Tags
chastity belts, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium, Cultural Marxism, Deconstructionism, Dr. Curt Doolittle, Father Anthony Cekada, Fox News, Francis Effect, FrancisChurch - In Liquidation, Frankfurt School, FSSP, Genderism, George Soros, Germany, Giardia lamblia, Gonorrhea, Great Cardinal, Havana, Hemorrhoids, heretical pope, Herpes simplex virus, hippies, HIV, Holy Year of Mercy, Human immunodeficiency virus, Human papilloma virus, Humanism, Isospora belli, Jacque Derrida, James O'Keefe, Jesuits, Jesus Christ, Joseph Ratzinger, Jozef Pilsudski, Keynes, Keynesian Economics, Kirill I, Krakow, Law of Unintended Consequences, messeging, Mexico City, Microsporidia, Miracle on the Vistula, Modernists, MSM, narratives, Nassim Taleb, neo-modernism, Neo-Pagan, Net Neutrality, new springtime, New York Times, Nigel Farage, Pagan Christians, pathological, Poland, Polish Bolshevik War 1920, Pontifical High Mass, Pope Pius VI, President Andrzej Duda, Project Veritas, r/K Selection Theory, Raymond Burke, Refugee Resettlement Watch blog, Republic of Poland, retained foreign bodies, risk event, Roman Curia, s "c"atholicZombie, s "theological structuring", s ABC News, s ABERRO AGENDA, s aberro-sex agenda, s AIDS, s Ambiguity, s Anal Cancer, s Ann Corcoran, s anorectal traum, s Archbishop of Warsaw- Praga, s Associated Press, s Austria, s Benedict XVI, s Bergoglio, s Big Gender, s Bio-History, s Boris Johnson, s BREXIT, s Card. Muller, s Cardinal Burke, s Cardinal Kazimierz Nycz, s cardinal Walter Kasper, s Catholic Church, s Chapel of the Holy Trinity, s Pope Francis, Saul Alinsky, sCatholic Church in Poland, Sexually transmitted diseases, spirit of Vatican II, SSPX, St Thomas Aquinas, sustainability, Synod 2014, Synod of Filth, Syphilis25, Tags anal fissures, Tags Black Lives Matter, Team Bergoglio, The Remnant, The Scholasticum, theological deconstructionism, Thomism, Tradition, TransRational, Truth, Unjust ruler, Vatican II, Work of Human Hands, Zombie, ZombieBishop, ZombieChurch
Today your humble blogger will do a rare Saturday post.
Reason being that information has come across the radar that is of major significance for the Deus ex Machina methodology. As my long time readers know, when analyzing data, one key aspect of any analysis that can be considered “worth its salt” is the model’s predictive ability.
And with the Deus ex Machina’s Peirce/Ockham pragmatic model, one key aspect that has always served it well is the model’s predictive ability. The best example is that the model accurately predicted that Donald J. Trump would win the US presidential election in a landslide. This prediction was made as early as July 2016. Here is a visual of what in fact the DeM POPM predicted:
The above is a map by county. If it was reduced to the precinct level, more than half of the “blue area” would be wiped out. That’s how badly Sick, Crooked, Unelectable Hillary lost by in the 2016 presidential election, and the Peirce/Ockham model predicted it.
Yet one aspect of the model’s predictive ability, let’s call it a “shortfall”, was that it couldn’t gauge at what point the Trump victory became irreversible. I assumed that there was a natural phenomenon, such as a learning curve along which the momentum to vote for Trump moved along, that would allow one to identify a “point of no return” whereby when reached, there was no turning back.
And then I came across this post, which I have republished below.
So today, we will re-arrange the normal order of my posts, and conclude after you dear reader read the post.
*****
FOR THE RECORD: (see original here)
Minority Rules: Scientists Discover Tipping Point for the Spread of Ideas
Scientists at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute have found that when just 10 percent of the population holds an unshakable belief, their belief will always be adopted by the majority of the society. The scientists, who are members of the Social Cognitive Networks Academic Research Center (SCNARC) at Rensselaer, used computational and analytical methods to discover the tipping point where a minority belief becomes the majority opinion. The finding has implications for the study and influence of societal interactions ranging from the spread of innovations to the movement of political ideals.
