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

I have come across “something” that I think is quite significant. I will try to lay it out over the next several posts, so please bear with me. I think this “something” is of major significance to not only understand the crisis in the post-conciliar church, but likewise serves to understand how to get out of this crisis and back to the core mission of the Church, namely the salvation of souls.

Furthermore, the implications from this material are that if we can arrest the “degeneration” of the Catholic Faith, by extension we can arrest the degeneration of Western Civilization in general. Or at least we can take one large step in that direction.

So let’s get started.

For the information of new readers on this blog, and there’s a quite a few lately, the most cited source on this blog is an essay by Dr. John Lamont titled Attacks on Thomism. (see here) This essay provides a detailed account of how the neomodernists in the second half of the 20th Century went about suppressing and eradicating Thomism as the foundational philosophical construct underpinning Catholic theology.

In this essay, there were quite a few observations made as to how the neomodernists went about suppressing Thomism and the unintended consequences of that suppression. One of the contentions drawn from this information is that the “instability” (non-iterability) of the post-conciliar neomodernists theology, had a causal effect on the disintegration of the Institutional Church in the West.

Fast forward to the present. Over the last couple of weeks, Dr. Jordan Peterson has been doing a series of lectures titled The Biblical Series. These lectures can be described as a clinical psychologist’s analysis of the Biblical narrative, let’s say.

What is of importance is that in these lectures, Dr. Peterson brings his clinician’s analytical toolbox to understanding processes that appear in the Bible, and by extension carry forward into the theological sub-set of the Visibilium Omnium, et Invisibilium.

So today, I will re-post a transcript of a 15 – 20 minute fragment from Dr. Peterson’s third lecture. I am republishing this fragment because it precisely details the ROOT CAUSE behind the disintegration process of post-conciliar theology and breaks down the process explained in the Lamont essay in clinical terms, into its primary components.

On a different note, I have also noticed a great example of what I call the CONVERGENCE PROCESS. The idea is that any new knowledge that is acquired, if it is OBJECTIVELY CORRECT (TRUE), will CONVERGE with that which is taught by the Catholic Magisterium. The example that I came across deals with the proper ends of Marriage. It was so good that I decided to put up an entire page titled “Reconciling Faith and Reason”. When you have time, please venture over there. It is intended to be a reader participation page, so if you dear reader come across other examples, please drop me a note in the comment box and I will post.

And now, the transcripts from the III Biblical Series. The transcript starts at the 1:30:00 mark. ( with emphasis, added emphasis and [comments])


Any group has a set of customs. Just like a wolf pack does. So then the customs are being manifest, and then someone who is a genius is watching and thinking, ‘so what’s the rule in this situation, what’s the rule in this situation, what’s the rule in this situation’. And then in his imagination, the rules turn into a hierarchy and he goes up on a mountain and he goes bang, he thinks ‘God, here are the rules we’ve been living by all this time’.  And that’s the revelation of the Commandments.

Well then you think: ‘how else can it be’. You think rules came first and obeying came second? (…)

The actions come first, the obeying them comes first, and then you figure out what everybody’s up to and say ‘hey look, this is what you’ve been up to all along’.  Everybody goes ‘oh yea, that seems to make sense’. And if it didn’t, who would follow them? No one would follow them if they didn’t match what’s already there. Just think about that as unjust.

And so that’s portrayed there as a cataclysmic human event. It’s like ‘oh my God, we’ve been chimpanzees, we’ve been in this hierarchy of authority for so long, we have no idea what we are doing, and all of a sudden POOF, it bursts into revelatory consciousness and we can say: ‘Here is the law’. And you say: ‘is it given by God?’ Well, it depends on what you mean by God. You can start with that presupposition, but it’s not like it just came out of nowhere. It took…

And this is something else that Nietzsche observed, so interestingly, he said a moral revelation was the product of a tremendously long process of initial construction and formulation. Thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of years of custom, of building custom before you get the revelation of the articulation of the law.

And that’s a description of the pattern that works. So you say, ‘what’s the pattern that works?’

It’s the game that you can play with everybody else day after day with no degeneration.

It’s another thing that Piaget (Jean Piaget) figured out that’s so brilliant and that’s the idea of the equilibrated state.

It’s an extension of Immanual Kant’s idea about the universal maxim. You can act in a way, that each action could become a universal rule.

That was Kant’s universal moral maxim, and Piaget put a twist on that. He said, no, no, it’s not exactly it. It’s act in such a way that it works for you now, and next week and next month and next year and 10 years from now. And so while it’s working for you, it’s also working for the people around you and for the broader society. And that’s the equilibrated state.

You can think about that as the intimation as the city of God, on earth. It’s something like that. And it’s base on this idea that a morality has to be iterable.

[NB:  Iterable: capable of being iterated or repeated.]

