Virtue Signaling Morphing Into Moral Grandstanding – Proletariat Is Catching On As FrancisChurch Nears Its Omega Point…


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

“And when you fast, be not as the hypocrites, sad. For they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Amen I say to you, they have received their reward. But thou, when thou fastest anoint thy head, and wash thy face; That thou appear not to men to fast, but to thy Father who is in secret: and thy Father who seeth in secret, will repay thee.”

The Holy Gospel of  Jesus Christ, according to St. Matthew 6:16-18

Authored by Scott Barry Kaufman via Scientific American,

Do you strongly agree with the following statements?

    • When I share my moral/political beliefs, I do so to show people who disagree with me that I am better than them.
    • I share my moral/political beliefs to make people who disagree with me feel bad.
    • When I share my moral/political beliefs, I do so in the hopes that people different than me will feel ashamed of their beliefs.

If so, then you may be a card-carrying moral grandstander. Of course it’s wonderful to have a social cause that you believe in genuinely, and which you want to share with the world to make it a better place. But moral grandstanding comes from a different place.

First defined and delineated in the moral philosophy literature, moral grandstanding can be defined as “the use and abuse of moral talk to seek status, to promote oneself, or to boost your own brand.”

A moral grandstander is therefore a person who frequently uses public discussion of morality and politics to impress others with their moral qualities. Crucially, these individuals are primarily motivated by the desire to enhance their own status or ranking among their peers.

Let’s face it: Moral grandstanding seems to be everywhere these days. As clinical psychologist Joshua Grubbs notes, “Perhaps, just perhaps, part of the reason so many of us are so awful to each other so much of the time on here is related to a desire to show off to likeminded others. In essence, sometimes we behave poorly in an effort to gain the respect and esteem of folks like us.”

Interested in scientifically investigating this phenomenon, Grubbs teamed up with the philosophers who first defined moral grandstanding– Justin Tosi and Brandon Warmke– as well as the psychologists A. Shanti James and W. Keith Campbell. Across 6 studies (involving 2 pre-registrations involving nationally representative samples), 2 longitudinal designs, and over 6,000 participants, these are their core findings:

    1. Moral grandstanders (those scoring high on the moral grandstanding survey) tend to also score high in narcissistic characteristics and also tend to report status-seeking as their fundamental social motive.
    2. There is no relationship between moral grandstanding and political affiliation. However there is a link between moral grandstanding and political polarization: people on the far left and far right are both more likely to score higher in moral grandstanding characteristics than those who are more moderate democrats and republicans.
    3. Moral grandstanders are more likely to report greater moral and political conflict in their daily lives (e.g., “I lost friends because of my political/moral beliefs”) and they report getting into more fights with others on social media because of their political or moral beliefs. This correlation was found even after controlling for other personality traits, and continued over the course of a one-month longitudinal study.
    4. Grandstanders were more likely to report antagonistic behavior over time, such as attacking others online, or trying to publicly shame someone online because they held a different moral or political belief.

Of course, moral grandstanding is not the only factor predicting public conflict, and not every instance of public moral or political sharing is motivated by narcissistic motives. As Grubbs notes, a real difficulty in understanding socially toxic behaviors “is that oftentimes, the same behavior (by appearance) may be driven by vastly different motives, and intent matters quite a bit in interpreting those behaviors.”

Nevertheless, since we are such a social species, the human need for social status is very pervasive, and often our attempts at sharing our moral and political beliefs on public social media platforms involve a mix of genuine motives with social status motives. As one team of psychologists put it, yes, you probably are “virtue signaling” (a closely related concept to moral grandstanding), but that doesn’t mean that your outrage is necessarily inauthentic. It just means that we often have a subconscious desire to signal our virtue, which when not checked, can spiral out of control and cause us to denigrate or be mean to others in order to satisfy that desire. When the need for status predominates, we may even lose touch with what we truly believe, or even what is actually the truth.

To be sure, the human drive for social status can be a great driver of growth and goodness in the world. It really depends on whether one has a healthy regulation of this fundamental human need. Interestingly enough, Grubbs and his colleagues found that moral grandstanding motivations are reminiscent of the two different routes to social status found in the psychological literature: dominance and prestige. The dominance pathway to status is paved with hubris, deceit, and aggression, whereas the prestigious pathway to status is paved with pride for one’s authentic accomplishments, and the desire for personal growth and connection with others.

Likewise, moral grandstanding can be fueled by either:

    • The need to seek social status by dominating others (“When I share my moral/political beliefs, I do so to show people who disagree with me that I am better than them”) 
    • The need to seek status through being a knowledgeable and virtuous example (“I want to be on the right side of history about moral/political issues”, “If I don’t share my views, others will be less likely to learn the truth about moral/political matters”, “I often share my moral/political beliefs in the hope of inspiring people to be more passionate about their beliefs.”)

The researchers found that the dominance path to social status was much more strongly linked to antagonistic behaviors and conflict in everyday life compared to the more authentic/prestigious route to social status. Maybe so much of the strife seen on social media could be prevented if before hitting “Tweet”, we asked ourselves: “Do I truly believe in the importance of this cause/idea/belief or am I mainly just saying this to gain status from my peers and take down those who disagree?”

Of course, gaining social status from saying what one truly believes is a rewarding outcome, but when advancing your brand becomes the sole motivating force behind all of your political and moral pronouncements, that might not be the best route to getting at the real truth about what will actually help advance an important cause, not to mention your own well-being and happiness.

Hopefully more research along these lines will help advance our understanding of this important individual differences variable and how this factor is currently playing out in this divided moral and political landscape.

“For A Species That Has Been On A Trajectory Toward Self-destruction, Patterns Dissolving Can Only Be A Good Thing.”


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


Patterns, they are dissolving…

Which means…

We’re winning folks (see here and here)…

… and here:

And for confirmation of the above:


The Imperial Propaganda Machine: Notes From The Edge Of The Narrative Matrix

Authored by Caitlin Johnstone via,

It’s important to avoid fake news, Russian media or conspiracy theorists. We must only trust those reputable news outlets who tell us that neoliberalism is working fine, that US foreign policy is perfectly sane, and that protests are only happening in Hong Kong and nowhere else.

The difference between state media and western media is that in state media the government controls what information the public is given about what’s going on in the world in order to prevent political dissent, whereas in western media this is instead done by billionaires.

Any attempt to understand the world which fails to take into account the fact that extremely powerful people are pouring massive amounts of money and resources into manipulating your understanding of the world will necessarily result in a distorted worldview.

Whenever news media reports unsubstantiated assertions from anonymous sources in government agencies, just mentally insert “Here is something the government told us to tell you:” into the beginning of the report, because that’s all they’re doing.

Russia and China haven’t become any more of a threat to you than they were three years ago, yet you think about them many times more often than you did back then. That’s propaganda at work, FYI.

All the establishment loyalists you argue with are ever really saying is, “No! The TV would NEVER lie to me!”

Sometimes all I can do is stare in awe at the power and efficiency of the imperial propaganda machine. When I first started this gig in 2016 Assange had way more support, from Berners, Greens, Trumpers, all across the spectrum. Now a large amount of that support has been eroded. For Trumpers Assange is being extradited for his own good to bring down the Deep State. For liberals he’s a Russian asset. For leftists he’s a rapist and fascist enabler. There’s a narrative for everyone, no matter where you are on the political spectrum. It’s really impressive.

I love alternative media, but we’re fucking idiots sometimes. You never see MSM doing our job for us, but we do their job for them all the time by attacking other alternative media figures, circulating CIA/CNN narratives about targeted nations and targeted individuals, etc. The only reason to ever do mainstream media’s work for them is if you’re looking for a job in MSM. If you actually want to participate in alternative media it’s your job to make things harder for establishment narrative managers, not easier. They get paid enough to do their own work.

Dominant power structures are corrupt beyond the possibility of salvation and humanity is driving itself toward miriad cataclysmic disasters all at once, yet many are more worried about those who share their basic ideology but have slightly different opinions. This is stupid.

There’s no separation between the personal struggle to free yourself from untruth and the collective struggle to free the world from untruth, in the same way there’s no separation between an antibody attacking an individual pathogen and the entire body recovering from a sickness.

Anyone who wants Silicon Valley oligarchs to censor the flow of information in any way is a drooling idiot.

MSM’s official position appears to be that there is no ideological difference whatsoever between Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, other than the fact that you have permission to elect Warren but not Sanders. Apart from that, though, they’re exactly the same.

There’s a difference between Democrats and Republicans, in the sense that there’s a difference between the jab and the cross in boxing. The jab is often used to set up the more damaging cross, but they’re both wielded by the same boxer, and they’re both punching you in the face.

The “feud” between mainstream Republican pundits and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez fits perfectly within the Overton window of establishment-approved debate, and can therefore be safely ignored.

Remember when voters in 2016 were like “can we please have even one major candidate who doesn’t have something seriously wrong with them?”, and the entire US political system was all “LOL nope,” and then nobody burned that system to the ground and flushed it down the toilet? Good times.

War is the worst thing in the world. It’s worse than economic injustice. It’s worse than the war on drugs. It’s worse than racism, xenophobia, homophobia and sexism. Those things are bad. War is worse. The priorities of leftists and progressives should reflect this, as should the priorities of anyone who claims to care about their fellow humans.

Trump: I am ending wars!

Neocons/liberal hawks: Oh no it sure is bad and horrible that this isolationist president is ending all the wars!

