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


So this humble blogger has adopted and been writing about the OBSERVATION that Dr. Jordan Peterson first brought to the attention of the global audience , namely that post-Modernism, at its ROOT is a rebellion against COMPETENCE

It is this aspect of the post-conciliar church that is explained best by the Petersonian COMPETENCE HEIRARCHY explanation. To be specific, the behavior of Francis and the post-conciliiar FrancisClerics can be neatly diagnosed as follows: the post-conciliar (post-Modernist) church is a rebellion against COMPETENCE as codified in the Universal Magisterium.

In the linked video (Jordan Peterson – Competence Hierarchies Explained) one can easily paraphase Peterson’s explanation of Competence Hierarchies in the chimpanzee world and apply it to that observed in the Vatican.

Here is an example of what this might look like:

“One of the things De Waal noted was that in chimpanzee hierarchies the brutal males (Bergoglio) can rise to the top, but they tend to have very short lived empires, and to meet very, very violent deaths. And so his conclusion was that in order for even a chimpanzee hierarchy to be stable across time, then the top chimp had to be quite pro-social. So first of all, had to engage in sufficient reciprocal behavior (unlike the situation with the Dubia Cardinals), so he had allies among other males. Because otherwise, if you’re a top chimp, your caveman, strongman type, and you established your dominance as a matter of intimidation and strength, then if you have an off day, two of your slightly weaker opponents can tear you to pieces, which is exactly what the chimps do.” (In our case, the Francis “magisterium” will be short lived)

Now as with any analogy, they break down eventually, however the COMPETENCE HIERARCHY explanation is as good of a HYPOTHESIS as this humble blogger has come across.

And just for confirmation of the above, think this here:


But as you might be suspecting, this 2+2 can equal 5 isn’t limited to theology.

This post-Modernist maxim is appearing in the wider sphere of the et Invisibilium.

Below is a Zero Hedge post about New York Department of Education taking a stab at defining what constitutes a “white supremacist”.

As you can read below, what the NYC Dept. of Ed has in fact defined is ….

… wait for it…

… what constitutes a competent individual.

Please read the below and see for yourselves…

Which leave this humble blogger with the following thought, after watching the Paul Joseph Watson video, namely…

Mama don’t let your babies grow up to be soy-boys!

And it you do, don’t let them go into the priesthood…

But more on that in a future post…


You Might Be A White Supremacist If…

Here, courtesy of the New York City Department of Education, are 14 things to watch out for if you suspect you (or a friend) are a white supremacist..

  1. PERFECTIONISM — Giving undue focus to the shortcomings in someone or their work, or viewing them as personal flaws. “Making a mistake is confused with being a mistake, doing wrong with being wrong,” according to a description of the book on the Web site for the “Challenging White Supremacy Workshop.”
  2. SENSE OF URGENCY — Prioritizing short-term results without considering long-term implications. “For example, sacrificing interests of communities of color in order to win victories for white people,” the write-up says.
  3. DEFENSIVENESS — When people, often in power, are dismissive of new ideas solely for fear that they might shake things up. “The defensiveness of people in power creates an oppressive culture,” the description says.DEFENSIVENESS — When people, often in power, are dismissive of new ideas solely for fear that they might shake things up. “The defensiveness of people in power creates an oppressive culture,” the description says.
  4. QUANTITY OVER QUALITY — Being results-oriented and diminishing an otherwise-sound process if it doesn’t produce measurable results. It also goes hand-in-hand with “discomfort with emotion and feelings.”
  5. WORSHIP OF THE WRITTEN WORD — This idea prioritizes documentation and writing skills, rather than the “ability to relate to others.” It also leads to teaching that there is “only one right way” to do something.
  6. PATERNALISM — When those already in power think they’re the only ones who can or should make decisions. “Those with power often don’t think it is important or necessary to understand the viewpoint or experience of those for whom they are making decisions,” the write-up explains.
  7. EITHER/OR THINKING — Seeing things in terms of good or bad, right or wrong, or black or white. This “results in trying to simplify complex things, for example believing that poverty is simply a result of lack of education.”
  8. POWER HOARDING — Similar to defensiveness, those in power seek to preserve it, and see it as something that can’t be shared. They may also feel threatened when someone suggests change, and “assume they have the best interests of the organization at heart.”
  9. FEAR OF OPEN CONFLICT — This comes through when someone overemphasizes politeness, and equates broaching touchy topics with being rude. “The response is to blame the person for raising the issue rather than to look at the issue which is actually causing the problem,” the description says.
  10. INDIVIDUALISM — This idea is found among people who have “little experience or comfort working as part of a team.” It can lead to isolation, and emphasize competition over cooperation.
  11. PROGRESS IS BIGGER, MORE — Focusing only on the bottom line and tangible growth. “Progress is an organization which expands … or develops the ability to serve more people,” those with this mindset think.
  12. OBJECTIVITY — This can lead to the belief that there is an ultimate truth and that alternative viewpoints or emotions are bad. It’s even inherent in “the belief that there is such a thing as being objective.”
  13. RIGHT TO COMFORT – Those in power may believe that they “have a right to emotional and psychological comfort,” while denying the same to those not in power. This also covers cries of reverse racism because that’s “equating individual acts of unfairness against white people with systemic racism which daily targets people of color.”