“When the number of committed opinion holders is below 10 percent, there is no visible progress in the spread of ideas. It would literally take the amount of time comparable to the age of the universe for this size group to reach the majority,” said SCNARC Director Boleslaw Szymanski, the Claire and Roland Schmitt Distinguished Professor at Rensselaer. “Once that number grows above 10 percent, the idea spreads like flame.”
As an example, the ongoing events in Tunisia and Egypt appear to exhibit a similar process, according to Szymanski. “In those countries, dictators who were in power for decades were suddenly overthrown in just a few weeks.”
The findings were published in the July 22, 2011, early online edition of the journal Physical Review E in an article titled “Social consensus through the influence of committed minorities.”
An important aspect of the finding is that the percent of committed opinion holders required to shift majority opinion does not change significantly regardless of the type of network in which the opinion holders are working. In other words, the percentage of committed opinion holders required to influence a society remains at approximately 10 percent, regardless of how or where that opinion starts and spreads in the society.
To reach their conclusion, the scientists developed computer models of various types of social networks. One of the networks had each person connect to every other person in the network. The second model included certain individuals who were connected to a large number of people, making them opinion hubs or leaders. The final model gave every person in the model roughly the same number of connections. The initial state of each of the models was a sea of traditional-view holders. Each of these individuals held a view, but were also, importantly, open minded to other views.
Once the networks were built, the scientists then “sprinkled” in some true believers throughout each of the networks. These people were completely set in their views and unflappable in modifying those beliefs. As those true believers began to converse with those who held the traditional belief system, the tides gradually and then very abruptly began to shift.
“In general, people do not like to have an unpopular opinion and are always seeking to try locally to come to consensus. We set up this dynamic in each of our models,” said SCNARC Research Associate and corresponding paper author Sameet Sreenivasan. To accomplish this, each of the individuals in the models “talked” to each other about their opinion. If the listener held the same opinions as the speaker, it reinforced the listener’s belief. If the opinion was different, the listener considered it and moved on to talk to another person. If that person also held this new belief, the listener then adopted that belief.
“As agents of change start to convince more and more people, the situation begins to change,” Sreenivasan said. “People begin to question their own views at first and then completely adopt the new view to spread it even further. If the true believers just influenced their neighbors, that wouldn’t change anything within the larger system, as we saw with percentages less than 10.”
The research has broad implications for understanding how opinion spreads. “There are clearly situations in which it helps to know how to efficiently spread some opinion or how to suppress a developing opinion,” said Associate Professor of Physics and co-author of the paper Gyorgy Korniss. “Some examples might be the need to quickly convince a town to move before a hurricane or spread new information on the prevention of disease in a rural village.”
The researchers are now looking for partners within the social sciences and other fields to compare their computational models to historical examples. They are also looking to study how the percentage might change when input into a model where the society is polarized. Instead of simply holding one traditional view, the society would instead hold two opposing viewpoints. An example of this polarization would be Democrat versus Republican.
The research was funded by the Army Research Laboratory (ARL) through SCNARC, part of the Network Science Collaborative Technology Alliance (NS-CTA), the Army Research Office (ARO), and the Office of Naval Research (ONR).
The research is part of a much larger body of work taking place under SCNARC at Rensselaer. The center joins researchers from a broad spectrum of fields – including sociology, physics, computer science, and engineering – in exploring social cognitive networks. The center studies the fundamentals of network structures and how those structures are altered by technology. The goal of the center is to develop a deeper understanding of networks and a firm scientific basis for the newly arising field of network science. More information on the launch of SCNARC can be found at http://news.rpi.edu/update.do?artcenterkey=2721&setappvar=page(1)
Szymanski, Sreenivasan, and Korniss were joined in the research by Professor of Mathematics Chjan Lim, and graduate students Jierui Xie (first author) and Weituo Zhang.
Right!