Wars: [continue completely unabated]

Imagine someone coming up to you with a money jar saying “Excuse me, we’re raising funds to build another military base in Somalia, would you care to make a donation?” No one would ever knowingly put money toward such an endeavor. Yet taxpayers do this unwittingly all the time.

Nobody comes out of the womb demanding to go to war. Left unmolested it would never occur to a normal human brain that strangers on the other side of the planet need to have explosives dropped on them by overpriced airplanes. The problem isn’t democracy, it’s propaganda.

Back when the wealthy had less wealth and ordinary citizens could support a family on a single income, the rich had a concept called “noblesse oblige” meaning their status came with obligations to society. Now the wealth gap is much greater, and the rich feel no obligation to anyone.

Less contempt for imaginary “Putin apologists”, more contempt for actual billionaire apologists.

The narrative that Gabbard is preparing a third party run is revealing, in that there’s zero evidence for it whatsoever yet they keep bringing it up. It’s literally just something pundits started saying in an authoritative tone of voice, and it was magically transformed into accepted orthodoxy. It’s a great illustration of how effective the establishment narrative managers are; they can create the illusion of a fact out of thin air just by saying something over and over again in an assertive tone.

Here’s a crazy thought: If “the troops” are constantly feeling the need to commit suicide after doing what they’ve been ordered to do while deployed, maybe what they’re doing over there isn’t so great and noble after all.

It sure is cute how we’ve known for years that the US and its allies armed actual, literal terrorists in Syria with the goal of effecting regime change, yet the only Syria controversy we’re ever allowed to acknowledge is whether there are an adequate number of US troops there.

I’m still tripping on how we’ve been fed all these wildly different narratives about why the US needs a military presence in Syria, from humanitarianism to Kurds to ISIS to Iran to Russia to chemical weapons to oil, yet this isn’t immediately extremely suspicious to everyone. I mean, if some guy was constantly calling me up and giving me a whole range of wildly different reasons why he needs my bank account number, I’d immediately assume that what he actually wants is my bank account number, you know?

So many of spiritual-type people’s highest values would work fine in a world without sociopaths. Forgiveness, humility, trust, seeing people’s basic innocence, etc, they work fine until you run into a manipulator with no empathy. In this world they require much more nuanced use.

Things are getting stranger and stranger. Things getting stranger and stranger is what it looks like when long-fixed patterns begin to dissolve. For a species that has been on a trajectory toward self-destruction, patterns dissolving can only be a good thing. We’ll win this.

Normalization Process™ Taking No Prisoners In Academia…


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

Seismic shifts in the EPISTOMOLOGICAL sub-set of the et Invisibilium are taking place.

How do we know?

Well because of posts like this here and this here and the post below (original here) which are beginning to appear with ever greater frequency.

In the larger picture, what we are seeing is what Dr Steven Turley calls the neo-Marxists, shedding any vestiges, whether real or imagined of their … attachments… to freedom of speech.

The reason for this development is that at its BASE, speech is grounded in objective reality as described by objective TRUTH.

And when the populace realizes that there is no objective truth in the message that is being conveyed by the neo-Marxists, well…

… something needs to be done.

As for EVIDENCE that the above is a correct analysis of the present situation, your humble blogger has embedded a Dr. Turley video at the top of this post.

As to what is in store for us in the not too distant future, this below is what the self described “smartest guys in the room” have come up with.

Have a nice weekend.

The Holy Grail For Our Rulers: Making The Truth Irrelevant

Authored by Robert Gore via Straight Line Logic blog,

Our rulers believe their Holy Grail is in sight.

“But there’s always a purpose in nonsense. Don’t bother to examine a folly—ask yourself only what it accomplishes.”

– Ellsworth Toohey to Peter Keating, The Fountainhead, Ayn Rand, 1943

What do the follies of Russiagate and the Ukraine impeachment controversy accomplish?

Truth is always the enemy of power. Exposure of power’s motivations, depredations, and corruption never serves power’s ends. Truth is often suppressed and those who disclose it persecuted. Any illegitimate government (currently, all of them) that fails to do so risks its own termination.

What if, instead of suppressing the truth, a regime could render it irrelevant and not have to worry about it? That prospect is the Holy Grail for those who rule or seek to rule.

Imagine an announcement to the populace: We rule you and every aspect of your life. Your wishes, desires, and plans are immaterial to us. You will do as we tell you or you will be severely punished or eliminated. Our sole end is power and we will be its corrupt and criminal beneficiaries. You are our slaves. Imagine that the announcement was not met with outrage and resistance, only quiet acceptance, even approval. The regime has disclosed the horrifying truth about itself, and nobody protests or cares. It has rendered the truth irrelevant. What future disclosure could threaten it in any way?

That is the purpose of Russiagate and now the Ukraine impeachment controversy—they are part of a long running project to render the truth about our rulers irrelevant. That project is well advanced. Contrary to Toohey’s admonition, let’s examine the follies to understand what’s happening and what they accomplish.

The key assertion upon which Russiagate rested was that a Democratic National Committee (DNC) computer server was hacked by Russian operative named Guccifer 2.0, who then turned the data obtained over to Wikileaks. In that data were DNC emails that indicated the DNC’s strong pro-Clinton bias. Wikileak released the emails three days before the Democratic convention in 2016.

Hack in this context means that the DNC server was accessed over the Internet, its cyber-defenses penetrated, and information was transmitted back to the hackers over the Internet. After Julian Assange announced that WikiLeaks would be publishing “emails related to Hillary Clinton,” but before those emails were released, DNC contractor CrowdStrike claimed it had found malware on the server and evidence that it was put there by Russians.

Guccifer 2.0 stepped forward the next day and claimed responsibility for the hack. With that, the actual content of the emails was virtually ignored by the mainstream media. Instead, there was a never-ending drumbeat of stories about Russia’s “hacking” of the 2016 election, which either implied or asserted as fact such hacking cost Hillary Clinton her rightful victory. That drumbeat has gone on for over three years, diminished but not completely quieted by Robert Mueller’s report and widely panned congressional testimony.

The crucial problem with the hacking narrative is that there was no hack. The Veteran Intelligence Agents for Sanity (VIPS) performed an analysis of the metadata—information about a computer’s operations—linked to that alleged hack. A report on the analysis was published at the website about a year after the alleged hack.

The Key Event

July 5, 2016: In the early evening, Eastern Daylight Time, someone working in the EDT time zone with a computer directly connected to the DNC server or DNC Local Area Network, copied 1,976 MegaBytes of data in 87 seconds onto an external storage device. That speed is much faster than what is physically possible with a hack.

It thus appears that the purported “hack” of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 (the self-proclaimed WikiLeaks source) was not a hack by Russia or anyone else, but was rather a copy of DNC data onto an external storage device., “Intel Vets Challenge ‘Russia Hack’ Evidence,” July 24, 2017

VIPS has impeccable credentials. As its name states, all of its members are intelligence professionals, including William Binney, formerly with the NSA and Co-founder of its Signals Intelligence Automation Research Center. The FBI or NSA could have performed the same analysis as VIPS, but didn’t do so. They never even tried to take possession of the server to examine it. Both agencies accepted DNC contractor CrowdStrike’s conclusions at face value.

This glaring failure to investigate bolsters VIPS’ conclusion: the DNC was not hacked, its email files were obtained by a much faster download than was possible by hacking, a download onto an external storage device, perhaps a thumb drive, by someone who had physical access to the server. In other words, it was an inside job. Speculation has been that the download was by DNC staffer Seth Rich, whose murder not long afterward has never been solved.

With this one fact the entire Russiagate narrative should have collapsed. That it ultimately did collapse with the release of the Mueller report and his testimony can be regarded as a failure by Trump’s many enemies. However, from the standpoint of the ultimate mission—rendering the truth irrelevant—it has been a shining success.

The promoters kept a narrative balloon afloat for two years after it was decisively punctured and they endlessly harassed Trump. Not only that, but even after the Mueller report and testimony fiascos—admissions the story was groundless—almost half the populace still believes it and the mainstream media continues to circulate it as if it were true!

Which is why the Democrats feel they can get away with an attempt to impeach President Trump over a phone call he had with Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky.

Ostensibly, Ukraine is a minefield for Democrats. In 2014, the US sponsored a coup against Ukraine’s duly elected president, Viktor Yanukovych, who had aligned the country with Russia rather than the EU. That coup has not worked out well for the US. Russia quickly annexed Crimea, which had been part of Ukraine, and has aided a eastern Ukrainian separatist movement that favors Russia and bitterly resents the coup.

The puppet Ukraine government has been a corrupt money pit for Western aid, loans, and loan guarantees, featuring, among many questionable characters, a coterie that reveres Nazi Germany and the role it played in World War II. The Ukrainian government is a loser, but it’s our loser and Trump has doubled down on Obama’s failure, backing monetary aid and weapons shipments to the beleaguered nation.

Russiagate was launched by Ukrainian officials who disseminated rumors in 2016 that Trump was in league with Russia and later, openly questioned his suitability for the presidency. The DNC dispatched a contractor, Alexandra Chalupa, to Ukraine to search for compromising material on Paul Manafort, then Trump’s campaign chairman. In other words, the Democrats sought information from a foreign power to influence the 2016 election, precisely what they groundlessly accuse Trump of doing.

CrowdStrike, the firm that investigated the server the DNC wouldn’t let the FBI or NSA touch, was founded by Ukrainian Dmitri Alperovitch, a senior fellow of the anti-Russian Atlantic Council think tank, and funded by a fanatically anti-Russian oligarch, Victor Pinchuk, who donated at least $25 million to the Clinton Foundation before the 2016 election. CrowdStrike never even produced a final report on its Russian hacking investigation, and had to revise and retract statements it used to support its conclusion.

