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

Today we take a break from the Accounting sub-set of the Visibilium Omnium, et Invisibilium venture over into the philosophical and psychological areas of human activity.

But before we get to the subject at hand, I would like to inform my readers that I have found the Annual Report for the Vatican Bank for 2015 and am going through it when time allows. Hopefully I will have some more on this in a follow-up post shortly. Maybe a weekend project. But back to the subject at hand…

Today on the 1Peter5 website, a post appeared titled With Pope Francis, Self-Contradiction is Par for the Course. In this post, Steve Skojec explains the “meaninglessness” of anything Francis says. He also draws on a passage from Hilary White to make his point. This passage in turn reads as follows:

What people who have decried these incomprehensible contradictions have failed to understand is that “meaning” is irrelevant. The purpose of these communications has not been to inform the Catholic faithful of the pope’s thought or reflections on Scripture. Content is irrelevant; only submission counts, only power. This means the more ambiguous, the more contradictory, the more vapid, the more illogical, the better.

And this is what people are missing. He has been perfectly consistent in all his responses, since he is always saying the same thing: submit. Indeed, we have had a report recently that he knows full well that his work to change the Church’s ancient teaching must rest exclusively on the pure exercise of raw power. When Cardinal Müller of the former Holy Office asked why Francis had demanded the abrupt dismissal of three of his best priests, the pope is reported to have responded as all tyrants do: “I. AM. THE. POPE. I don’t have to answer to anyone.”

Positivism, the denial of an objective reality, must lead ultimately to authoritarianism. If there is no objective reality, there is no need for any rules that regard it; any notion of a Rule of Law is meaningless. What have we seen happen throughout history when the Rule of Law breaks down? There can only be Rule of the Strongest, Rule of Power. This is why, now that the make-reality-up-as-you-go-along principle is firmly in place in the papal office, the pope must clamp down so furiously on “dissent,” even the softly diplomatic “dissent” of asking politely for a clarification.

What does Amoris Laetitia mean?

“It means what I say it means. It means shut up.”

This is an OBJECTIVELY CORRECT assessment of the situation as it pertains to the current bishop of Rome.

What I would like to do today is go into some detail as to what the various speeches, conversations, musings at the Domus Saencte Maerta, and other off the cuff comments of Francis,  i.e the Francis “magisterium”, represent.

Represent in a philosophical sense.

Furthermore, given that some of the best work in the academic sub-set of human activity that is known as Natural Theology is being done by the secular academics – regardless of whether they are cognizant of this fact or not, I will draw on the work of one of its main promoters, Dr. Jordan Peterson.

In a lecture Dr. Peterson gave around the 3rd of March of this year, he identifies the cause (ROOT CAUSE) of the current TRANSRATIONAL mindset of the “progressive” leftists. And given that Francis is a main proponent of this leftist ideology, bah the leading global leftist authority, it is worth reading Dr. Peterson’s diagnosis.

Notice how nicely it fits Francis?

Therefore, I have transcribed that part of the lecture that is of interest. I have also added [comments] and emphasis.

It explains a lot…


Dr. Jordan Peterson – Beyond Marxism & Postmodernism

You know, the Right is very hard on the Frankfurt School. The Frankfurt School were these neo-Marxist guys who combined Marxism with Freudianism in the 1940’s. And they were avowed Marxists. I’m not making an accusation and they were kind of these anti-system people and all of that. But I think to lay that what is happening at the universities and in the broader culture [and in the post-conciliar church] itself at the feet of the Frankfurt School is insufficient.

I really think that it’s a consequence of the French intellectuals, … and this is obviously an oversimplification,… who emerged out of Marxism in the early 1970’s and produced post-Modernism. Now the thing about the post-Modernist type is that they are nested inside Marxism. [Liberation theology] They say that straight out. [As Francis does] I’m not inventing this. You read Derrida, who’s like the joker at the head of the post-Modernist movement, and I mean joker because he’s an intellectual clown. Now that doesn’t mean he’s stupid. He is not stupid. Not at all. These people are not stupid. They know exactly what they are doing. They know precisely what they are doing. They are a hell of a lot more educated [“cunning” in Francis’ case] about what they are doing than you are, lest you happen to be one of them. And they mean exactly what they say [ or do in Francis’ case as per 1Peter5 post]. Just like people always do when they tell you what they are going to do. Or they write it down. And they [their surrogates in the case of Francis – for obvious reasons] say straight out on their websites, the women’s studies websites: we think the patriarchy [“Medieval” Church] is an oppressive structure that should be broken down to its core, and they mean core conceptions. It’s not just social, it’s linguistic, philosophical and attitudinal. It should be broken down, wiped out and restructured from the bottom up.  And they MEAN that.

So it’s not accidental any of this. Now I know it sounds like a bloody paranoid conspiracy theory but, you know, I’ve always been of the idea that, especially from reading Jung that people don’t have ideas, ideas have people.  And these are powerful ideas. [In the case of the Church, ideas supported due to an existential threat to a very powerful “lobby”] There is a good book explaining post-Modernism that I might recommend by a guy named Steven RC Hicks. His first chapter, which isn’t very long, is a good introduction into political correctness.


