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

Over the course of writing this blog, I have been obsessively harping about definitions. One set of definitions that I have been repeatedly writing about ad nauseum are:

  • Scholasticism (Thomism, Scholastic Rationalism),
  • Modernism (neo-Modernism) and
  • post-Modernism.

The reason for this pedantic obsession is that a proper definition, and what goes with it – the understanding of underlying concept, of what it is that one is observing, allows for a better diagnosis and/or autopsy of a given phenomenon. The proper diagnosis then allows one to provide an effectual evaluation. The effectual evaluation then becomes an appropriate treatment. And at the end of this process, the patient returns to good health.

A clinical approach, yes?

The perfect example of the effectiveness of using a clinical approach, with precise language and definitions, can be seen here:

Now to the subject at hand.

The manner in which I have differentiated between Scholasticism, Modernism and post-Modernism is by categorizing them according to the manner in which they define what constitutes TRUTH.

Yesterday, the entire Catholic world received a great gift from Francis. Actually, it might have been the greatest gift given by any of the post-conciliar “innovators” and received by Catholicism since the beginning of that satanic council which began in 1962. The gift I am referring to can be seen here:

For those who still can’t see what I am referring to and to understand its significance, allow me to explain.

Francis has given the Catholic world the “official Francismagisterial” definition of what he understands as “truth”.

Now, why is this of such critical importance, you might ask dear and loyal reader?

The reason that this so important is that now we can work backwards and place Francis firmly into one of our philosophical or ideological categories:

Scholastics (Scholastic Rationalists, Thomist, Classical philosophers) – Truth is defined as: bringing the mind into conformity with reality (‘adaequatio rei et intellectus’), 

Modernists (neo-Modernists, most post-Enlightenment philosophers) – Truth is defined as: bringing thought into line with life (‘adaequatio realis mentis et vitae’),

Post-Modernists – Truth is defined as: bringing thought into line with passions (feelings) (‘adaequatio realis mentis et adfectus‘).

So in the above, what we see is a gradual process of degeneration as to what constitutes something to be true:  from always, everywhere and for everyone (Thomists) to partially grounded in objective reality (Modernists) to no basis in objective reality (post-Modernists).

What is of further significance, and most likely the largest distinguishing feature of the FrancisDefinition of truth, as opposed to the Modernist definition of truth, is that in Francis’ definition of truth, “the truth” is completely external to, and independent of the actual subject.

In other words, the individual may seek to find the FrancisTruth, but he can never know the FrancisTruth since it’s the counter-party that gets to define what it in fact is. So we can explain this dynamic as follows:

  • if it is hurtful to the counter-party, it is not FrancisTrue
  • if it is not hurtful to the counter-party, might be FrancisTrue, but not necessarily. The counter-party could not be being truthful about the hurtful nature of the exchange.

Complete chaos?

You bettcha…

Think about this for a second or two…

But before we get to who gets to define what is FrancisTrue, a short digression…

Since we now have a good grasp of the difference between what a Modernist would consider as being true (bringing thought into line with life) and what a post-Modernist would consider as being true (bringing thought into line with the counter-party’s passions), let’s do a practical application exercise:

IF someone,… anyone… accuses another person of… for example…  being an “Old maid!”,  a “Self-absorbed, Promethean , a neo-Pelagian!”, a “Museum mummy!” , a “Pickled pepper-faced Christian!”, a “Promoter of the poison of immanence!”, a “Pastry-Shop Christians!”, a “Christian bats who prefer the shadows to the light!”, or just your average everyday run of the mill “Specialist of the Logos!”,

THEN would the accuser, according to Francis, the bishop of Rome, be engaging in untruthful behavior?

Once again, here is how Francis defines something as being “true”:

An impeccable argument can indeed rest on undeniable facts, but if it is used to hurt another and to discredit that person in the eyes of others, however correct it may appear, it is not truthful.” But it actually is much worse…

The answer is: WHO KNOWS?

Which leads to the question: what process or mechanism underlies this lack of clarity?

Given that we know in which philosophical/ideological category Francis belongs, we can then turn to Dr. Peterson, and use his methodology to get a grasp on the post-Modernism underlying the FrancisDoctine. It goes something like this: (emphasis and comments added)

“One way to look at (the Francis) ideology is as an assault on the Logos,” he said, noting that Christians identify the Logos with Christ. “The Logos is the principle that brings order out of the chaos.” It also means absolute truth, but ideologies such as Nazism or Marxism do not believe there is even such as thing as truth. They will claim to be true whatever serves the cause of their ideology. “The Soviet Union was built on lies,” Peterson said.

Peterson bristles at the suggestion that religion is an ideology. “Anyone who says that doesn’t know anything about religion or ideology. “

I think the above speaks for itself!

Concluding, what your humble blogger will end this post with, is a clinical evaluation using the Petersonian methodology.  The framework used will be along the lines of the explanation of post-Modernism provided by Dr. Peterson in the video below.

One suggestion when reading the below, please watch the video simultaneously to see how closely the Deus ex Machina evaluation of Francis, bishopric of Rome aligns with the definition of the typical post-Modernist provided by Dr. Peterson.

Deus ex Machina Clinical Evaluation of the Francis bishopric of Rome

Starts at the 01:48 mark of the video.

Post-conciliar post-Modernists completely reject the structure of Western Civilization. And I mean completely. They cannot come out and say it directly, so they use a proxy: capitalism. 