That conclusion was based in part on purported telltale Cyrillic characters it said it found when it examined the purported hack, left on the server by the purported hackers. In March 2017, WikiLeaks released Vault 7, which detailed the CIA’s own hacking capabilities, among which is the ability to disguise its hacks and make them look like they came from somewhere else, like Russia. The Cyrillic characters could have been put on the server by the CIA. Or they may only exist in CrowdStrike’s imagination, as nobody else has been allowed to look at it.

In his phone call with President Zelensky, President Trump elliptically mentions CrowdStrike, from which it can be inferred he wanted CrowdStrike investigated: “I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike.” He implied that Ukriane might have the DNC server: “The server, they say Ukraine has it.” It was in this context that he first mentioned having Ukrainian officials work with Rudy Guliani and Attorney General William Barr. Only later in the call did he turn to the Bidens.

The other thing. There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it…It sounds horrible to me.

Transcript, Trump-Zelensky call

Joe Biden did what the Democrats accuse President Trump of doing—interfering in Ukraine’s investigative and judicial processes for political benefit. He threatened to withhold US aid to Ukraine if then president Petro Poroshenko didn’t fire Viktor Shokin, Ukraine’s Prosecutor General. Shokin was investigating Burisma, an energy company that had given Biden’s son, Hunter, a seat on its board of directors that paid him at least $50,000 a month. Hunter Biden had no connection to Ukraine and knew nothing about the energy business. These facts are not in disputer—Joe Biden bragged about what he had done to a Council on Foreign Relations gathering. Poroshenko fired Shokin in May 2016 and replaced him with Yurly Lutsenko.

A mere recitation of the known, indisputable facts makes out a prima facie case of influence peddling and bribery, and had Shokin been allowed to pursue his investigation, he might well have launched criminal proceedings against Burisma and perhaps Hunter Biden. That would not have redounded to Joe Biden’s benefit, so squelching the investigation was indisputably in his political interest. He may have had another reason for squelching the investigation that strikes even closer to home. A member of Ukraine’s parliament has alleged that Joe Biden received $900,000 as a lobbyist for Burisma.

In 2000, the US Senate ratified a treaty negotiated by the Clinton administration between the US and Ukraine, “Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters,” providing, in the words of Bill Clinton, “for a broad range of cooperation in criminal matters.” This gave President Trump, charged with executing the law, all the authority he needed to ask Ukraine’s president for assistance in investigating a prima facie case of influence peddling, bribery, and Biden’s pressure on Ukraine’s president to fire the Prosecutor General. That Joe Biden is Trump’s political rival is absolutely irrelevant, unless anyone who announces they’re running against a sitting president somehow becomes automatically immune from prosecution, that is, above the law.

Suppose it was a Trump crony and his son, not Joe and Hunter Biden, at the center of this farce. If Trump said nothing about the matter to Ukraine’s president, didn’t insist that he investigate the crony, the Democrats would make out a strong case that Trump was not interfering in Ukraine’s judicial and investigative processes for political gain, although he had a Constitutional and legal duty to do so as the president and under the 2000 treaty. That case would be far stronger than the case they’re now trying to foist on the American public.

One can hardly imagine a more inauspicious set of circumstances for the Democrats to launch an impeachment investigation and potentially a vote by the Democratic-majority House of Representatives to impeach, followed by a Senate impeachment trial. So why are they doing it?

Because they can, and because they have nothing to lose and everything to gain. Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic leadership will try to employ the procedural shenanigans similar to those they used to pass Obamacare without a single Republican vote to get an impeachment vote without an adversarial proceeding. Republicans wouldn’t be able to issue subpoenas, question adverse witnesses or call their own; the vote will essentially be based on partisan assertions—hearsay from one, two, or perhaps three whistleblowers whose identities and testimony the Democrats may try to keep secret. So much for the right to confront one’s accusers. Perhaps the Democrats see due process as a white, patriarchal tool of oppression, not the embodiment of an individual right to fundamental procedural fairness in an individual’s dealings with the government. To their credit Trump and his legal team are balking.

Things will be different in the Senate, but the worst case for the Democrats is the Republicans conduct a short, pro forma trial and vote not to convict.

Many of the traditional Republican rank and file have an unshakeable belief, firmly held through eight years of Bill Clinton and eight years of Barack Obama, that if some supposedly decisive swath of the electorate only knew the illicit things those two, and Democrats in general, have done, they would rise up and electorally smite them. It didn’t happen during the Clinton and Obama administrations and it won’t happen now.

The only thing left of Russiagate is Trump and company’s investigation of its genesis and development, which may result in criminal prosecutions against some of its sponsors. Other than that possibility, which will take years to play out in the courts, the sponsors have paid no price for Russiagate. It was a non-issue for most voters, and those who thought it important were primarily party partisans on both sides, among whom the Mueller report and testimony didn’t change a single vote.

The Democrats are simply going to rerun the Hillary Clinton email scandal playbook. There, they shifted the focus from what the emails revealed to their phony Russian hacking story of how they were revealed. The switch this time is from the Democrats’ malodorous associations with Ukraine—from their sponsored coup in 2014 to Ukrainian interference on behalf of the Democrats in the 2016 election to CrowdStrike to Burisma and the Bidens—and instead to the perfectly legitimate phone call between Presidents Trump and Zelensky.

On its face this looks ludicrous, but it worked for Hillary. She is free, hasn’t been indicted, and floats trail balloons about getting into the 2020 race. If the Democrats can generate enough sound and fury about that call, especially in the mainstream media, and draw out the proceedings into next summer, they can divert attention from the Russiagate investigation and perhaps deflect or even stop it all together. Check out their records: Michael Horowitz  and William Barr are savvy Washington political players at best, paid up members of the Deep State at worst (see here for Horowitz, and here and here and here for Barr).

The brass ring for the Democrats would be a Senate vote to convict, and there may be enough Mitt Romney-type Republican turncoats that the possibility cannot be dismissed out of hand. Failing that, the Democrats would settle for winning the 2020 presidential election. They’re hoping the impeachment trial yields dirt they can use against Trump. Articles proclaiming that the impeachment gambit dooms the Democrats next year are wildly premature. Obamacare was supposedly doomed in 2016 after Republicans won the presidency and both branches of Congress and yet, here we are and Obamacare is still with us.

The Republican candidate for president has won the popular vote once in the last seven elections (2004). The only memorable thing Mitt Romney ever said was his 47 percent comment. Roughly that percentage of the electorate really does draw its sustenance from the government—by now it may be 48, 49, or 50 percent—and it will mostly vote for the party of government. Couple that bought, built-in base with what’s been happening at the margins since the last election.

No wall has been built and the illegal immigrant flood has not abated. That group is heavily Democratic and may be decisive in Arizona and Florida. Even Texas could be in play. Trump’s base is older, and some of them have died. Democrats are younger, and a substantial percentage of millennials now call themselves socialists. Democratic candidates are falling all over themselves promising freebies, including free college and health care and student loan forgiveness, to win their vote. Trump’s trade war hasn’t gone down well in farm states as agriculture bears the brunt of China’s retaliation. That could cost him Wisconsin, Georgia, and North Carolina.

Social mood drives both stock markets and politics. Should social mood turn more sour than it already is and the stock market and economy tank, Trump is probably toast, even if he escapes an impeachment conviction.

A Democratic victory next year would be a giant victory for the truth irrelevance project. Two scandals manufactured out of whole cloth will not only not have cost them anything electorally, they will have further solidified their base, most of whom quit caring about the truth long ago. There’s probably no chance that Horowitz, Barr, and their colleagues would stand against a Democratic tide. Investigations will go to the bottom of their To Do lists, then get tossed down the memory hole sometime after the new president takes office.

And without saying a word, the Democrats will be screaming to all those who saw Trump as a symbol of their own resistance: YOU THOUGHT YOU WERE MAKING AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, BUT WE’VE MADE THE TRUTH IRRELEVANT! The opposition’s demoralization and anger will be off the charts.

Whether the truth is irrelevant is a metaphysical debate. To skip to the ultimate conclusion: it’s always and everywhere relevant. Whether a political entity or government can act as if the truth’s irrelevant and neutralize or eliminate those who oppose it is a propaganda and tactical issue.

The US is well down the road to stifling dissent and the truth. The Democrats are disregarding the truth and putting their chips on kangaroo justice. Republicans are rightfully outraged, but what kind of justice has the US meted out to truth-tellers and true whistleblowers Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, and Chelsea Manning? Are there any prominent Republicans who have spoken out in defense of their truth telling or right to fair judicial processes? The truth irrelevance project is bipartisan.

In 2016, the resistance to Government As Currently Constituted And The Powers That Be got behind Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. Sanders got screwed by his own party; Trump won the presidency. Whether Trump is more a symbol of resistance than the real thing is a topic for another essay. The important point is that his voters constructively channeled their frustrations, played by the rules, and voted him into office.

If House Democrats conduct their kangaroo proceedings and Trump is convicted by the Senate, or if he stays in office but the impeachment and attendant media circus cost him the election, his supporters will stare at three relevant truths:

    1. the government, its string pullers, and its sycophants and toadies in the media, business, academia, Hollywood and elsewhere are completely corrupt;
    2. voting is useless, the only choices allowed are those approved by the powers;
    3. the system will never be reformed from the inside.