Now I would like to take you dear reader back to a post that appeared on the 3rd of September, 2016. The post was titled Satanic Council – The End Game w/Updates!, where Bishop Fellay, Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X relates the following information:
It means that there are now in the Church, so serious problems, so threatening problems for the existence of the Church, that the Congregation for the Faith is forced to revise their position with us.
(…)
At the time, I was not very happy about these things but with the time, with reflecting, yes they are facing enormous problems and suddenly what appeared to be the problem that is us, maybe it looks like a solution. (Return to Tradition)
(…)
We have counted that there are between 26 and 30 cardinals who have openly attacked these modern positions. And numerous bishops. They say that to the point that we have lost the monopoly on the contestation of the protest, … (First time that this number was mentioned before the non-SSPX blogosphere put it out.)
(…)
It’s a catastrophe for the Church, but it’s good, it’s good that finally there is a reaction. It’s high time. And this reaction is growing. And now you have to reflect.
(…)
We’ve been told that at the last meeting of the Congregation of the Faith, where they all meet together, all the cardinals and bishops which are members, we call that a plenaria, this is the full meeting, there was only one cardinal who said, ‘no, no. no, the Society must absolutely accept the whole council’. And other voices who said ‘these people do only one thing, (that is) to repeat what the Church has always taught’. So you see, there is something on the move…
Concluding, I will leave off here. But one final parting thought.
One of the unstated reasons for writing this blog is to identify what is OBJECTIVE REALITY, with a specific interest of all things Catholic. One conclusion that can be drawn from the above is this:
IF: All but one member of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith think that a return to Tradition can solve the current existential crisis,
GIVEN: That when the number of committed opinion holders grows above 10 percent, the idea spreads like flame, and passes the tipping point where a minority belief becomes the majority opinion,
THEN: The Vatican hierarchy has passed the point of no return whereby they accept that the post-conciliar ideology is causing the disintegration of the Catholic Church and the resolution of the existential crisis is a return to Catholic Tradition.
Folks, the above is the OBJECTIVE REALITY.
And this is why Francis is terrified!
I will leave it here for today.
Please reflect on the above.
And also reflect on the following: 1) why is Francis clamping down on any hint of discent behind the Sacred Vatican Walls, 2) why are the same people always being appointed to the different Vatican organizations, i.e. think +Paglia, Baldisarri, Forte, 3) why is Francis willing to die on the +Barros/sexual deviants hill, 4) why is Francis “speeding up” his attempted destruction of the post-conciliar church?
Pingback: Canon212 Update: Church of Murder Takes Shape – The Stumbling Block
Mark Thomas said:
“3) why is Francis willing to die on the +Barros/sexual deviants hill,”
Wow! That is a grave charge against Bishop Barros. Holy Mother Church has investigated Bishop Barros. Not one shred of evidence was found in support of allegations against Bishop Barros.
Please go public with evidence that Bishop Barros is a sexual deviant.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
LikeLike
Richard Malcolm said:
What is the public evidence against Bishop Barros? Well, for starters, we have multiple victims of Fr Karadima who claim he was present for some of these incidents. The Vatican found the victims credible enough to punish Fr Karadima – but, apparently, not Bishop Barros.
It is the old story, on the face of it, at any rate: The hierarchy, both locally and in Rome, is ever ready to make priests walk the plank, but bishops receive a much higher degree of deference.
“Holy Mother Church” is not infallible in such matters, Mark. “Holy Mother Church” gave Marcel Maciel clean bills of health on multiple occasions every time allegations surfaced against him over the years. Not until the end did they find support for the allegations, and not until the end did Benedict XVI take action (albeit not as severe as he ought to have taken) against Maciel and the Legion.
LikeLike
Mark Thomas said:
Richard Malcolm said:…” Hello Mark, That’s all very well, but what I am really asking for is what *doctrine* of the Church these Catholics are dissenting from. Being critical, disrespectful, or even disobedient to the Pope are not the same things as dissent; which is to say, *heresy*.”
Mister Malcolm, the Catholics in question will have to speak for themselves as to the particulars in regard to their dissent in question.
I repeated simply that the Church teaches that we must submit to Pope Francis’ Magisterium. We are not permitted to dissent from the Pope.
