Tags

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


Before I start, I hope all my readers had a pleasant weekend. Here where I am, at a location that I cannot disclose… for obvious reasons, the first signs of spring are in the air. Nuff said…

As for today’s post, you dear readers are in for a treat. The reason I mention this is that rarely can one so visibly see two identical processes, in two different sub-set of the Visibilium Omnium, et Invisibilium, transpiring at the same time.

This is worth noting, if for no other reason then to see the power and elegance for explaining such phenonmena, through our defined LEX ARMATICUS. But back to the matter at hand…

Today we will talk about what is known as “controlled opposition”. Here is how the Urban Dictionary defines this phenomenon:

A controlled opposition is a protest movement that is actually being led by government agents. Nearly all governments in history have employed this technique to trick and subdue their adversaries. Notably Vladimir Lenin who said ””The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.”

And now to the subject of this post.

In our first instance, we seen just this mechanism in the defeat of the RyanCare legislation. What we seen is a situation where a fraction from within the Republican Party declaring to vote against legislation that is being proposed by its own party and by its own president. This is something that rarely happens, but when it does, it happens for a reason.

Here is how our favorite political blog describes this process:

In 2009 The U.S. Chamber of Commerce (Donohue), the AFL-CIO (Trumka), SEIU (Stern), AFSCME together with Wall Street, Big Pharma and Big Healthcare entered into negotiations with a massive White House team to create ObamaCare.   [see the collage above]  Everything after that successfully executed ’09/’10 deal was each organization ensuring the construct remained in place.

Period.

Republicans do not want ObamaCare repealed.  Whenever you see people talking about a republican ‘this‘, or a republican ‘that‘ wanting to repeal ObamaCare – It’s false.

This reality underwrites the reason why Ryan refused to have an actual vote on the record today.  The UniParty scheme can only exist so long as you remain blind to their affiliation and purposes.

Period.

Those who say there are politicians within DC that want to repeal ObamaCare are absolute liars. It is a 100% false assertion.  This is a narrative of fakery created by specific and intentional design, being utilized as countermeasures to throw you off the trail.  The narrative is intended to keep you from identifying the reality of the DC UniParty and the trillion dollar legislative agenda.

Repeat.  The Republican Party does not want to repeal ObamaCare.  (Neither does the Democrat party.)

Both sides of the Uniparty have fought to retain ObamaCare’s existence.  The House GOP fully funded it in every year since 2010.  All efforts made to give the illusion of ‘other‘ are exactly that, an illusion.   That illusion is called “controlled opposition“.  An example of that “controlled opposition” is the House Freedom Caucus.  The HFC voted for Paul Ryan as House Speaker.

You dear reader can read the rest of the post here.

So just to quickly sum up what the above means. The Republican Party, and especially its “conservative” wing, has a HIDDEN AGENDA. That hidden agenda has to do with the structure of ObamaCare itself. This structure allows entities, who are financial backers of said Party, to derive benefits from the existence of ObamaCare.

So what the Conservative Tree blog calls the UniParty, has been forced out into the open by the very clever maneuver of President Trump, by backing one (and unexpectedly) of the sides in this interparty “fight”. And the manner in which the legislation path ended, was no doubt shocking, but only to those who are not “initiated”, shall we say.

This is a basic, one can call “linear” analysis of what transpired over the last week in Washington D.C.

In the second instance, we also saw “controlled opposition” being employed by Francis, the bishop of Rome. In Francis’ case, what caused a “stir” and some “unbelief” within the “catholic” and “neo-catholic” ranks was the relations of the Chilean Bishops as to what was said in their meeting with Francis.

For this passage, we go to the 1Peter5 blog here.

As we can see in this passage, Francis sounded normal. Here is how the post starts:

A number of people have sent me some version or another of the story on Pope Francis’ meeting with the Chilean bishops last month and asked me to comment on it. According to the bishops of Chile, Francis told them what appear to be some very self-contradictory things. I didn’t have time to commission a human translation of the Spanish, nor do I particularly want to waste any of our translators’ time on it.