Some of the resistance, disillusioned, will give up. The rest will continue to resist, but they won’t be playing by the rules anymore.

Holy Pachamama Batman – Michael Voris Goes To Ground Zero Of VII ChurchFail!


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

It’s all the doing of the GERMANS (and their money)!

Think about this the next time you are in the market to buy a car.

In the mean time, it might be a good idea to follow Steve Skojec (on Twitter) as he is working through his issues with Normalcy Bias:

The normalcy bias, or normality bias, is a belief people hold when there is a possibility of a disaster. It causes people to underestimate both the likelihood of a disaster and its possible effects, because people believe that things will always function the way things normally have functioned. This may result in situations where people fail to adequately prepare themselves for disasters, and on a larger scale, the failure of governments to include the populace in its disaster preparations. About 70% of people reportedly display normalcy bias in disasters.[1]

The normalcy bias can manifest itself in various disasters, ranging from car crashes to world-historical events. It is hypothesized that the normalcy bias may be caused by the way the brain processes new information. Stress slows information processing, and when the brain cannot find an acceptable response to a situation, it fixates on a single and sometimes default solution. This single resolution can result in unnecessary injury or death in disaster situations. The lack of preparation for disasters often leads to inadequate shelter, supplies, and evacuation plans. Thus, normalcy bias can cause people to drastically underestimate the effects of the disaster and assume that everything will be all right. The negative effects of normalcy bias can be combatted through the four stages of disaster response: preparation, warning, impact, and aftermath.

Normalcy bias has also been called analysis paralysis, the ostrich effect,[2] and by first responders, the negative panic.[3] The opposite of normalcy bias is overreaction, or worst-case scenario bias,[4][5] in which small deviations from normality are dealt with as signals of an impending catastrophe.

And here’s Steve…

It appears to be a “personal understanding” issue…

In the mean time, Ann Barnhardt has done the homework, is one step ahead and has it dead to right: (see HERE)

But the “discernment” continues…

As best I can tell, the sticking point in question is the validity of the 2013 Conclave issue.

So the caged grudge match between Steve and Austen Ivereigh is on!

Please keep Steve in your prayers.

More to come later…

Looks Like Francis and His “Church” Is Down With ‘Eating The Babies’…


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

Folks, Michael Matt goes full Thomist!

And Aristotelian…

And Petersonian to boot!

He raises the post-Modernist dilemma very neatly.

Here is Dr. Peterson to explain exactly what the issue is:

It’s all about a Marxist power game for the “church” of Francis, folks!

Post scriptum:

Looks like the Imperfect Conclave is closer then anyone of us could have reasonably expected. Please go and read the Non Veni Pacem post HERE!

Remember folks, Francis is the bishop of Rome, yet the Romans appear to be thinking otherwise…

Non Enim Possumus Quæ Vidimus Et Audivimus Non Loqui. (w/ Update)


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

A treat today.

The post below is written by the proprietor of one of our favorite blogs, namely the Catholic The Conservative Treehouse. What’s more important is that it appears on another favorite blog of ours, the catholic Zero Hedge.

Now in all honesty, this is not the first time that a Conservative Treehouse post appeared on the Zero Hedge website.

What makes this post SIGNIFICANT however, is the theme of this post. If one looks at this post from a metaphysical,… bah, spiritual level, what we have here is a post whose theme can be summarized by the words of Saints Peter and John from the Acts of the Apostles, namely: “For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.”

Non enim possumus quæ vidimus et audivimus non loqui.


Therefore, it is becoming clear that what we are seeing is a rebellion against the GLOBSALIST MONOLITH that is trying to gain control over not only the material aspects of the Visibiliium Omnium but also to gain control over the spiritual aspects of the et Invisibilium.

And the rebellion is spreading…

Wonder if our College of Cardinals is watching…

UPDATE: 7:30 4 October 2019

And then there is this ( MUST WATCH)

This development is SIGNFICANT.

For no other reason than the “distance” that Church Militant – supposedly an Opus Dei outfit – has traveled.

What we are seeing is nothing short of a full blown RECONCILIATION EVENT with OBJECTIVE REALITY !

I would go so far as saying that the odds of an “INVALID” Conclave being determined by a competent body within the Catholic Church within our lifetimes has just exceeded 50%!

Hence this… HERE!


One ‘Deplorable’ Takes A Stand: “They’ve Gone Too Far!”

Authored by ‘sundance’ via,


They’ve gone too far. “Donald Trump’s supporters are racist“, or “uneducated”, or “unenlightened”, or (fill_In_The_Blank).  This hate-filled sentiment is clear within the latest corrupt and targeted impeachment attack against the office of the President.

Now the media narrative controllers are fully engaged, gleeful with impeachment blood-lust amid their broadcast brethren.  The raw political corruption is now extreme.

Do not look away.

As we bear witness, anyone trying to convince us this entire assembly of our union is headed in the right direction, well, they might want to revisit their proximity to the 2020 election ballpark. Because they’re not just out of the city – they’re also out of the same state the election ballpark is located in….. Then again, the media know that.

David Mamet had a famous saying, essentially: …‘in order for democrats, liberals, progressives et al to continue their illogical belief systems they have to pretend not to know a lot of things’… By pretending ‘not to know’ there is no guilt, no actual connection to conscience. Denial of truth allows easier trespass.

This hate-filled Democrat ideology relies on our willingness to accept their lies, falsehoods, and scripted presentations; and then demands we grant benefit amid their seeds of doubt.

There’s a level of anger far deeper and more consequential than expressed rage or visible behavior, it’s called Cold Anger.

Cold Anger does not need to go to violence. For those who carry it, no conversation is needed when we meet. You cannot poll or measure it; specifically because most who carry it avoid discussion… And that decision has nothing whatsoever to do with any form of correctness.

We watched the passage of Obamacare at 1:38am on the day before Christmas Eve in 2009. We watched the Senate, then the House attempt passing Amnesty in 2014. We know exactly how it passed, and we know exactly why it passed. We don’t need to stand around talking about it….

We know what lies hidden behind “cloture” and the UniParty schemes.

We watched the 2009 $900+ billion Stimulus Bill being spent each year, every year, for seven consecutive years. Omnibus, Porkulous, QE1, QE2, Bailouts, Crony-Capitalism. We know exactly how this works, and we know exactly why this ruse is maintained. We don’t need to stand around talking about it…. We’re beyond talking.

We accept that the entire Senate voted to block President Trump’s ability to use recess appointments in 2017, and 2018, and 2019. Every.Single.Democrat.And.Republican.

Cold Anger absorbs betrayal silently, often prudently.

We’ve waited each year, every year, for ten years, to see a federal budget, only to be given another Omnibus spending bill by “CONservative” politicians.

We’ve watched the ridiculing of cops, the riots, and the lack of support for laws, or their enforcement. We’ve been absorbing all that. We’ve been exposed to violence upon us by paid operatives of the organized DNC machine. We know; the media trying to hide it doesn’t change our level of information.

Cold Anger is not hatred, it is far more purposeful.

We watched in 2012 as the Democrat party thrice denied God during their convention. The doors to evil enterprise opened by official proclamation and request.

Cold Anger takes notice of the liars, even from a great distance – seemingly invisible to the mob. Cold Anger will still hold open the door for the riot goer. Mannerly.

We’ve watched our borders being intentionally unsecured.

We’ve watched Islamic Terrorists slaughter Americans as our politicians proclaim their uncertainty of motive. We know exactly who they are, and why they are doing it. We do not need to stand around discussing it…. we’re clear eyed.

Cold Anger evidenced is more severe because it is more strategic, and more purposeful. Eric Cantor’s defeat, Matt Bevin’s victory, Brexit, Donald Trump’s highest vote tally in the history of presidential primaries or President Trump’s victory might aide your  understanding.

Cold Anger does not gloat; it absorbs consistent vilification and ridicule as fuel. This sensibility does not want to exist, it is forced to exist in otherwise unwilling hosts – we also refuse to be destabilized by it.

Transgender bathrooms are more important than border security.

Illicit trade schemes, employment and the standard of living in Vietnam and Southeast Asia are more important to Wall Street and DC lobbyists, than the financial security of Youngstown Ohio.

We get it. We understand. We didn’t create that reality, we are simply responding to it.

The intelligence apparatus of our nation was weaponized against our candidate by those who controlled the levers of government. Now, with sanctimonious declarations they dismiss accountability.

Deliberate intent and prudence ensures we avoid failure. The course, is thoughtful vigilance; it is a strategy devoid of emotion. The media can call us anything they want, it really doesn’t matter…. we’re far beyond the place where labels matter.

Foolishness and betrayal of our nation have served to reveal dangers within our present condition. Misplaced corrective action, regardless of intent, is neither safe nor wise. We know exactly who Donald Trump is, and we also know what he is not. He is exactly what we need at this moment. He is a necessary glorious bastard.

He is our weapon.

Cold Anger is not driven to act in spite of itself; it drives a reckoning.

When the well attired leave the checkout line carrying steaks and shrimp using an EBT card, the door is still held open; yet notations necessarily embed.

When the U.S. flags lay gleefully undefended, they do not lay unnoticed. When the stars and stripes are controversial, yet a foreign flag is honored – we are paying attention.

When millionaire football players kneel down rather than honor our fallen soldiers and stand proud of our country, we see that. Check the NFL TV ratings – take note.

When a school community cannot openly pray, it does not mean the prayerful were absent.

When a liar seems to win, it is not without observation. Many – more than the minority would like to admit – know the difference between science, clocks and political agendas.