OK, so we need to talk a little bit about post-Modernism. So let’s go back to France at the end of the 1960’s. So, and you know this is an oversimplification, so I might be wrong about some of it… you know, it’s not exactly my field of specialty, this sort of sociology. I’m more of a scientist type but, and if I read philosophy, I tend not to read second rate philosophy and so I’ve tried to avoid the post-Modernists to some degree because their incoherency is one of their least of their sins, but they don’t care about that. No, no, you got to understand, it’s Modernists [- to a point] and Enlightenment people, even traditionalists who care about coherency. The post-Modernists don’t believe in coherency, and I’m not making this up. This is part of their philosophy. They don’t believe in logic. You know, Derrida says straight out that Western is fallo- logo centric, by which he means male centered and privileging the idea of logic. Well, he doesn’t buy any of that. [Neither does Francis – as per what he told the Chilean Bishops]  He doesn’t think that there is a truth that is out there. He doesn’t believe that individuals can reach any sort of truth by thinking. He certainly doesn’t believe that we can move towards truth in dialogue. Because that’s “dia-logic”. Right? There’s none of that.  So you wonder, why do other post-Modernist keep other thinkers off the campus? Well it’s not because they are afraid. Well, some of them are. But they use their fragility as a mask,… their underlying philosophical and political interests. They do that fragmentarily. It’s not like every social justice warrior (SJW) is a sword carrying post-Modernist, but the ideas are fragmented and distributed among them, like they are distributed among a mob. [In our case, distributed among Francis’ henchmen]  And if you put the whole mob together, you get the whole post-Modernist thing [Francis “magisterium”] happening at the same time. And that’s how ideas have people, instead of the other way around.

Anyways, forget about logic. That’s out the window. That’s just a construct of Western society and the whole point of the construct was to oppress those other people and to take their wealth. And to privilege the people who live in that so called logic system [e.g. “Bat Catholics – closed, legalistic slave of his own rigidity!”], so that they can justify to themselves and other people their predator rapaciousness.  Straight and simple. And that’s partly because post-Modernism was influenced by Marxism and that of course because that’s what the Marxist think about any  situation where there is a power status differential. [“This is negotiated harmony, and this is not of the Spirit!”] The people at the top are only there because they stole everything from the people at the bottom. [Or living off “The blood of all these people that you have sucked!” according to Francis]

And so the Marxists in France realized that by the end of the 1960’s, when even Jean Paul Sartre finally figured out that to be a communist probably wasn’t acceptable given that the bloody Soviets killed 30 million people between 1919 and 1959 and the Maoists done that on a greater scale in China and then we can talk about North Korea and talk about…but whatever. [Francis still hasn’t figured this out…]

Students don’t learn any of that in school anymore, and even if they did, they wouldn’t want to listen to it. When I tell my students in my second year psychology classes about the Gulag Archipelago, hardly any of them know. Well why is that? Well, it’s because they haven’t been taught it. Why is that? Well, see if you can figure it out.

So anyways, back to the post-Modern types. So  it got to the point where there was no way you could be a Marxist, especially after Solzhenitsyn, because Solzhenitsyn wrote this great book, which is actually out of print, for crying out loud, which I’ve actually be able to popularize like mad over the last three months, because you know, it’s really mind boggling. And what Solzhenitsyn did in his genius manner was … he’s up there with Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy, man like that guy is a person of spectacular moral force, like he put himself on the line for that book. Like he memorized it when he was in the prison camps, about… it’s three volumes that thick (2 inches), like 2000 pages of someone screaming. The smartest person you’ve ever met. The wisest person you’ve ever met, screaming in outrage for 2000 pages. No bloody wonder it’s out of print.

Anyways, what Solzhenitsyn did was take on this claim you often here from the radical left make about communism, about Marxism. They say: well that wan’t real Marxism. [Or Liberation Theology wasn’t really Marxism] It’s like, OK well how many countries do you need to disprove your thesis. How many millions of people have to die before you might admit that you’re wrong. Well obviously more than 100 million. Because that’s the approximate total, that probably an underestimate, but we’ll be conservative, cause adding another 10 million doesn’t really make that much difference. So Solzhenitsyn took that argument apart initially in his book Lenin in Zurich and partly in the Gulag Archipelago. But the groundwork had already been laid about that by Nietzsche, who knew exactly what was coming in the 20th Century and Dostoyevsky who wrote a book called The Possessed back in 1880, where he outlined in painful detail the precise mindset that would create the Russian Revolution 30 years later. And Tolstoy as well. He knew what was coming. Made him suicidal. He wrote in his confession that the conflict between the ideas of Russia, the traditional ideas and the Enlightenment ideas sweeping in from the West, they blew his world view apart, with traditional religious…  They blew his world view apart so badly that he was suicidal at the height of his fame. Tolstoy knew what was going to come to.

28:00 minute mark.