And you know, there’s been lots of simulations online already, artificial intelligence simulations of trading games. The people who have been studying the emergence of moral behavior, say in artificial intelligence systems, have already caught onto the idea that one of the crucial elements to the analysis of morality is the iterability. You can’t play a degenerating game (post-conciliar “morality”). Because it degenerates.  You want to play a game that at least remains stable across time (Catholic morality), and God, if you can really get your act together, it could slowly get better. Of course, that’s what you’d hope for your family. Right? That’s what you are always trying to do, unless you are completely hell bent on revenge and destruction. (explains Francis’ behavior to a “t”)

[NB: What the above passage infers is that “morality systems” that lack the element of “iterability” degenerate over time. And the inference here is that post-conciliar “morality”, due to the lack of “iterability” began degenerating, and it is this degeneration that caused the Faithful to not “want to play the game” any longer. So they left…

Example: Think about a “moral system” that allows a husband to abandon his wife, and “marry” another. What is the “appeal” (iterability) of this “moral system” to that abandoned wife and her children? And what if the wayward husband had more than one family that he abandaned? ]

Is there a way that we can play together that will make playing together even better the next day? That’s what you are up to and I don’t see anything arbitrary about that.

And this is also why I think that the bloody post-modernists are so incorrect. You know, they say something like: ‘there’s an infinite number of interpretations of the world. And that’s actually true. But then they make a mistake, and they say: ‘ no interpretation is to be privileged over any other interpretation.’  It’s like WRONG. WRONG. That’s where things go seriously off the rails because the interpretation has to be… and this is the Piagetian objection: ‘ if you and I are going to play a game, rule 1 is that we both have to want to play. Rule 2 is that other people are going to let us play. Rule 3 is we should be able to play it across a pretty long period of time without it degenerating. And maybe Rule 4 is that while we are playing, the world shouldn’t kill us. There are not that many games… you know, you don’t send your kids to play on the super highway right. They’re not playing hockey on the superhighway. Cause world kills them. So there is an infinite number of interpretations, but there is not an infinite number of solutions.

And the solutions are constrained by the fact of the world and our suffering in the world, and also by the fact that we constrain each other.

[NB: And the fundamental constraint on ANY and ALL “moral systems” is that it has to conform to the Laws of Thought, i.e. Identity, Contratiction and Excluded Middle. If the “moral system” doesn’t, then one side will not want to “play the game” because the game will be stacked against that side, i.e. is corrupted. And due to the corruption, the “game” degenerates.]

And so that’s where I think it’s gone dreadfully, dreadfully wrong.

It’s really fun to look at these old pictures once you know what they mean.

What I’ve discovered is that once I understand… the underlying rationale for the… You know, someone worked hard on that. That’s an engraving. They took a long time making that picture. (…) And when you understand what it means…

You know, all those people, they’re prostrate  at the revelation of the law. Well, it’s like no wonder, break the law and see what happens? Break the universal moral law man, and see what happens?

(…) It’s no joke. You break a universal moral law and things will go seriously wrong for you. No wonder you would be in wonder… of the revelation of the structure that governs our being.

[NB: Exactly what has happened to the post-conciliar church. They broke a “universal moral law” and is now bearing the consequences.]

One of the things about the Old Testament… This is another thing that Nietzsche commented on. He was a real admirer of the Old Testament, not so much the New. He thought it was a sin for Europe to have glued the New Testament onto the Old Testament because he thought that the Old Testament was a really accurate representation of the phenomenology of being.  It’s like: stay awake, speak properly, be honest or watch the hell out, because things will come your way that you do not want to see at all. And it might not just be you, it might be everyone you know and everything about your culture that is demolished for generation and generation. It’s like, stay awake and be careful.

[NB: In our case, one can say that by suppressing Thomism (an iterable – non-degenerative moral system), and adopting an approach that was based on the “historical perspectivism” fallacy as the foundation of post-conciliar theology, the post-conciliar church, as a consequence, has “twisted the fabric of reality” by violating the “universal moral law” and is suffering from the consequences of that violation.]

I think people only don’t believe that when they are being hubristic. I think that most people know that deep in their hearts. You know, when you get high on your horse that happens fairly often. If you have any sense, you would think ‘ gee I’d better be careful. I better tap myself down a bit, because if I get too puffed up man, something is going to come along and take me out at the knees and everyone knows that: pride comes before the fall.

That’s why it says in the Old Testament that: Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.

[NB: I have not come across a better piece of advice that anyone can offer to the post-conciliar hierarchy at this point in time, than this above.]


Something happens. Someone twists the fabric of reality. And they do it “successfully” because it doesn’t snap back at them that moment. And then two years later, something unravels. And they get whalloped. And they say: That’s so unfair. And we track it. And then we say, what happened before that? This, and then before that this, and before that this… oh this. And that is where it went wrong.  

 [NB: A great way to describe what happened in the middle of the last century. The neomodernists “bent the “fabric of reality” and it is snapping back. But instead of stepping back and correcting the error, they are doubling down.]

Yea, because you can’t twist the fabric of reality without having it snap back. Because it doesn’t work that way. Because what are you going to do, twist the fabric of reality? I don’t think so. Because it’s bigger than you. Because I think that one of the things that temps people is that ‘ I can get away with it’. Yea, try. You’ll see how well that works. It’s like, you get away with nothing. And that is the beginning of wisdom, and that’s something that deeply terrifies me…

Because there are rules. And if you break them: God help you.

And I would just add: …because there is a just GOD!

To be continued…