Cold Anger perceives deception the way the long-term battered absorb a blow in the hours prior to the pre-planned exit; with purpose.

A shield, or cry of micro-aggression will provide no benefit, nor quarter. Delicate sensibilities are dispatched like a feather in a hurricane.

We are patient, but also purposeful. Pushed far enough, decisions are reached.

[…] On the drive to and from the East Coast, I paid attention to the billboards and bumper-stickers. Folks, the people in “Fly over” country are PISSED, from the guy that guides hunters, to the mayors of towns and cities, to state senators congressmen and Governors who are voting to arrest and imprison federal law enforcement officials for enforcing federal gun laws that don’t agree with state law … The political pendulum has never, in the history of humanity, stayed on one side of a swing. The back lash from over reach has always been proportionate to how far off center it went before coming back … right now we’re staring at a whole hell of a lot of the country (about 80-90% of the land mass, as well as about 50+% of the population) that is FED UP. You really don’t want those guys to decide that the only way to fix it is to burn it down and start over… (more)

It’s too late…

This man has faced opposition that would overwhelm any other President.  Our chosen President is constantly attacked by those holding a corrupt, conniving and Godless leftist ideology.  It is our job now to stand with him, firm on his behalf.

To respond we must engage as an insurgency. We must modify our disposition to think like an insurgent. Insurgencies have nothing to lose. If insurgents are not victorious the system, which controls the dynamic, wins. However, if insurgents do nothing, the same system, which controls the dynamic, also wins.

Do nothing and we lose. Go to the mattresses, and we might win. The choice is ours.

Right now, through November 2020, every day is Saint Crispins day.

If we are mark’d to die, we are enow
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
God’s will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
It yearns me not if men my garments wear;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires.
But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.
No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England.
God’s peace! I would not lose so great an honour
As one man more methinks would share from me
For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more!
Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made,
And crowns for convoy put into his purse;
We would not die in that man’s company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is call’d the feast of Crispian.
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam’d,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say ‘To-morrow is Saint Crispian.’
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars,
And say ‘These wounds I had on Crispian’s day.’
Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
But he’ll remember, with advantages,
What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words-
Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester-
Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb’red.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne’er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered-
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs’d they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day.

The awakened American middle-class insurgency, led by Donald Trump, is an existential threat to the professional political class and every entity who lives in/around the professional political class. Their entire political apparatus is threatened by our insurgency. The political industry, all of corrupt governance, is threatened by our support through Donald Trump.

Decision time.

You know why the entire apparatus is united against President Trump. You know why the corrupt Wall Street financial apparatus is united against President Trump. You know why every institutional department, every lobbyist, every K-Street dweller, every career legislative member, staffer, and the various downstream economic benefactors, including the corporate media, all of it – all the above, are united against Donald Trump.

Donald Trump is an existential threat to the existence of a corrupt DC system we have exposed to his disinfecting sunlight. Donald Trump is the existential threat to every entity who benefits from that corrupt and vile system.

Global elites now stand with jaw-agape in horror as they witness the result.  The value of multi-billion dollar contracts dispatched at our leisure. Trillion dollar multi-national trade deals, full of scheme and graft, left nothing more than tenuous propositions smashed asunder from the mere sound of our approach.

The fundamental construct within decades of their united global efforts to tear at the very fabric of our U.S.A is being eliminated. They too have nothing to lose; their desperation becomes visible within their apoplexy; and they’re damn sure displaying it.

Do not look away.

Throw aside the sense of discomfort and bear witness to the evil we oppose. Do not turn your eyes from the hatred focused in our direction. Stand firm amid the solace of our number and resolve to the task at hand.

Those who oppose our efforts are merely vile parasites quivering as they stare into the Cold Anger furnace of righteousness.

Who fuels that furnace?

…..US !

Oh My! Peter Thiel Notices “Something Wrong With Rationalist Catholicism”…


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

… and that something can be encapsulated in two words:

“Pope Francis”

Must watch!

And below, the relevent text: (see here)

(SEPTEMBER 9-14, 2006)



Aula Magna of the University of Regensburg
Tuesday, 12 September 2006

Faith, Reason and the University
Memories and Reflections


Your Eminences, Your Magnificences, Your Excellencies,
Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is a moving experience for me to be back again in the university and to be able once again to give a lecture at this podium. I think back to those years when, after a pleasant period at the Freisinger Hochschule, I began teaching at the University of Bonn. That was in 1959, in the days of the old university made up of ordinary professors. The various chairs had neither assistants nor secretaries, but in recompense there was much direct contact with students and in particular among the professors themselves. We would meet before and after lessons in the rooms of the teaching staff. There was a lively exchange with historians, philosophers, philologists and, naturally, between the two theological faculties. Once a semester there was a dies academicus, when professors from every faculty appeared before the students of the entire university, making possible a genuine experience of universitas – something that you too, Magnificent Rector, just mentioned – the experience, in other words, of the fact that despite our specializations which at times make it difficult to communicate with each other, we made up a whole, working in everything on the basis of a single rationality with its various aspects and sharing responsibility for the right use of reason – this reality became a lived experience. The university was also very proud of its two theological faculties. It was clear that, by inquiring about the reasonableness of faith, they too carried out a work which is necessarily part of the “whole” of the universitas scientiarum, even if not everyone could share the faith which theologians seek to correlate with reason as a whole. This profound sense of coherence within the universe of reason was not troubled, even when it was once reported that a colleague had said there was something odd about our university: it had two faculties devoted to something that did not exist: God. That even in the face of such radical scepticism it is still necessary and reasonable to raise the question of God through the use of reason, and to do so in the context of the tradition of the Christian faith: this, within the university as a whole, was accepted without question.

I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on – perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara – by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both.[1] It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian interlocutor.[2] The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur’an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship between – as they were called – three “Laws” or “rules of life”: the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur’an. It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point – itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole – which, in the context of the issue of “faith and reason”, I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.

In the seventh conversation (διάλεξις – controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: “There is no compulsion in religion”. According to some of the experts, this is probably one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur’an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the “Book” and the “infidels”, he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness that we find unacceptable, on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”[3] The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. “God”, he says, “is not pleased by blood – and not acting reasonably (σὺν λόγω) is contrary to God’s nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats… To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death…”.[4]

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature.[5] The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.[6] Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazm went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God’s will, we would even have to practise idolatry.[7]

At this point, as far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we are faced with an unavoidable dilemma. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God’s nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true? I believe that here we can see the profound harmony between what is Greek in the best sense of the word and the biblical understanding of faith in God. Modifying the first verse of the Book of Genesis, the first verse of the whole Bible, John began the prologue of his Gospel with the words: “In the beginning was the λόγος”. This is the very word used by the emperor: God acts, σὺν λόγω, with logos. Logos means both reason and word – a reason which is creative and capable of self-communication, precisely as reason. John thus spoke the final word on the biblical concept of God, and in this word all the often toilsome and tortuous threads of biblical faith find their culmination and synthesis. In the beginning was the logos, and the logos is God, says the Evangelist. The encounter between the Biblical message and Greek thought did not happen by chance. The vision of Saint Paul, who saw the roads to Asia barred and in a dream saw a Macedonian man plead with him: “Come over to Macedonia and help us!” (cf. Acts 16:6-10) – this vision can be interpreted as a “distillation” of the intrinsic necessity of a rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek inquiry.

In point of fact, this rapprochement had been going on for some time. The mysterious name of God, revealed from the burning bush, a name which separates this God from all other divinities with their many names and simply asserts being, “I am”, already presents a challenge to the notion of myth, to which Socrates’ attempt to vanquish and transcend myth stands in close analogy.[8] Within the Old Testament, the process which started at the burning bush came to new maturity at the time of the Exile, when the God of Israel, an Israel now deprived of its land and worship, was proclaimed as the God of heaven and earth and described in a simple formula which echoes the words uttered at the burning bush: “I am”. This new understanding of God is accompanied by a kind of enlightenment, which finds stark expression in the mockery of gods who are merely the work of human hands (cf. Ps 115). Thus, despite the bitter conflict with those Hellenistic rulers who sought to accommodate it forcibly to the customs and idolatrous cult of the Greeks, biblical faith, in the Hellenistic period, encountered the best of Greek thought at a deep level, resulting in a mutual enrichment evident especially in the later wisdom literature. Today we know that the Greek translation of the Old Testament produced at Alexandria – the Septuagint – is more than a simple (and in that sense really less than satisfactory) translation of the Hebrew text: it is an independent textual witness and a distinct and important step in the history of revelation, one which brought about this encounter in a way that was decisive for the birth and spread of Christianity.[9] A profound encounter of faith and reason is taking place here, an encounter between genuine enlightenment and religion. From the very heart of Christian faith and, at the same time, the heart of Greek thought now joined to faith, Manuel II was able to say: Not to act “with logos” is contrary to God’s nature.