As I noted, the folks in question have committed the grave sin of schism. We are not talking about being “disrespectful” to the Pope. We are talking about schism as they have insisted that they don’t even recognize Pope Francis as the Vicar of Christ.
From there, they insist that Pope Francis has proposed heretical teachings to the Holy People of God. We need to ask said folks as to the supposed heretical Papal teachings from which they dissent.
Anyway, I advanced simply Church teaching.
1. The True Church has declared that Pope Francis is Her Pope.
2. God commands that each Catholic must remain in communion with Pope Francis.
3. God commands that we must obey Pope Francis’ authority to teach, govern, and sanctify the Holy People of God.
4. Jesus Christ speaks through Pope Francis.
5. The Church teaches that the Church of Rome, governed currently by Pope Francis, has preserved the True Religion immaculate.
Mister Malcolm, the above points, one through five, constitute Church teaching. Correct?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
LikeLike
Richard Malcolm said:
“We are talking about schism as they have insisted that they don’t even recognize Pope Francis as the Vicar of Christ.”
Is S.Armaticus a sedevacantist, and I missed it?
My sense is that a few other sedes pop in from time to time to post here seem to be sede, but they are not a majority of commenters – just as they certainly are not anywhere remotely near a majority of traditionalist Catholics.
Francis is the legitimate pope. He may be a very bad pope in many respects (for which there is, alas, ample precedent), but he is the pope.
LikeLike
Mark Thomas said:
“…why is Francis clamping down on any hint of discent behind the Sacred Vatican Walls…”
S.A., I have the answer.
Bishop Fellay said that His Holiness Pope Francis read, and enjoyed, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais’ book on Archbishop Lefebvre.
We know that Archbishop Lefebvre ruled the SSPX with an iron fist. Within the SSPX, he did not tolerate dissent within the SSPX to his authority…as former SSPX priests are aware.
Archbishop Lefebvre kicked to the curb anybody who dissented from him. (Bishop Fellay rules the SSPX in similar iron-fisted fashion.)
Therefore, we know as to why Pope Francis has clamped down on “any hint of dissent behind the Sacred Vatican Walls…”
Pope Francis has copied Archbishop Lefebvre’s iron-fisted approach to governance. 🙂
S.A., as you have praised Archbishop Lefebvre to the hilt, I am certain that you support the manner in which Archbishop Lefebvre governed…with an iron fist…zero tolerance of dissent…
…therefore, you support Pope Francis as he, in that regard, as he has clamped down supposedly on dissent.
Right, S.A. 🙂
Pope Francis and Archbishop Lefebvre…two iron-fisted, refuse-to-tolerate-dissent, rulers.
Pax.
Mark
LikeLike
Mark Thomas said:
Richard Malcolm said: “Hello Mark, What doctrines of the Church do you perceive people here dissenting from?”
Hello, and thank you, Mister Malcolm.
Mister Malcolm, I quoted Pope Saint Pius X:
“When one loves a person, one tries to adhere in everything to his thoughts, to fulfill his will, to perform his wishes. Therefore, when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents;
“…whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope.”
=========================================================
Mister Malcolm, beginning with our own S.A., there are several folks here who refuse to submit to Pope Francis’ God-given authority to teach, govern, and sanctify them.
Said folks have declared that Pope Francis is not Pope. They insist that Pope Benedict XVI is Pope.
Unfortunately, and most horrifically, they have turned themselves over to Satan as they have embraced the grave sin of schism.
A person who refuses to submit to Pope Francis — even to the point where they have declared that he is not the Pope — has dissented from Pope Francis. Correct, Mister Malcolm?
Thank you.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
LikeLike
Richard Malcolm said:
Hello Mark,
That’s all very well, but what I am really asking for is what *doctrine* of the Church these Catholics are dissenting from.
Being critical, disrespectful, or even disobedient to the Pope are not the same things as dissent; which is to say, *heresy*.
