gang of Eight amnesty didn’t pass, but you can be sure any legislation to legalize the DACA ‘children’ will contain grant money as a pass-through to help them ‘adjust’ their status.

Then there is the payola the USCCB gets every year to resettle refugees. 

Here is the USCCB segment of my recent analysis of the nine major federal refugee agencies budgets:

US Conference of Catholic Bishops Migration Fund (97% taxpayer funded)

Now it gets even trickier! The Bishops don’t file a Form 990 and their operations are so vast, I could spend the whole day and still not sort it out.  Also, maybe you can find one, but I have not found an annual report for their refugee program since I found this one for 2014.

So we will have to rely on it (again). Keep in mind these funds for their refugee resettlement program do not include millions that go directly from the feds to some individual Catholic Charities and Dioceses around the US. (If you are researching your local CC or Dioceses, you can often find good numbers at USASpending.gov)

“Federal grants” is your money, so is the Travel Loan Collection Fees, so that puts the Bishops’ refugee resettlement program at 97% taxpayer funded.  (I am not sure if the Unaccompanied Alien Children fall in to yet another fund!).

I would like to get a more up-to-date accounting for the Bishops, but they must be hiding those reports really well!  I suspect they are pulling down even more payola in more recent years.

Obviously we don’t know what salaries are being paid for their Washington, DC lobbying shop. Their previous head lobbyist was Kevin Appleby.

Go here to see how the Bishop’s money compares with the other eight major federal contractors.

And, that isn’t all there is. 

You can search individual Catholic Charities (USASpending.gov) and find even more of your money going  to local dioceses for migrants. I promise you, you will be blown away by the amounts of money flowing from the US Treasury to your local diocese.

In addition to the US Refugee Admissions Program, Catholic Legal Services gets a vast amount of federal money to pay for lawyers for the ‘kids.’  I’ll leave that research to you.

***For new readers, these are the nine major federal refugee contractors which would have financially benefited from Amnesty in 2013.  We can never thoroughly reform the refugee program (or immigration itself) as long as these nine are paid by you to lobby, community organize, sign immigrants up for welfare, and act as head-hunters for big businesses in need of cheap labor.

It is time for all of these quasi-government agencies to raise their own private money for their charitable ‘good works.’  If they give up their federal hand-outs then they will demonstrate that caring for human beings is their first and only concern!

Steve Bannon Channels His Internal Armaticus…


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

So it came to pass, that the OCCURRENCES, PATTERNS, PROCESSES and OBJECTIVE REALITY itself, that your humble blogger has been chronicling on the Deus Ex Machina blog, have been picked up by a higher power.

And that higher POWER is one Steve Bannon.

Here is the Breitbart post that lays out the lay of the OBJECTIVE REALITY as it exists adaequatio rei et intellectus”, or for the non Latin speaking part of my loyal and beloved readers: when the mind is brought into conformity with reality.

Before we go to the post itself, one response given by Mr. Bannon is of critical importance, and should be a source of deep reflection and meditation to all the Faithful, especially as the usher approaches with the collection plate, and that is:

Rose: Can I remind you, a good Catholic, that Cardinal [Timothy] Dolan is opposed to what’s happened with DACA? Cardinal Dolan.

Bannon: The Catholic Church has been terrible about this. … The bishops have been terrible about this …  Because [they’re] unable to really come to grips with the problems in the church, they need illegal aliens, they need illegal aliens to fill the churches. … They have – they have an economic interest. They have an economic interest in unlimited immigration, unlimited illegal immigration.

“It is, what it is”, would be what Aristotle would say…

PS You dear reader can watch the original video here.

And now, the post, original here, that I am posting…


Nolte: U.S. Conference of Bishops’ Ludicrous Response to Steve Bannon’s ’60 Minutes’ Interview

In a preview of Sunday’s 60 Minutes interview with former White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon, CBS released a segment in which Bannon is asked a question by Charlie Rose that no one in the media ever asks pro-gay marriage, pro-abortion Democrats.

Bannon was asked to reconcile his Catholic faith with those political beliefs in opposition to the church. In this case, it was about the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) strident and, as I wrote Wednesday, hypocritical support of DACA.

Transcript courtesy of CBS News:

Rose: Can I remind you, a good Catholic, that Cardinal [Timothy] Dolan is opposed to what’s happened with DACA? Cardinal Dolan.