In all honesty, one must observe that in the late Middle Ages we find trends in theology which would sunder this synthesis between the Greek spirit and the Christian spirit. In contrast with the so-called intellectualism of Augustine and Thomas, there arose with Duns Scotus a voluntarism which, in its later developments, led to the claim that we can only know God’s voluntas ordinata. Beyond this is the realm of God’s freedom, in virtue of which he could have done the opposite of everything he has actually done. This gives rise to positions which clearly approach those of Ibn Hazm and might even lead to the image of a capricious God, who is not even bound to truth and goodness. God’s transcendence and otherness are so exalted that our reason, our sense of the true and good, are no longer an authentic mirror of God, whose deepest possibilities remain eternally unattainable and hidden behind his actual decisions. As opposed to this, the faith of the Church has always insisted that between God and us, between his eternal Creator Spirit and our created reason there exists a real analogy, in which – as the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 stated – unlikeness remains infinitely greater than likeness, yet not to the point of abolishing analogy and its language. God does not become more divine when we push him away from us in a sheer, impenetrable voluntarism; rather, the truly divine God is the God who has revealed himself as logos and, as logos, has acted and continues to act lovingly on our behalf. Certainly, love, as Saint Paul says, “transcends” knowledge and is thereby capable of perceiving more than thought alone (cf. Eph 3:19); nonetheless it continues to be love of the God who is Logos. Consequently, Christian worship is, again to quote Paul – “λογικη λατρεία”, worship in harmony with the eternal Word and with our reason (cf. Rom 12:1).[10]

This inner rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek philosophical inquiry was an event of decisive importance not only from the standpoint of the history of religions, but also from that of world history – it is an event which concerns us even today. Given this convergence, it is not surprising that Christianity, despite its origins and some significant developments in the East, finally took on its historically decisive character in Europe. We can also express this the other way around: this convergence, with the subsequent addition of the Roman heritage, created Europe and remains the foundation of what can rightly be called Europe.

The thesis that the critically purified Greek heritage forms an integral part of Christian faith has been countered by the call for a dehellenization of Christianity – a call which has more and more dominated theological discussions since the beginning of the modern age. Viewed more closely, three stages can be observed in the programme of dehellenization: although interconnected, they are clearly distinct from one another in their motivations and objectives.[11]

Dehellenization first emerges in connection with the postulates of the Reformation in the sixteenth century. Looking at the tradition of scholastic theology, the Reformers thought they were confronted with a faith system totally conditioned by philosophy, that is to say an articulation of the faith based on an alien system of thought. As a result, faith no longer appeared as a living historical Word but as one element of an overarching philosophical system. The principle of sola scriptura, on the other hand, sought faith in its pure, primordial form, as originally found in the biblical Word. Metaphysics appeared as a premise derived from another source, from which faith had to be liberated in order to become once more fully itself. When Kant stated that he needed to set thinking aside in order to make room for faith, he carried this programme forward with a radicalism that the Reformers could never have foreseen. He thus anchored faith exclusively in practical reason, denying it access to reality as a whole.

The liberal theology of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries ushered in a second stage in the process of dehellenization, with Adolf von Harnack as its outstanding representative. When I was a student, and in the early years of my teaching, this programme was highly influential in Catholic theology too. It took as its point of departure Pascal’s distinction between the God of the philosophers and the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. In my inaugural lecture at Bonn in 1959, I tried to address the issue,[12] and I do not intend to repeat here what I said on that occasion, but I would like to describe at least briefly what was new about this second stage of dehellenization. Harnack’s central idea was to return simply to the man Jesus and to his simple message, underneath the accretions of theology and indeed of hellenization: this simple message was seen as the culmination of the religious development of humanity. Jesus was said to have put an end to worship in favour of morality. In the end he was presented as the father of a humanitarian moral message. Fundamentally, Harnack’s goal was to bring Christianity back into harmony with modern reason, liberating it, that is to say, from seemingly philosophical and theological elements, such as faith in Christ’s divinity and the triune God. In this sense, historical-critical exegesis of the New Testament, as he saw it, restored to theology its place within the university: theology, for Harnack, is something essentially historical and therefore strictly scientific. What it is able to say critically about Jesus is, so to speak, an expression of practical reason and consequently it can take its rightful place within the university. Behind this thinking lies the modern self-limitation of reason, classically expressed in Kant’s “Critiques”, but in the meantime further radicalized by the impact of the natural sciences. This modern concept of reason is based, to put it briefly, on a synthesis between Platonism (Cartesianism) and empiricism, a synthesis confirmed by the success of technology. On the one hand it presupposes the mathematical structure of matter, its intrinsic rationality, which makes it possible to understand how matter works and use it efficiently: this basic premise is, so to speak, the Platonic element in the modern understanding of nature. On the other hand, there is nature’s capacity to be exploited for our purposes, and here only the possibility of verification or falsification through experimentation can yield decisive certainty. The weight between the two poles can, depending on the circumstances, shift from one side to the other. As strongly positivistic a thinker as J. Monod has declared himself a convinced Platonist/Cartesian.

This gives rise to two principles which are crucial for the issue we have raised. First, only the kind of certainty resulting from the interplay of mathematical and empirical elements can be considered scientific. Anything that would claim to be science must be measured against this criterion. Hence the human sciences, such as history, psychology, sociology and philosophy, attempt to conform themselves to this canon of scientificity. A second point, which is important for our reflections, is that by its very nature this method excludes the question of God, making it appear an unscientific or pre-scientific question. Consequently, we are faced with a reduction of the radius of science and reason, one which needs to be questioned.

I will return to this problem later. In the meantime, it must be observed that from this standpoint any attempt to maintain theology’s claim to be “scientific” would end up reducing Christianity to a mere fragment of its former self. But we must say more: if science as a whole is this and this alone, then it is man himself who ends up being reduced, for the specifically human questions about our origin and destiny, the questions raised by religion and ethics, then have no place within the purview of collective reason as defined by “science”, so understood, and must thus be relegated to the realm of the subjective. The subject then decides, on the basis of his experiences, what he considers tenable in matters of religion, and the subjective “conscience” becomes the sole arbiter of what is ethical. In this way, though, ethics and religion lose their power to create a community and become a completely personal matter. This is a dangerous state of affairs for humanity, as we see from the disturbing pathologies of religion and reason which necessarily erupt when reason is so reduced that questions of religion and ethics no longer concern it. Attempts to construct an ethic from the rules of evolution or from psychology and sociology, end up being simply inadequate.

Before I draw the conclusions to which all this has been leading, I must briefly refer to the third stage of dehellenization, which is now in progress. In the light of our experience with cultural pluralism, it is often said nowadays that the synthesis with Hellenism achieved in the early Church was an initial inculturation which ought not to be binding on other cultures. The latter are said to have the right to return to the simple message of the New Testament prior to that inculturation, in order to inculturate it anew in their own particular milieux. This thesis is not simply false, but it is coarse and lacking in precision. The New Testament was written in Greek and bears the imprint of the Greek spirit, which had already come to maturity as the Old Testament developed. True, there are elements in the evolution of the early Church which do not have to be integrated into all cultures. Nonetheless, the fundamental decisions made about the relationship between faith and the use of human reason are part of the faith itself; they are developments consonant with the nature of faith itself.

And so I come to my conclusion. This attempt, painted with broad strokes, at a critique of modern reason from within has nothing to do with putting the clock back to the time before the Enlightenment and rejecting the insights of the modern age. The positive aspects of modernity are to be acknowledged unreservedly: we are all grateful for the marvellous possibilities that it has opened up for mankind and for the progress in humanity that has been granted to us. The scientific ethos, moreover, is – as you yourself mentioned, Magnificent Rector – the will to be obedient to the truth, and, as such, it embodies an attitude which belongs to the essential decisions of the Christian spirit. The intention here is not one of retrenchment or negative criticism, but of broadening our concept of reason and its application. While we rejoice in the new possibilities open to humanity, we also see the dangers arising from these possibilities and we must ask ourselves how we can overcome them. We will succeed in doing so only if reason and faith come together in a new way, if we overcome the self-imposed limitation of reason to the empirically falsifiable, and if we once more disclose its vast horizons. In this sense theology rightly belongs in the university and within the wide-ranging dialogue of sciences, not merely as a historical discipline and one of the human sciences, but precisely as theology, as inquiry into the rationality of faith.

Only thus do we become capable of that genuine dialogue of cultures and religions so urgently needed today. In the Western world it is widely held that only positivistic reason and the forms of philosophy based on it are universally valid. Yet the world’s profoundly religious cultures see this exclusion of the divine from the universality of reason as an attack on their most profound convictions. A reason which is deaf to the divine and which relegates religion into the realm of subcultures is incapable of entering into the dialogue of cultures. At the same time, as I have attempted to show, modern scientific reason with its intrinsically Platonic element bears within itself a question which points beyond itself and beyond the possibilities of its methodology. Modern scientific reason quite simply has to accept the rational structure of matter and the correspondence between our spirit and the prevailing rational structures of nature as a given, on which its methodology has to be based. Yet the question why this has to be so is a real question, and one which has to be remanded by the natural sciences to other modes and planes of thought – to philosophy and theology. For philosophy and, albeit in a different way, for theology, listening to the great experiences and insights of the religious traditions of humanity, and those of the Christian faith in particular, is a source of knowledge, and to ignore it would be an unacceptable restriction of our listening and responding. Here I am reminded of something Socrates said to Phaedo. In their earlier conversations, many false philosophical opinions had been raised, and so Socrates says: “It would be easily understandable if someone became so annoyed at all these false notions that for the rest of his life he despised and mocked all talk about being – but in this way he would be deprived of the truth of existence and would suffer a great loss”.[13] The West has long been endangered by this aversion to the questions which underlie its rationality, and can only suffer great harm thereby. The courage to engage the whole breadth of reason, and not the denial of its grandeur – this is the programme with which a theology grounded in Biblical faith enters into the debates of our time. “Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos, is contrary to the nature of God”, said Manuel II, according to his Christian understanding of God, in response to his Persian interlocutor. It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures. To rediscover it constantly is the great task of the university.