So I can give you an example in one term. Francis, who is considered the the head of the international left, thereby being the equivalent of the “head trickster” for the post-Modernist movement presently, regards Western culture, let’s call it the patriarchy, as “phallogo-centric”.

So “phallo” comes from “phallis”, which is the insistence that what you see in Western culture is the consequence of a male dominated, oppressive, self-serving society. And you might say, well, you know… societies do tend to be self serving, and people in power do tend to act in their own best interest, but attendency is not an absolute, and that’s one of the things that needs to be considered continually. There are no shortage of flaws in the manner in which the neo-Modernists structured the semi-rational Institutional post-conciliar church. And compared to any hypothetical, but completely irrational utopian FrancisChurch, it’s an absolutely dismal wreck. But compared to the rest of the global “religious” sects, and of societies throughout the history of mankind, it’s doing better then they are.

So the prescribed treatment should be to return to the rational, Phallogo-centric, patriarchal Faith that has underpinned the Catholic Church since its founding.

So the first thing you might want to know about Francis and post-Modernism is that they doesn’t have a shred of gratitude.

And there’s something pathologically wrong with a person who doesn’t have gratitude, especially since they live in what so far is the best of all possible worlds in terms of economic conditions. And if your not grateful, you are driven by resentment. And resentment is about the worst emotion that you can possibly experience, apart from arrogance

Resentment, arrogance and deceit, there’s an evil triad for you.

And if your bitter about everything that’s happening around you, despite the fact you are bathed in wealth, there’s something absolutely wrong with you. 

So here’s what Francis and the post-Modernist’s believe:

They don’t believe in the individual, that’s the “logos” part. Western Culture is “phallogo-centric”. Logo is “logos”, that’s partly the Christian word, but it’s also the root word of logic. Not believing in the “Logos” by definition means that they don’t believe in the “Biblical” Jesus Christ, second person of the Most Holy Trinity.

They also don’t believe in logic. They believe that logic is part of the process by which the patriarchal institutions of the West, such as the pre-conciliar Holy Roman Catholic Church continue to dominate and to justify their dominance. 

They don’t believe in dialogue. The root word of dialogue is “logos”. Again, they don’t believe that people of good will can come to consensus through the exchange of ideas. They believe that that notion is part of the philosophical substructure and practices of the dominant culture. So the reason they don’t let people who they don’t agree with speak on campuses or teach at their universities is that they don’t agree with letting people speak. It’s not part of the ethos. 

Ok, so what else do they believe and not believe. 

They believe that since you don’t have an individual identity, your fundamental identity is group fostered. And that means that you’re basically an exemplar of your race, hence white privilege. Or your an exemplar of your gender, or your sex or your ethnicity.

Or you’re an exemplar of however you can be classified, so that you are placed in the position of victim against the oppressor. Because that’s the game.

For the post-Modernists, the world is a Hobbesian battleground of identity groups. They do not communicate with one another because they can’t. So the Dubia will never be answered by Francis. All there is, is a struggle for power. This is why the power centers of the opposition, like the FFI or the Knights of Malta must be pacified and taken over. And if your in the predator group, such as the Traditionalists or conservatives, which means your an oppressor, than you better look out, because your not exactly welcome. And neither are your ideas.

So that’s what the post-conciliar church and the Traditionalists are up against.


I would say that it’s time for Traditionalists and conservatives to stop apologizing for being Traditionalist and conservatives. You don’t apologize to these people. It’s a big mistake. They read apology as an admission of guilt. You don’t apologize and you don’t back down. 

You young people who are the students, you need to take over the student unions. You need to take them back, because they are absolute snake pits and they have been since the 1990’s.  Older people who are the parishioners, you need to take over the parishes. You need to take them back, because they are absolute snake pits and they have been since the 1970’s.      

So that’s what the Traditionalists and conservatives, true Catholics are up against. I mean, what’s happened is, also as a consequence of this post-Modernist neo-Marxist intellectual invasion is that the center keeps moving. It’s moved way to the right now, so if your classical conservative, you’ve move far closer to the Traditionalist, and this phenomenon is self evident. 

And so for all of you who are interested in pursuing the Traditional agenda, there are a lot of post-conciliar conservatives that you can be talking to. Especially on the parish level.

And then finally with regards to talking to, and even proselytizing young people, you finally have something to sell to them. It’s not easy to sell quasi-logical post-conciliar conservatism to young people because they want to change things by their very nature. By selling them Traditionalism, you are selling them change, meaningful change and a coherent, comprehensive Faith firmly grounded in Reason.

But that’s not what conservatives want to do by their very nature. They want to maintain things as they are. Well, now you’ve got something to sell to young people.

You can sell them salvation through acquiring meaning in their lives, derived through acceptance of responsibility and aided of actual grace.

The left is selling them rights and license. You can sell them responsibility as a path to meaning which simultaneously is the true path to salvation, “worked out in fear and trembling”.

Epilogue from Dr. Peterson: 

“And I can tell you, because I’ve received many letters, (…) young people are absolutely starving for someone to provide them with the sense of responsibility.

And say, look, here’s something worth living for, man!

You know, you can find meaning in life with freedom, but freedom is a chaotic sort of meaning. And freedom isn’t the sort of thing that makes people happy. It’s the sort of thing that makes people troubled, because freedom expands your series of choices. That makes you nervous and uncertain. But that’s not a bad thing, but it requires that you shoulder the responsibility of the freedom.

But responsibility per se is what gives your life meaning, genuine meaning, in the face of suffering. And young people are starving for that.”