Bannon: The Catholic Church has been terrible about this. … The bishops have been terrible about this …  Because [they’re] unable to really come to grips with the problems in the church, they need illegal aliens, they need illegal aliens to fill the churches. … They have – they have an economic interest. They have an economic interest in unlimited immigration, unlimited illegal immigration.

Rose:  Boy, that’s a tough thing to say about your church.

Bannon: As much as I respect Cardinal Dolan and the bishops on doctrine, this is not doctrine.

In response, the UCSSB quickly released a statement that is even more absurd than the original one:

As you can see, a whole lot of scripture is quoted, but there is absolutely nothing quoted about how Jesus said it was okay to burden others with your personal religious and political beliefs, which is exactly what the legalizing of illegal immigration does. In other words…

Sorry, but I fail to see the Christian or Catholic compassion here.

It is very easy to call for the legalizing of 800,000 or two million or 11 million or 25 million illegal immigrants when you will only personally benefit from these policies, both through fuller pews and the love of the mainstream media. The problem  with this thinking is that it shows ZERO compassion for the victims of this sort of immigration policy — you know, those who lose their jobs to illegals, those whose wages are lowered by a flood of cheap labor, those whose children cannot get a decent education due to classrooms burdened with illegal children who cannot speak English. Good heavens, where to begin with the wave of crime these illegals have brought with them?

And do you want to know who disproportionately suffers the negative and sometime tragic consequences of all this Catholic compassion?

The poor.

The working poor.

And this includes legal immigrants trying to get their lives jump-started.

The already-disenfranchised in America, the struggling working class, those who follow the rules, they are the ones disproportionately damaged by legalizing and incentivizing illegal immigration. And isn’t it interesting how the advocates of these policies always seem to be above it all, above the consequences of their own advocacy – how they never seem to be in the demographic that takes it in the neck because a bunch of do-gooders are doing good at someone else’s expense.

Did Jesus not tell us to do unto others as you would have them do unto you?

Please explain to me, then, exactly who would want the very real world consequences of legalizing illegal immigration “done to them,” and why are my Catholic leaders (I am a practicing Catholic) doing this “to others?”

I am all in favor of treating illegal immigrants with compassion and mercy. I am all in favor of feeding those who are hungry, clothing those who are naked, offering medical help to those who are sick or injured. But as a good Catholic and Christian who cares about the poor, I am most certainly not in favor of using whatever influence I have on public opinion to virtue-signal at the expense of my neighbor’s job, wages, education, or safety.

It simply is not compassion on your part when others pay the price for this so-called compassion.

Why not do both? Why not show mercy for the migrant without hurting an innocent person? Because it is certainly within the teachings of Jesus to welcome, feed, clothe, and show compassion to those as we repatriate them back into their own country.

I’m sorry, but calling for anything else is selfish, is vain, is screwing your neighbor, and is a violation of Christ’s teachings.

And now for something completely different, and just in case you haven’t seen this:

Thumbing Ones Nose Has Consequences…


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

And when they had eaten, Jesus said to Simon Peter, Simon, son of John, dost thou care for me more than these others? Yes, Lord, he told him, thou knowest well that I love thee. And he said to him, Feed my lambs. And again, a second time, he asked him, Simon, son of John, dost thou care for me? Yes, Lord, he told him, thou knowest well that I love thee. He said to him, Tend my shearlings.✻ Then he asked him a third question, Simon, son of John, dost thou love me? Peter was deeply moved when he was asked a third time, Dost thou love me? and said to him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou canst tell that I love thee. Jesus said to him, Feed my sheep.

Yesterday was the Feast of St. Pope Pius X. The Holy Gospel reading was about Jesus commanding St. Peter to feed His sheep.

Now the problem with human sheep is that they have been created in His image, i.e. having the ability to reason. Now, having the ability to reason has its good side and its not so good side.

Starting with the good side, His sheep have to ability to go to the source of His teaching and understand what “feed my sheep” entails. This source is the Universal Magisterium.

On the not so good side, not all of His sheep will go and familiarize themselves with what feeding His sheep entails. This allows them to fall prey to deceivers who produce their own interpretation of what “feeding His sheep” entails. And naturally, this leads to problems for the sheep. This used to be limited to the protestant sects, but since the advent of neo-Modernism and subsequently post-Modernism within the post-conciliar church hierarchy, the problem has spread far and wide into the Universal Church.