[1] Of the total number of 26 conversations (διάλεξις – Khoury translates this as “controversy”) in the dialogue (“Entretien”), T. Khoury published the 7th “controversy” with footnotes and an extensive introduction on the origin of the text, on the manuscript tradition and on the structure of the dialogue, together with brief summaries of the “controversies” not included in the edition;  the Greek text is accompanied by a French translation:  “Manuel II Paléologue, Entretiens avec un Musulman.  7e Controverse”,  Sources Chrétiennes n. 115, Paris 1966.  In the meantime, Karl Förstel published in Corpus Islamico-Christianum (Series Graeca  ed. A. T. Khoury and R. Glei) an edition of the text in Greek and German with commentary:  “Manuel II. Palaiologus, Dialoge mit einem Muslim”, 3 vols., Würzburg-Altenberge 1993-1996.  As early as 1966, E. Trapp had published the Greek text with an introduction as vol. II of Wiener byzantinische Studien.  I shall be quoting from Khoury’s edition.

[2] On the origin and redaction of the dialogue, cf. Khoury, pp. 22-29;  extensive comments in this regard can also be found in the editions of Förstel and Trapp.

[3] Controversy VII, 2 c:  Khoury, pp. 142-143;  Förstel, vol. I, VII. Dialog 1.5, pp. 240-241.  In the Muslim world, this quotation has unfortunately been taken as an expression of my personal position, thus arousing understandable indignation.  I hope that the reader of my text can see immediately that this sentence does not express my personal view of the Qur’an, for which I have the respect due to the holy book of a great religion.  In quoting the text of the Emperor Manuel II, I intended solely to draw out the essential relationship between faith and reason.  On this point I am in agreement with Manuel II, but without endorsing his polemic.

[4] Controversy VII, 3 b–c:  Khoury, pp. 144-145;  Förstel vol. I, VII. Dialog 1.6, pp. 240-243.

[5] It was purely for the sake of this statement that I quoted the dialogue between Manuel and his Persian interlocutor.  In this statement the theme of my subsequent reflections emerges.

[6] Cf. Khoury, p. 144, n. 1.

[7] R. Arnaldez, Grammaire et théologie chez Ibn Hazm de Cordoue, Paris 1956, p. 13;  cf. Khoury, p. 144.  The fact that comparable positions exist in the theology of the late Middle Ages will appear later in my discourse.

[8] Regarding the widely discussed interpretation of the episode of the burning bush, I refer to my book Introduction to Christianity, London 1969, pp. 77-93  (originally published in German as Einführung in das Christentum, Munich 1968;  N.B. the pages quoted refer to the entire chapter entitled “The Biblical Belief in God”).  I think that my statements in that book, despite later developments in the discussion, remain valid today.

[9] Cf. A. Schenker, “L’Écriture sainte subsiste en plusieurs formes canoniques simultanées”, in L’Interpretazione della Bibbia nella Chiesa.  Atti del Simposio promosso dalla Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede, Vatican City 2001, pp. 178-186.

[10] On this matter I expressed myself in greater detail in my book The Spirit of the Liturgy, San Francisco 2000, pp. 44-50.

[11] Of the vast literature on the theme of dehellenization, I would like to mention above all:  A. Grillmeier, “Hellenisierung-Judaisierung des Christentums als Deuteprinzipien der Geschichte des kirchlichen Dogmas”, in idem, Mit ihm und in ihm.  Christologische Forschungen und Perspektiven,  Freiburg 1975, pp. 423-488.

[12] Newly published with commentary by Heino Sonnemans (ed.):  Joseph Ratzinger-Benedikt XVI, Der Gott des Glaubens und der Gott der Philosophen.  Ein Beitrag zum Problem der theologia naturalis, Johannes-Verlag Leutesdorf, 2nd revised edition, 2005.

[13] Cf. 90 c-d.  For this text, cf. also R. Guardini, Der Tod des Sokrates, 5th edition, Mainz-Paderborn 1987, pp. 218-221

State of Play On The Death Of FakeNews…


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

Good article on the state of play from our favorite secular catholic website Zero Hedge.

But before we get to the the post, a timely reminder of the underlying mechanism:

Have a nice weekend!


How The Fourth Estate ‘Illuminati’ Silence The Right

Authored by Leesa Donner via,

Journalism has taken quite a beating since the turn of the century. This is true on the business side of the equation and regarding its reputation as a non-biased source of information. The adversarial relationship between the president and the Fourth Estate has not dissipated since Donald J. Trump was sworn in on Jan. 20, 2017. And a good argument could be made that it’s gotten even more ugly in the public square. This war of words has turned into an all-out frontal assault on those the legacy press perceives as its enemy: the political right. So, it’s worth checking in on the state of the battle. Who’s winning? Who’s losing? And perhaps more significantly: How effectively is the war being waged?

The Bloody Inkwell

It’s not difficult to determine who is being targeted. The legacy press has set its sights on the right, but within that category the Illuminati are gunning for three types of adversaries: well-known conservative individuals, large and small organizations, and public citizens. As for the how, the big-city scribes have chosen the sniper attack as their primary operational-tactical strategy. That is, establish a cover position, lie in wait, and pick off the enemy one by one.

Historically, the chief business of newspapers and television networks has been the peddling of information. Now that the media elites are locked in a battle for their very existence, their raison d’être has morphed into political advocacy. Trafficking in defamation, innuendo, half-truths, and more, the Fourth Estate has been working overtime to slay those it perceives to be the lurking conservative beasts. This poison-pen approach has resulted in nothing less than a toxic political atmosphere where all bets are off. And frankly, it’s getting bloody out there.

Here are but a few illustrations:

Number 1. The Well-known Individual

The recent New York Times allegations against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh are a prime example. Guns ablaze, the Old Grey Lady published an article regarding an allegation of sexual misconduct that is not new. It’s been reported the FBI may have known about it, but with a victim who was not prepared to go on the record, nothing came of it. And why should it? The “victim” says she doesn’t even remember the “sexual advance” by Kavanaugh involving his male anatomy. A fact omitted, incredibly, by The Times.

Brett Kavanaugh

But that didn’t stop the NYT from igniting a media frenzy with innuendo and scurrilous defamatory accusations. “This is just one more nail in the coffin of The Grey Lady’s credibility,” wrote Liberty Nation’s chief political correspondent Graham Noble. “It also exposes this new assault on Kavanaugh for what it is: a politically motivated smear, the ultimate aim of which is to prevent the Supreme Court issuing opinions influenced by conservative or originalist thought – particularly on the subject of abortion.”

Kavanaugh is merely one of many well-known individuals who have been targeted by the Fourth Estate. Advocacy journalism was responsible for Stephen Moore stepping down from a nomination to the Federal Reserve Board. Moore went on Liberty Nation Radio and said his wife and family couldn’t take the barrage of negative stories about him day after day for things he posted on social media in jest.

Then there’s former Secretary of Labor Alexander Acosta, who was chased off after the media transferred responsibility for the Jeffrey Epstein affair to him. And although it went unsaid, one must figure that a big part of former Press Secretary Sarah Sanders’ resignation — following media hounding of her family in public places — was prompted by incessant political attacks from a vicious and rancorous media. And there are oh so many more.

Lois Lerner

Number 2. Small Groups

Is there anyone out there who remembers the IRS scandal under the venomous talons of Lois Lerner? The scheme targeted the 501(c)3 tax-exempt status of small groups. As reported previously by Liberty Nation, “These fledgling organizations were essentially put through a bureaucratic wringer that included ‘long delays in getting approvals, and some faced the same kinds of intrusive questions about donors, personal beliefs and even their activities at their unrelated jobs.’” Initially ignored by the media elites, this scandal succeeded in shutting down hundreds of conservative voices – including LN’s parent organization – until the revolting practice bubbled to the surface in a class-action suit filed – and ultimately won – by the persecuted. What was the legacy media’s role in all this? It was two-pronged: disregard and deny.

Not giving this scandal the requisite ink such an atrocity deserved wasn’t enough. Next came the effort to deny the existence of the targeting altogether. Newsweek, for instance, republished an article titled “Remember the IRS Scandal? It Was Fake News All Along.” While the big publishers and networks weren’t behind this misconduct by Lerner and her henchmen, they certainly didn’t bring their power and influence to bear in helping correct it. In the words of the brilliant legal mind of Alan Shore from Boston Legal, “All it takes for evil to succeed is for good people to say, ‘It’s a business.’” Circulation, ratings, numbers are the name of the game.

Number 3. We, the People

A popular meme shows President Trump pointing his finger like Uncle Sam and saying, “In reality, they’re not after me. They’re after you. I’m just in the way.” Perhaps the reason for its popularity is that there is some truth to it.

All those deplorable hillbillies out there in fly-over country are fair game for the big-city news outlets. Some may remember an article published by a member of the well-dressed elite media.  Vogue printed an article attacking white women who voted for Trump. “As sure as black women have proven themselves to be the often-underappreciated backbone of the Democratic party, white women voters are establishing themselves as maddeningly, confusingly … unsisterly.” Without a doubt, those white female Trump voters took a nasty public beating for quite a while.

Much like in the IRS scandal, the advocacy media used tactics attacking those with whom they politically disagreed and then denied the existence of the underlying story altogether. In October 2018, Time magazine published an article titled “Donald Trump Didn’t Really Win 52% of White Women in 2016.”