LikeLike
Mark Thomas said:
Michael Dowd said: “Mark are you a member of Opus Dei? I have asked this before and received no answer.. The reason for asking is that only an Opus Dei member could forcefully support Pope Francis after all he is doing to destroy the Catholic faith.”
Mister Dowd,
Hello. Mister Dowd, I recall at least twice (I believe once within the past couple of weeks) having responded that I am not a member of Opus Dei.
Why must one be a member of Opus Dei to support His Holiness Pope Francis? God commands us to submit to Pope Francis’ awesome authority to teach, govern, and sanctify us.
Mister Dowd, as I am Catholic, I am compelled to submit to Pope Francis as he is the Vicar of Christ.
Jesus Christ speaks through His Holiness Pope Francis.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
LikeLike
Dorota Mosiewicz-Patalas said:
I hope the small number of “spiritual elites” will soon have as much influence on the masses as the sodomites do. Sodomites understood very well that to sway public opinion in their direction, they had to appeal to kindness, and they had to forbid any talk of truth behind what they called “love”. They used deception, and they won. All we have to do is speak truth. We don’t need the media and universities. we don’t need the politicians and social engineering techniques. We don’t need Soros’ money and open society. If they succeeded – and so quickly – in convincing the masses of a truly disgusting lie, how much easier should it be for us! Shall I hope?
LikeLike
Richard Malcolm said:
“The best example is that the model accurately predicted that Donald J. Trump would win the US presidential election in a landslide.”
As vastly, vastly happy that I am that Hillary Clinton is (through a fair election) a private citizen today, and not the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, I have to say I am perplexed at the idea that Trump won in a landslide. I mean, unless we are now considering a 304 Electoral College vote tally a “landslide” – which would be defining the term downward, given that it is the fourth smallest electoral vote margin of victory since World War II (after 1960, 2000, and 2004).
It certainly wasn’t a landslide in the popular vote, since Hillary won that by 2 points (even allowing for a significant illegal voter cohort).
LikeLike
S. Armaticus said:
I will stand by what I said. It was a landslide.
And that’s not including the roughly 5m fraudlant votes cast in the large metro areas.
I couldn’t find the precinct map. I saw it a few weeks ago and it was even more telling.
No wonder the Dems are terrified of Trump taking back to sanctuary cities.
LikeLike
Richard Malcolm said:
Hi Sarm,
Well, this isn’t really a fight to pick, especially with such a fine gentleman as yourself, but…
I do think we have to be honest with ourselves.
The danger of looking at maps like this is that real estate doesn’t vote. People do (though in Cook County, Democrats have been known to rely on voters who have become part of the real estate, so to speak, to be sure). The Democratic voter base is heavily concentrated in urban areas, which hurts them in both congressional and presidential elections more than gerrymandering does. Nonetheless, there are a lot of them, and they’re close to half of the national population, unfortunately. The hard reality (alas) is that the bulk of those vast swaths of red constituencies on these maps are very sparsely populated, I’m afraid. Many of those counties have more cattle than people.
I don’t buy the 5 million illegal alien voter figure (probably more like a million, largely in California), but even if I did, that would only put Trump on top by 2 million or so, and out of a voter pool of 125 million, that’s a pretty small margin.
To me, a landslide probably starts out out in Bush 1988 territory, but really is undeniable once you reach 1964, 1972, 1984 territory.
Trump won in 2016 by drawing to an inside straight in the electoral college. He squeaked out wins in the rustbelt heartland states of MI, WI, OH, and PA, and Hillary was so arrogantly confident of victory that she (and just about everyone in the media) didn’t think it was even possible. Pleased as we might be with the result, we can’t call this a Reaganesque curbstomp.
LikeLike
Mark Thomas said:
1) why is Francis clamping down on any hint of discent behind the Sacred Vatican Walls…”
Perhaps His Holiness Pope Francis has learned from Bishop Fellay. 🙂
Bishop Fellay governs the SSPX with an iron fist. Priests of the SSPX are required to bow to Bishop Fellay…or else.