Now, as for the wolves. Whereas a more artful, cunning “wolf”, from time to time can get one over on the gullible, uninformed sheep, there is a point at which even those sheep realize that they are being had.

Such a point has been reached it appears, in the Holy Roman Catholic Church in the diocese of Rome. Needless to say, the bishop of Rome is one Jorge Bergoglio. And this bishop of Rome is so crude and primitive in his understanding of what the sheep will accept, that even the sheep don’t want to eat that which he is trying to feed them any longer.

The first piece of evidence supporting the above comes from an Italian website. Below is a rough translation from an article that appeared at one of the Italian websites. (I have lost the link, but as soon as I find it, I will put it up.)

Time Survey, Pope Francis no longer likes Italians

“Too much politics and too little religion,” “It is going out of the way,” “I do not agree with the Catholic Church’s guidance,” “too much invasion on the ius alone,” “Dear Daddy, you make me go away from the Church.” These are the motives that push Italian Catholics to move away from Pope Francis, according to a survey of Time that ends on August 25th. And at the moment the vast majority of those who wanted to express themselves were astonished at the last campaign of the Holy Father.

On the Time website you can answer these questions: “Do you like this Pope? Do you agree on how Bergoglio drives the Catholic Church?” The percentage of responses “No, I disagree” is about 80 to 90 percent. Ergo adherer’s to Bergoglio’s policy do not exceed 20 percent.

What readers mostly dislike is that the pope has become too political and this makes him appear far from strictly religious themes. The desire of Catholics is instead that Pope Francis should be on the side of the Italians.

Next, we go over to the Twitter feed of Catholic Sat. In this post, we read that small crowds are continuing to plague the current bishop of Rome. As my loyal reader will recall, small crowds are the rule with this bishop of Rome.

But now, even the camera angles are unable to cover up this fact. Here is the tweet for confirmation.

Further confirmation of the small crowds plaguing the bishopric of Rome comes from the Call Me Jorge blog. In a post titled Francis packs a dwindling crowd into St. Peter’s Square for his latest general audience. Here is one representative picture:

And finally, the “dwindling crowds” situation has become so bad, that Francis has been forced to cancel something called the “Day of Prayer for Care of Creation”. Here is that tweet:

Which creates a very large problem for the FrancisChurch. That problem is that the secular side of the ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT has decided to ditch all references to Christianity in its official calendars and public celebrations.

For those who have not noticed, there is an attempt to replace the Feast of Easter with something called “Earth Day”. This issue first arose in 2011 when “Earth Day” fell on Good Friday. Since that time, it would appear as if Google (our proxy for the OWG) is heavily promoting this strange pagan “holiday”.

So is it any wonder that the current bishop of Rome, is attempting to introduce a similar “holiday” into the post-conciliar calendar?

Could be a coincidence.

Or it could be Francis thumbing his nose at the Faithful:


… and regardless of any intent or lack there of on the part of the post-conciliar “brain trust”, the Faithful ain’t buying it.

Not only are they not buying it, but they are boycotting this silliness.

And if that’s not positive news enough, I will leave off on on an even more positive note. I noticed this post over at Fr. Z’s blog, titled: England and Wales to celebrate Ascension THURSDAY and Twelfth Night!

England and Wales folks!

Appears as if all those oratories and FSSP/ICKSP parishes opened recently on Albion’s shores are having an impact!

Deo gratias!

FrancisChurch: Balkanized To The Point Of Fragility…


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

Today your humble blogger will continue with a philosophical theme. The reason being, that in order to understand a PROCESS, any PROCESS for that matter, it is critical to understand the underlying PHILOSOPHICAL constructs on which it is based.

In other words, if the PHILOSOPHY is coherent, then a positive (as in intrinsically good) outcome can be reasonably expected.

On the other hand, if the underlying PHILOSOPHICAL construct is ERRONEOUS, than no matter how good the intentions are, the outcome will not be positive. What will happen is that the LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES, or as we say on this blog – the real “God of surprises” will appear and the results will be… shall we say: less than optimal.

So today, we look at the state of the post-conciliar church and systematic fragility.

It would be fair to say that the logical place to begin would be the “reforms” of the Second Vatican Council. Furthermore, it can be stated with a great deal of certainty that since this “new springtime”, what has in fact been happening within the Universal Institutional Church can be described as a PROCESS of BALKANISATION.