A Venomous Revolution

An information revolution is without a doubt underway, and those in the press who were the sovereign lords for so long see their influence slipping away like sand through an hourglass. In their desperation, they use every unscrupulous means possible to take down their conservative adversaries. Left in the wake of this conflict are conservative individuals, organizations, and average citizens, the casualties left to lie in a pool of disparagement, insinuation, implication, allegation, and innuendo.

How much longer will this last?  That, dear readers, may depend upon whether the American people buy what the legacy media sell. Perhaps the American elite press is putting all its money on the words of one of its most illustrious scribes. It was H.L. Mencken who said, “Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.”  Or just maybe the final act in this war room will be the words of Anonymous: “Sometimes, it’s best to sit back, let someone underestimate your intelligence, and watch them hang themselves.”

CoupFrancis And His Merry Men… Are Being Noticed…


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

Via Zero Hedge (see original here)

Aside, wonder what took Tom so long…


The Coup Has Begun – The Empire Strikes Back Everywhere

Authored by Tom Luongo,

“I am altering the deal, pray I don’t alter it any further.”

– Darth Vader, “The Empire Strikes Back”

You know I think there are no coincidences in politics. Everything happens on a particular schedule. So when I see a day as crazy as today I have to ask the question, “Why this, why now?”

Look at the headlines and you’ll see what I’m talking about. All of these things happened since I woke up at 7:30am Monday  morning in Florida:

    1. The British Supreme Court just arrogated unprecedented power to itself by inserting itself into any dispute between the Government and Parliament. This upends more than 300 years of constitutional process.
    2. The Democrats have announced they will pursue impeachment charges against President Trump because an unverified, hearsay whistleblower made a complaint about a phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenski. Impeachment odds soared overnight as someone was tipped off about the Democrats’ plan.
    3. Bitcoin’s hashrate mysteriously flash-crashed more than 40% presaging a massive $1500 drop in price.
    4. Donald Trump delivered a blistering critique of socialism at the United Nations General Assembly. Too bad he’s nearly as bad as the ones he’s fighting on the far left.
    5. Europe’s Trio of Faded Glory — The UK, France and Germany — joined in the chorus of unverified condemnation of Iran in the attack on the Saudi oil field on the 14th.
    6. The Federal Reserve continues to bail out banks to the tune of $65 to $75 billion per day through overnight repo operations that no one can give us an explanation as to why they’re needed.

This feels to me like a multi-level coup against those that dare stand athwart the global power structure. Both British and American leadership institutions are under sincere attack with these moves.

The not-so-subtle message is, “We own you. We are in control and always will be.” Your champions will be harassed until they are completely neutered and bereft of any ability to implement the changes you want.

Meanwhile, the edifices of control that have been erected for your benefit are crashing and require even more support. So, it’s time to attack the validity of anything you might be considering to protect yourself from the chaos we’ve created.

Democratic referenda are ignored. Bitcoin mysteriously has its network attacked. Unpopular parliaments ignore the people and remain in power. Centuries of tradition and convention thrown out the window to serve the next big thing.

The world is going to end in eight years, according to an 16 year-old Swedish girl with PTSD and anxiety disorders but we’re supposed to trust in the inevitability and permanence of transnational super-governments to forestall the apocalypse?

When you lose control of the narrative, when you spin a story out of whole cloth all you can do is double down. This is what the Democrats are doing in the case of Ukraine.

They have to stay on the offensive against Trump because if they don’t their lead candidate (yeah, right!) for President is disgraced. So, the natural thing to do is, Alinsky-like, accuse Trump of the very thing that Joe Biden did and was caught on tape braying about like the jackass he is.

It is over this that Trump is to be impeached?

Daring to reveal the truth about an issue of real corruption in a country deeply implicated in the fake collusion story originally intended to remove him from the Oval Office? This somehow hits the standard of High Crimes and Misdemeanors?

It does when we live in a world ruled by men, not laws.

Trump was, for all intents, acquitted already in any obstruction of justice charges over RussiaGate. So how is his exhorting a foreign counterpart to look into real corruption committed by someone highly-connected to a former U.S. Vice President anything other than him doing his job?

It is his job to prosecute malfeasance of government officials is it not?

Trump’s move to release the un-redacted transcripts of the phone call was the right move. And the Democrats’ continued pursuing of this will likely make them look like morons.

But here’s the rub. Take a lesson from the British fiasco. The whole process through the courts was a sham. The conclusion was foregone the moment the challenge was filed to Johnson’s proroguing of Parliament.

The rest was theater because the Supreme Court was always going to decide this way.

So guess what? The Democrats would not be pushing for this if they ddin’t think they have the votes in the House and the Senate to get this done. Ignore the conventional wisdom on this. They were wrong in the UK.

They will be wrong here, unless Trump has something else up his sleeve.

His removing John Bolton and refusal to attack Iran is driving the neoconservatives to apoplexy. They want their holy war against the apostate Shi’ites and they will get it. Mike Pence will be their avatar until such time as he can be removed through a sham election in 2020.

If this wasn’t the case they wouldn’t be risking what’s left of their political future defending a senile old man, Joe Biden, who they don’t actually want to be the candidate anyway.

It’s a coup folks.

And the full court press is on in this coup for your sanity and to radicalize you into violence. They are daring us to strike back here so then they can be justified in going on full lockdown and cancel future elections.

They have to do this. Their financial markets are in the early stages of collapse. The dollar liquidity crisis has started which will drain Europe of its life blood.

This has the feel of those months leading up to Bear Stearns’ dissolution which culminated in Lehman Bros. in 2008, which broke the engine of the world.

The elite reacting this way is predictable. They were always going here. But the problem is that while you can make something awful legal, it doesn’t make it right. And people know what’s right and what is fair. Breaking the compact between rulers and the ruled sets a dangerous precedent for reciprocal violence.

Because overthrowing a President for doing his job and destroying government to nullify a democratic referendum are points of no return.

Brits and Americans alike are learning the terrible lesson that it is time to put away childish things like representative government and that elections matter. They don’t. You will be presented with nothing but Hobson’s Choices from here forward.

The image you hold in your head of your country is not the reality of the one you live in.

The dystopia is real.

*  *  *

Join My Patreon if you support teaching oppressors the lesson.  Install Brave if you want to continue talking about how to go about it.

Uniting The Clans, In A Wider Context…


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

As a commentary on Michael Matt’s “Unite the Clans” video, I repost the below from The Propertarian Institute, authored by Dr. Curt Doolittle.

Interesting aspect is that independant and unrealted OCCURENCES of a “unite the  conservatives” themes are appearing in various sub-sets of the Visibilium Omnium. This humble blogger sees this as a very positive development…

Aside, the below post has been modified with changes made in the spelling of certain words to bring it into line with the Lex Armaticus.


Uniting Conservatives with Understanding of One Another

Let’s put this in scientific prose:

Conservatism is a genetic disposition evidenced in cognition, emotion, and action, of higher disgust response, higher preference for hierarchy (division of responsibility and labor), higher loyalty response.

The fact that churcy Christians use religion, moral Christians use moralizing, educated moral Christians use history, and educated moral, scientific Christians use science and law is just a function of whether one is more dependent upon intuition, social interaction, or abstract reason.

In other words, we are unified in our disgust response, we differ in our means of information processing, and because we differ in our means of information processing, we differ in our means of expression, advocacy ad argument.

And because we are resistant to adaptation without overwhelming evidence, hypersensitive to loyalty, and hypersensitive to hierarchy, we want everyone to adopt our means of information processing and means of expression, advocacy and argument.

But despite our differences in expression, what remains consistent across the faithful, the moral, the rational, and the scientific spectrum of conservatives is the natural law and the natural law’s intolerance for disgusting behavior whether intellectual, emotional, or physical, and whether in private, or the commons.

If you cannot accept our cognitive tribes of conservatives as all unified under the natural law regardless of means of expressing that natural law as divine law, as moral utility, as rational practicality, and as scientific necessity, then YOU ARE THE REASON THE RIGHT FAILS.

The faithful are the largest problem because they cannot tolerate their dogma as consisting only of wisdom literature (analogy and advice) rather than truth (description and decidability). Yet to win together we must deliver unto God what is God’s (faith we cannot testify to) and deliver unto Caesar what is his (truth we can testify to).

We cannot unite behind one paradigm of thinking, advocating, and arguing. We can only understand that we share the same instincts, wants, desires, goals for the same biological reasons regardless of their origin, and that we are right to save ourselves, our people, and humanity from disgusting thoughts, feelings and actions whether public or private.

Because disgusting thoughts, feelings, and actions are imitated and spread like any disease, and man is more vulnerable to diseases of the mind than he is to those of emotions and body.

We argue, and I argue, the faithful are the weakness in our civilization. It was evangelical women who brought about the chain of events that led to our current condition. It was “c”atholic voters that brought about the leftist politicians. It was Christians who gave passage to the ‘others’ who are the enemy. It is Christians who idolize the enemy and its history instead of themselves and their history.

So we must not argue excuses, because each conservative tribe argues with excuses within its paradigm. The only paradigm we need share is that we must eradicate what is disgusting from ourselves, our families, our polities, our nations, and the world.

And whether your god is Jehovah, Sky Father, Odin, Aristotle, the Constitution of natural law or the laws of the universe, none of them will tolerate disgust, and we will not survive without cleansing the world of it, and the universe of it afterward.

We all know evil and it is disgusting and we share our disgust of thought, feeling, word, and deed.

They are the disease. We are the cure.

If that is not a God’s purpose for us then I know no other.