Back to the post-Modern type. Well you know, this was all revealed in painful detail, where even the closed minded ideologue Norman referred to,   just couldn’t quite muster up the moral courage to keep beating the same drum. So what they did was instead, being highly intelligent individuals was play a game of sleight of hand and transformed these Marxist pre-suppositions into post-Modernism in the 1970’s. [In the post-conciliar church, post-modernism evolved from neo-Modernism]  And the idea basically was, well the working class isn’t going to rise up and crush the bourgeoisie because, first of all, they are getting rich, and that wasn’t supposed to happen. [“Young people addicted to fashion!” – A return to Traditional Catholicism wasn’t supposed to happen. This is the reason for the continuous string of insults from Francis] And second, well that sort of seamed to be a catastrophe when that happened, say in Russia, [and in the post-conciliar church] so maybe we won’t do that anymore because the working class actually isn’t buying into this either, which is also a problem. Having internalize their own oppression, they wouldn’t buy into this global myth of utopia. So maybe because they had some sense. Certainly possible, but anyways. The sleight of hand was: “well, oh fine, we’ll just play a different oppressor versus oppressed game, and we’ll introduce identity politics”. Ok, ok, you’re not being oppressed because your part of the working class, you’re being oppressed because you’re a women [“poor”, “intrinsically disordered”, “serial adulterer”, etc.  in our case]. Or your being oppressed because you have an ethnicity. (…)

The thing is, the post-Modernists… you know, you think, your culture is good for something, it gives you a hierarchy of value, it rewards competent people, it gives you a direction so you can climb up, otherwise everything is leveled to nothing and then, why do anything.  They don’t care about any of that, they don’t believe that there is anything like competence, they don’t believe that there is any such thing as up. This is all… post-Modernism wipes all of that out. And so when post-Modernists analyze the texts [and biblical passages], all they care about is how it privileges the position of the author and who it oppresses. And that is the only thing they regard as real. They don’t believe in grand unifying narratives, they don’t believe that there is a Canadian identity,[or a Catholic God] they don’t believe that there is an American identity, they don’t believe that there is a Western identity, they don’t believe that value structures exist or if there are, they are inter-replaceable with some other value structure. They certainly don’t believe that they have any biological grounding, that there is any such thing as a human being . It’s all socially constructed. Which is really convenient if all you want to do is the author of a totally socially constructed utopia that you can run. And then when the Marxists say, well that wasn’t real Marxism, what it really means, and I thought about this for a long time, it’s the most arrogant possible statement anyone could ever make. It means if I would have been in Stalin’s position, I would have ushered in the damn utopia, instead of the genocidal massacres, because I understand the doctrine of Marxism and everything about me is good. Well, it’s like… think again sunshine.  You don’t understand it.  You don’t understand it. And you’re not that good. And if the power was in your hands, assuming you had the competence, which you don’t, you wouldn’t have done any better. And if you had, there would have been someone else waiting right behind you to shoot you the first time you actually tried to do something good.  And that’s what happened to all the old guard who ran the damned revolution. Stalin rounded them all up and shot them. Along with their families and millions of other people. So even if you happen to be that avatar of moral purity that you claim implicitly, the probability that you get to act out your goodness in relation to those possessed by your ideology is zero. [Hence the prescience of the Hilary White observation preceding this transcript]


Ok, so there’s another sort of weird thing, and I have already hit upon it tangentially, well the post-Modernists don’t believe in grand unifying narratives, they don’t believe in narratives at all. They don’t care about value because they  don’t notice that you have to value something in order to have some hope in life. Right? Because when you value something, you are pursuing it. In the pursuit, that’s where the meaning of life is, you know? Because the rest of it is suffering. If you’re trying to struggle upwards toward the light, it’s like … that’s something to motivate you, to protect you against the suffering. But the post-Modernists don’t care about any of that and I would say that is because they don’t care about suffering.

[They don’t understand how suffering fits into the human existence since they have no natural or supernatural Faith. To them, suffering is something bad, that just needs to be eliminated at all cost, hence the utopianist mindset.]

NB: There is a great discussion about “suffering” in this video so please watch the video. If not in this one, than a longer version is here. More on suffering herefrom no doubt a secular (clinical psychologist) “Specialist of the Logos!”

So, alright, so but here’s the final question. Well, if the post-Modernists don’t care about grand unifying narratives, and they don’t believe in identity, why in the world are they will to believe in gender identity and sexual identity and racial identity and ethnic identity. And the answer to that is: well they can’t. But they don’t care, because coherence is not on their agenda. And besides that, when push comes to shove, their post-Modernism is nested in a deeper Marxism. So when the post-Modern narrative doesn’t suffice, say, to push forward the idea that Western civilization should be overturned, they just revert back to the overarching Marxism and say: those people are oppressed and that’s a bad thing. It’s like you say: Well you’re a post-Modernist, you don’t believe in any of that? They will say that yea, I’m only a post-Modernist this deep, but underneath that there is a Marxism that I can always rely on that to fill in the gap. And that’s exactly what’s happening. 

And that is actually what is happening in the bishopric of Rome under Francis.