Through the introduction of the vulgar liturgy and with the introduction of national churches, a very IRRATIONAL and UNSTABLE system was created. These national churches were reinforced through the creation of the national bishops conferences, conferences that were intended to “decentralized” the decision making process (power) away from the Holy See and give it to the local churches. (see here) These national bishops conferences… cough Germany, cough… in turn drove the fragmentation of the Universal Church, a process that is reaching its logical conclusion under the current bishopric of Rome.

The justification for why this happened is irrelevant for our analysis, suffice it to say, any good prelate with a firm grounding in Catholic philosophical thought could have seen the disastrous consequences at the time.

On an aside, and referencing to yesterday’s post titled The “Lefebvrist Drift” Going Mainstream…, one reason behind the “rehabilitation” of Archbishop Lefebvre by parts of the mainstream post-conciliar church is in no small part due (actually, in large part) to his “prescience” as to the consequences that would befall the Catholic Church due to the changes that were being made at the time of the Second Vatican Council.

So today, your humble blogger will attempt to explain the tragedy that befell the Bride of Christ through presenting a PARALLEL PROCESS that also befell, and is still befalling Western Civilization.

For your information, two pieces of analysis are being presented today. The first is the video embedded at the top of this page. In this video, the Deus Ex Machina’s resident philosopher, Rocking Mr. E explains in 10 minutes what the strategy of BALKANISATION entails and how it has been deployed by the global elites, in order to bring about the dawn of the ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.

Note bene: In case any new reader thinks that the above is “conspiracy theory”, please provide a better explanation. Ockham’s razor is ready and waiting…

But back to the subject at hand…

The second piece of analysis, is the post republished below and comes from Charles Hugh Smith of the OfTwoMinds blog, via the ZeroHedge website. In this piece, Charles explains how a related PROCESS (in essence a SUB-PROCESS), which he terms as “SYSTEMATIC FRAGILITY”, enters into societal systems and degrades them to the point of making the core systems and institutions themselves, unstable.

And to tie these two pieces of analysis together, and in the analogous post-conciliar church CONTEXT, what has in fact happened is through the post-conciliar “reforms”, a BALKANISATION PROCESS ensued inside the Universal Church.

The creation of the “national churches”, whether intentional or not, drove the BALKANISATION PROCESS to the point where it fragmented the Universal Church, entire nations, ethnic groups, communities and down to individual parishes, into enclaves of… wait for it…. individual identity groups.

Don’t believe me?

A good case in point can be seen here. In this post here, I am struck by the sheer irrational, illogical nature of the title.

Concluding, the Vatican II “reforms” ushered into the Catholic Church mechanisms that lead to the BALKANISATION of the Universal Church.

This BALKANISATION PROCESS has lead to the fragmentation of entire Catholic communities.

It can also be assumed that this fragmentation has alienated large sectors of the Faithful who could not define themselves as members of these individual identity groups. As an example, think about how many people would even consider formalizing an identify group under the banner: of “Swedish-German” ancestry? But I digress…

This fragmentation PROCESS has had a long term effect, in that it has resulted in what can be described as institutional “systematic fragility” – as per the Charles Hugh Smith post below, and has become apparent in the entire Institutional Church.

This “systematic fragility” can also be identified in individual Western countries and their country specific secular institutions and systems.

This wider institutional fragility has brought the entire post-conciliar church and entire Western nation states, which are in fact grounded in Catholicism or one of the break away sects, to the point of collapse.

And the current bishop of Rome and his “brain trust” appear to be hell bent on finishing what the Council Fathers, not to mention post WWII cultural Marxists and various post-Modernist charlatans started and collapsing the entire system right on top of their TRANSRATIONAL heads.

And ours…

And on that note, I would like to wish my readers a safe and pleasant Labor Day weekend.


When Systemic Uncertainty Meets Fragility – “Then The Whole Contraption Collapses In A Heap…”

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

That’s the problem with fragility: everything looks fine on the surface until a crisis applies pressure. Then the whole rickety contraption collapses in a heap..

Life is inherently uncertain, but systems that were once considered certainties have increasingly become uncertain. Social Security is one example; recent polls reflect widespread doubts among Millennials and Gen-Xers that there will be any Social Security benefits left for them by the time they reach retirement age.