Bishop Williamson, for example, learned that lesson.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
LikeLike
Richard Malcolm said:
Mark,
Generally speaking, I think the vast majority of traditionalists are actually quite *happy* to see a Pope rule with a strong hand, so long as a) it is done in the service of orthodoxy, and b) it is done in a just way. I don’t think I’ve ever met a traditional Catholic who doesn’t approve of, say, St. Pius X’s Anti-Modernist campaign (though you can find a few here and there, like H.J.A. Sire, who might raise prudential questions about occasional aspects of it).
The objection to Francis is that the iron hand seems typically employed to undermine Church teaching, or in service of purely personal or ideological agendas.
The history of the Papacy (if we are being honest with ourselves) affords at least a few examples of the former, and plenty of the latter. None of which negates the proper claims of papal authority, but it should make us cautious in casting those claims in an ultramontane light. We were blessed with an unusually good run of popes through most of the 19th and 20th centuries. Eventually, our good fortune was bound to run out.
LikeLike
Mark Thomas said:
“And also reflect on the following: 1) why is Francis clamping down on any hint of discent behind the Sacred Vatican Walls…”
Hello, S.A.
His Holiness has clamped down on dissent? People claimed that about Popes Saint Pius X, Venerable Pius XII, Saint John Paul II, and Benedict XVI. I guess that if the claim in question is true, then His Holiness Pope Francis is in good company.
S.A., as a Catholic, you do not dissent from the Pope. Correct? After all, the Church teaches the following:
Pope Saint Pius X, 1912 A.D: “…whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope.”
Pope Saint Pius X:
“The Pope is the guardian of dogma and of morals; he is the custodian of the principles that make families sound, nations great, souls holy; he is the counsellor of princes and of peoples; he is the head under whom no one feels tyrannized because he represents God Himself; he is the supreme father who unites in himself all that may exist that is loving, tender, divine.
“When one loves a person, one tries to adhere in everything to his thoughts, to fulfill his will, to perform his wishes. And if Our Lord Jesus Christ said of Himself, “si quis diligit me, sermonem meum servabit,” [if any one love me, he will keep my word – Jn xiv, 23] therefore, in order to demonstrate our love for the Pope, it is necessary to obey him.
“Therefore, when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents;
“we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey – that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority; we do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, *******because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope.”*********************
Pax.
Mark Thomas
LikeLike
Richard Malcolm said:
Hello Mark,
What doctrines of the Church do you perceive people here dissenting from?
LikeLike
Michael Dowd said:
Mark are you a member of Opus Dei? I have asked this before and received no answer.. The reason for asking is that only an Opus Dei member could forcefully support Pope Francis after all he is doing to destroy the Catholic faith.
LikeLike
Michael Dowd said:
Good work Sam. Agree with your thesis. My tentative conclusion is that a schism will result if Traditional Catholicism gains any significant purchase on the College of Cardinals. The earliest this could happen would be during the voting for a new Pope and probably not until then. One way the schism could be triggered is for SSPX to officially condemn Pope Francis and accuse him of heresy and then aggressively recruit members of the Catholic Church to join SSPX. Sedevancantists could also aggressively solicit CC members. What do you think?
LikeLike
Ritter der Immaculata said:
This goes in line with common sense of the ages and nature itself. A small committed elite always wins out over the much more numerous masses, which are, due to their lukewarmness and average capacity, swayed by the prevailing spirit of the age.
That’s why doing the RIGHT thing despite the age is a character of the spiritual elite. That’s the Counter-revolutionary Elite.
Conversely, in an age of prevailing high moral observance the Revolutionary seeks to exploit the stagnation of a society which is merely doing what the virtuous elites of the past passed on to them, a society without the will to understand tradition and the warrior’s grit necessary to defend it.
Each new generation must make the discovery of tradition for itself, the virtues imbued inside cannot be spoon fed or automated.
LikeLiked by 1 person
S. Armaticus said:
Post updated.
LikeLike
docmx001 said:
Not that majority opinion determines truth, of course. But I would say your conclusion, as stated in the title of the post, is spot on!
LikeLike
S. Armaticus said:
I am doing an update as we speak, to put some context around that title.
LikeLiked by 1 person
S. Armaticus said:
Post updated.
LikeLike