Why? Because it’s essentially meaningless. Like listening to static and hoping to find guidance. One of our readers from Latin America graciously provided us with a translation on condition of anonymity*:

And here is how Steven Skojec explains the “meaninglessness” of FrancisGibberish:

So why do I say it’s meaningless?

First, because — as our papal positivist friends like to say whenever we report a second-hand account of the pope’s words — this is hearsay. Only in this instance, it’s actually out of character for him to say it. It goes against the conduct of the Synods, Amoris Laetitia, the pope’s letter to the Argentinian Bishops, his praise for the German bishops’ guidelines, the policy enforced by the Cardinal Vicar of Rome, the Vatican’s promotion of the Maltese bishops’ guidelines, Archbishop Coccopalmerio’s book (and it’s associated Vatican press conference), and so on. The evidence is piled high and deep that Communion for the divorced and remarried is exactly what he wanted. One little anecdote from a Latin American bishop does not a reversal make.

Yes, contradictory SIGNALLING indeed!

A genuine post-Modernist, one can say…

Yet quickly Steven finds the correct path. In an Addendum to the original post, Steven writes this: (see here)

My contentions that this is a) hearsay and b) ultimately meaningless insofar as it represents a consistent pattern of inconsistency in his positions remain. But a third point, which I failed to make, is this:

If people believe that Francis has aligned himself with the orthodox position on Chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia, it will undercut any effort of the Four Cardinals to issue a public, formal correction. 

This is incredibly important. Don’t lose sight of it. You’re likely to see this very argument — that Francis is not in fact a supporter of Communion for the “remarried” and thus cannot and should not be corrected — advanced by the papal positivists when it suits them to make use of it.

Exactly and yes indeed!

Concluding, what we see happening with both Francis in Rome and the UniParty in Washington D.C. is that they have created “controlled opposition”. The intent of both is the create a “controlled opposition” that will subvert the real opposition. The intent behind their actions is to break opposition to their respective HIDDEN AGENDAS.

Yet, combating this “controlled opposition” is not an easy matter to combat. What we are dealing with is the judging of “intent”.

And where have we heard this term used in the not to recent past?

Oh yes, here.

And this is why I wrote this here.

So we know why judging intent is  road wrought with all sorts of hazards.

Yet there is an answer, and an easy one at that. And it is an answer given us by Our Lord himself. So the moral of the story is as follows:

…by their fruit you shall know them.

 

Just as Fr. Stehlin explained here:

In order that the Holy Catholic Tradition will be now, really recognized by Rome and that the people understand that this total confusion must finish and who will finish this confusion, and this is my second point now, it is nobody else but Our Lady. We think, and many of the superiors think, I talked to them, that these horrible times, of such a confusion, which has, even since Vatican II never been inside the Church, because really, it’s such a mess. The people in the Vatican, they fight with one another. They almost, they would like to kill one another. There are so many, many… not only differences, but it’s getting outside and you see very well that one is getting… really very bad because the other say that. And this cardinal against cardinal, bishops against the pope and so on. Especially the last official document Amoris Laetitia is so scandalous. I don’t want to explain it now, it’s not the place here, at this moment, but you can see that here, you must really see that, amongst … we see about 30 cardinals and archbishops at the moment, and that’s .. 5 years ago, that had never existed in the Church, are full of resolution and determined not to allow such a false teaching, which comes even from the pope. So you see things happening in Rome that never existed since the last 50 years. A true new situation.

And in this new situation, what we need first is clarity of mind. 

(…)

And finally, the thing that I would like to explain this is the gospel of the day, which is nothing but a very, very beautiful understanding of what we just said. When Jesus Christ say, he says beware of false prophets who come to you in the clothing of sheep but inwardly they are ravening wolves . By their fruits you shall know them.

Advertisements