This doubt is fact-based; as the number of retirees swells, as Medicare costs soar ever higher and the number of full-time jobs paying into Social Security/ Medicare stagnates, these pay-as-you-go programs break down; Social Security is already paying out billions more than it collects from employers and employees.

Uncertainty is one thing, fragility is another. The socio-economic systems we rely on are also becoming increasingly fragile and prone to failure, for an entirely different set of reasons than those driving uncertainty.

Changing fundamentals drive uncertainty. The nation’s demographics and stagnant wages for the bottom 95% are extremely unfavorable for pay-as-you-go programs like Social Security and Medicare; their future is uncertain because the inputs and outputs are changing.

Fragility is a function of systems being thinned by cronyism, self-serving insiders, fraud, lack of transparency, lack of competition, monopolies, profiteering and a decline of quality. Systems that become too costly due to the above dynamics are hollowed out as everyone seeks some way to reduce the costs. Redundancies are stripped out, staff is slashed to the bone, senior managers with the most experience are pushed out to lower payroll costs, quality control is whacked, and inferior inputs are presented as equal to the higher quality inputs that they replace.

When these weakened systems are under pressure or face a crisis, they crumble. Shoddy materials fail, inexperienced managers make hasty, ill-informed decisions, the barebones staff is overwhelmed, equipment that wasn’t properly maintained to save money breaks down, and so on.

We’re assured by financial authorities and the media that our banking system is now monstrously resilient and robust, and it is impervious to financial crisis. You’re kidding, right? So when all the subprime auto loans go bust, and all the overleveraged commercial real estate loans go bust, and all the developing-world debt in U.S. dollars goes into default, and all the consumer debt issued to marginal borrowers goes bust, the hundreds of billions in losses are all going to be absorbed, no problem.

This is fragility writ large. You can bet the entire financial sector is making the same faulty, fragility-creating assumptions as a means of maximizing profits: only one auto loan in a hundred will go into default, near-zero commercial real estate loans will blow up, every dollar-denominated loan in the developing world will be paid in full, blah blah blah.

In other words, if we assume FantasyLand perfection of marginal borrowers–that once a global recession guts their opportunities to refinance and the income needed to service their loans, they will still magically make all payments in full and on time–the financial system is resilient.

Beneath the reassurances, the system is increasingly fragile because all the resilience has been stripped out of it to maximize profits in the current quarter. And as for the financial authorities–who believes the financial sector is serving the interests of the bottom 99.5%? Based on what evidence? Who believes the mainstream media is reporting the deteriorating fundamentals and the increasing fragility of our society’s core systems?

All we need is a few overlapping crises to reveal the structural fragility and lack of trust/certainty in our core systems. Profiteering, cronyism, self-serving insiders, a decline in quality, gaming the system, fraud, opacity, propaganda, and the erosion of competence all seem like good clean fun when the weather is calm and the sun in shining. But the true nature of our systemic failure will only be revealed when multiple storms arise and the system is pushed to the limit.

That’s the problem with fragility: everything looks fine on the surface until a crisis applies pressure. Then the whole rickety contraption collapses in a heap

The “Lefebvrist Drift” Going Mainstream…


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

Something quite interesting is taking place within the Catholic Church and the wider society at large. This ‘something’ has a very Catholic flavor to it and can be seen in various sub-sets of what we call the Visibilium Omnium.

As to what that ‘something’ is, is hard to name at present. Yet this ‘something’ definitely has a Thomistic feel to it. So let’s look at some OCCURRENCES and try to identify their Thomistic ROOTS.

I will start with the GREAT Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre… or rather his “spirit”, who appears to be making a comeback in the strangest of places.

One place where it would not be unusual for the “spirit” of Arch. Lefebvre to be making a comeback, would be on a blog that is named: the RadTrad Thomist. Over on this blog, a post appeared titled: As if Modernism Mattered: Archbishop Lefebvre on the Infiltration of Modernism in the Institutional Organization of the Catholic Church

This rather long post contains sections of transcripts of a speech given by the Great Archbishop back in 1982. It is highly recommended that all my loyal readers go to the website of the RadTrad Thomist and read this material. But I digress…

Now this post appears to have made a jump from a Thomist blog, dare I say one with a “Lefebvrist drift”, over to the mainline OnePeterFive blog. In a post titled Archbishop Lefebvre’s Eyewitness Testimony to the Church Revolution, the author, Maike Hickson adds here observations to those made by Dr. Chojnowski in the source post at the RadTrad Thomist.

Next, this same source post lept over to the the even more mainline Catholic Fr. Z. blog. In a post titled Eyewitness account of struggle over post-Conciliar liturgical reform, which “reversed” centuries, Fr. Z adds his observations to those already made by Dr. Chojnowski and Mrs. Hickson.

And lastly, all this activity generated by one post was also noticed by the Jonathan Byrd at the Traditional Catholic Priest blog. In a short post titled Modernism, The Church And Archbishop Lefebvre, the following can be read:

I was reading a blog post from Dr. Chojnowski which was cited from 1Peter5 and cited from Fr. Z’s blog that I thought was wonderful.

Its a long read but very much worth the effort.  If you have never studied much concerning the Archbishop nor the times in which the counsel came about, it will greatly open your eyes.

Check it out:  The Infiltration of Modernism In The Church

So not including this post that your humble blogger is writing, there now appear, in a very short space of time, four posts on Catholic blogs citing ONE 1982 Archbishop Lefebvre speech.


So why do I mention this?

Over at The Remnant website, and also picked up by Vox Cantoris (Mean Old Bloggers), is a post written by Elizabeth Yore. In that post, Mrs. Yore writes the following:

In a separate interview about his La Civilita Cattolica article, Spadaro, S.J. reveals the underlying political motivation behind the Vatican “ecumenism of hate” rant:

“But certainly, we see the multiplication of websites, blogs, and Twitter accounts that tend to move public opinionand react in lively and often in a violent and fundamentalist way. These realities create a bubble within themselves…It is found everywhere. I do not say it is a majority phenomenon, but it is something that is present in the life of the People of God today.”

Apparently, traditional Catholic bloggers have gotten under Francis’ thin skin. The underlying cause of the Pope’s angst is that the conservative Catholic bloggers and websites are making their voice heard by daring to promote the Catholic faith and exposing the papal plots and diabolical alliances. Fr. Spadaro, Francis’ close confidante, is alarmed at traditionalists on the Internet because they tend to move public opinion. Horrors!

Francis, the Merciful, Inc. is distraught over its declining papal popularity poll numbers and blames the conservative blogosphere.

Yes, this Soap Bubble Papacy™ is all about the polls!

But I digress…

So what we see in the above is what your humble blogger has been drawing your attention to recently, i.e. what is commonly referred to as the Overton Window. (see here)

What is happening is that the Faithful blogs are attacking what can be termed as the post-conciliar Overton Window. It can also be referred to as the post-conciliar echo-chamber or the post-conciliar bubble.

Once again, the definition of the Overton Window (echo-chamber, bubble) is as follows:

The Overton Window is a concept in political sociology referring to the range of acceptable opinions that can be held by respectable people. “Respectable” of course means that the subject can be integrated with polite society. Respectability is a strong precondition on the ability to have open influence in the mainstream.

So what makes the above original posting of the Great Archbishop’s speech by Dr. Chojnowski significant is that it has expanded the Overton Window, or in this case the “post-conciliar bubble”, of what constitutes “acceptable opinion” from the Lefebvrist blogs (RadTrad Thomist) onto the conservative blogs (OnePeterFive), then onto the cross over blogs (Fr. Z.) and finally…

squarely onto the Spadaro/Martin/Rosica/Francis living room coffee table.

HULU tv hulu seinfeld gross GIF

Closing, what is of critical importance to notice is that Thomism and Catholicism are making a strong comeback.

It is also fair to say that the “well” of solid Catholicism has become so bare that the mainline Catholics are reaching over into what would have been unheard of just 4 short years ago, i.e. the writings and speeches of Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX, in order to shore up their argumentation against the destruction of the post-conciliar Institutional Church.

And finally, it also needs to be mentioned that the reason that Archbishop Lefebvre is making such a strong comeback is due to his faithfulness to the doctrines of the Catholic Church and specifically to the doctrines as laid out by St. Thomas Aquinas.

And it’s not just the Catholics…

This wider “Lefebvrist drift” can be seen spreading in other areas of human activities!

I will leave off with one recent example that I came across. In the below video, one can observe a nominal Christian explaining how Dr. Jordan Peterson’s work (very Thomistic at its ROOT and in its nature) can be understood within a Christian CONTEXT.

PS If the author of the video had a better understanding of Thomism, specifically Natural Law, he could have done a much better job.