Today we pick up with the “2+2=5” meme theme one more time.
Your humble blogger is beating this dead horse because it’s… well… a very, Very, VERY, VERY important meme, since at its root, is in fact an explicit indictment of the entire FrancisBishopricofRome.
More over, what the “2+2=5” meme does is that it implicitly captures the ESSENCE of the entire Vatican II post-conciliar church.
Now seeing as how we mentioned the “E” word, and given that ESSENCES are one of the three elements that are at the root of the study by philosophy, i.e. the study of how knowledge is acquired, the other two being ABSOLUTES and UNIVERSALS, what we are dealing with is an issue at its philosophical level.
Or to put it in post-Modernist jargon, what we are dealing with is the meme “2+2=5” as a “philosophical” construct.
Aside, notice the quotation marks around the word philosophical?
And just to finish this introduction, the reason why the philosophical dimension… bah, PLATFORM is so important is that if the philosophy of this (FrancisChurch) or any endeavor is not veracious, i.e. objectively true, then the endeavor is doomed to fail. The reason being that this questionable endeavor will not have universal properties, i.e. will not be applicable always, everywhere and to everyone.
What’s more, if any endeavor does not possess universal properties, then it does not serve everyone equally. What it does, is it favors some at the expense of others. (see section titled PERIPHERIES below.) Therefore the endeavor is not equitable. Or as we Catholics would say, it is not JUST.
Yet we know that an UNJUST system can exist and for a limited time even be sustained. Think Soviet Union… The manner in which it is sustained is not through a natural equilibrium (One that exists in nature in and of itself), but rather through the WILL of individuals which that system favors.
In other words, we are dealing with a post-Modernist, cum neo-Marixst POWER construct.
And to finish off with an example, the Holy Roman Catholic Church, an institution that has maintained what could be described as “business continuity” since its founding in Anno Domini 33, has been able to maintain it’s “business continuity” because it has at its base, a PHILOSOPHICAL PLATFORM based on OBJECTIVE TRUTH. The PRECEPTS of this PLATFORM exist in nature.
Or as we say here on this blog, exists in His creation.
And on this PLATFORM, 2+2 must equal 4, always, everywhere and to everyone.
So what can be inferred from the above is that the reason that the Catholic Church has maintained its business continuity is through a JUST system.
Which begs the question, how can one establish that a SYSTEM is JUST?
And the answer, that is commonly provided, is that a JUST system is one where all the participants perceive that their interests are overseen in a manner which does not favor any one individual participant.
To drill down into this thought, your humble blogger favors the NATURAL LAW explanation since your humble blogger sees NATURAL LAW as being that part of the SYSTEM that God created to govern His creation. Here is the Wikipedia definition: (see here) (emphasis and comment added)
For advocates of the theory that justice is part of natural law (e.g., John Locke), it involves the system of consequences that naturally derives from any action or choice. In this, it is similar to the laws of physics: in the same way as the Third of Newton’s laws of Motion requires that for every action there must be an equal and opposite reaction, justice requires according individuals or groups what they actually deserve, merit, or are entitled to.[citation needed] Justice, on this account, is a universal and absolute concept: laws, principles, religions, (Ed. note: there can be only one “religion” in this case) etc., are merely attempts to codify that concept, sometimes with results that entirely contradict the true nature of justice.
With respect to the latter, here we are speaking about the sects.
So now that we have a good grasp of what characteristics a SYSTEM, any SYSTEM needs to possess in order for that SYSTEM to be sustainable, I will post some screen shots, sort of as a weekend meditation exercise. They all originated on the Gloria.TV websiteand appeared within the last few weeks.
I hope my readers read through and REFLECT on them, and then ask themselves one question:
Is anyone driving this post-conciliar FrancisMercy”2+2=5″Bus?
Many words are being written and spoken lately. On the one hand, we have what I will call the MUNDABOR position. (see here) This position can be summarized as follows:
I find it, therefore, not credible to theorise that this is a sort of 3D chess exercise, in which the same people (Ed. note: Cardinals and Bishops) who were cowardly silent for one year and a half would concoct an elaborate strategy based on them not doing their job, the laity doing their job for them and they finally intervening when even my cat has understood what useless tool they are.
Yet, over at the Rorate Caeli blog, we get this counter-point:
RORATE Note: There will many Catholics, even traditionalists, whose first defeatist reaction will be to belittle this effort. But the wise, the learned in history, will understand that this is just the first part, the first piece of the puzzle, with next steps still to come in a long and extended process.
So we have two very credible sources, and two very credible positions, albeit contradictory.
So which one is the correct position?
Given that we know from yesterday’s post that there can only be ONE CORRECT ANSWER.
And the answer of your must humble blogger is: I DON’T KNOW.
So what do we do?
Well, first we identify the Known Knows:
According to Edward Pentin, there is “a plan”. Here is one such example from the 16th of March of this year supporting the Rorate Caeli position:
There is a wide spread atmosphere of “FEAR” behind the Sacred Vatican Walls. Here is Fr. Hunwicke with this confirmation, which incidentally supports the MUNDABOR position:
“There is another territory to be heard; the diocesan clergy, and I can testify to the fear out there. I feel it myself; … I entered the diocesan priesthood from Lutheranism … my decision to sign may come with danger … Unfortunately, we live in times of great venality and danger for those who just express simple orthodoxy. Going this next step is necessary but fraught with peril. Cosmas and Damian, Cyprian and Justina, pray for our courage.”
Aside, scared, frightened, effeminate men don’t do plans.
3. According to Michael Matt though, there in fact is “a Plan”.
Which brings me to another INDEPENDENT, yet possibly RELATED piece of new information in the above video. In this video, Michael Matt cites Antonio Socci and puts out into the public domain that Francis, the bishop of Rome is thinking about “neutralizing” or eliminating the College of Cardinals altogether. This is being thought through in order to allow Francis, the bishop of Rome to appoint his successor. (see here)
Aside, guess who the most likely Dauphin of Rome is?
Here are some hints taken from my Twitter timeline that popped up within the last 30 or so minutes:
… and
… and
… and
… and
… and finally, this one which almost made me cry.
OK, so the Catholic News Service beat me to the crying part. Never mind.
Anyways…
Before I go on, I would just like to draw your attention to these posts hereandhere which will provide some background and CONTEXT to the above pictures.
Next INDEPENDENT, yet possibly related piece of information is this onehere. According to ZeroHedge, the reason why voters in Sunday’s German general election voted the way they did is as follows:
The main headline from the German election yesterday is not Angela Merkel getting a fourth term in charge, but rather her party’s weakened position – caused chiefly by a surge in support for the right wing nationalist party ‘Alternative für Deutschland’ (AfD).
The AfD is a controversial party – one which not only ran on a program of anti-immigration and anti-Muslim policies, but one which is at least in part represented by people who have expressed racist and xenophobic views.
Nevertheless, provisional results indicate that the party has received 12.6 percent of the total vote, making it the third strongest in the country.
Why then did this happen? As Statista’s Martin Armstrong shows in the infographic below, AfD voters were primarily motivated by fears of terrorism, fears of crime and dissatisfaction with the influx of asylum seekers into Germany since the 2015 crisis.
Perhaps key to understanding the lurch to the right is the indication that the majority of AfD voters say they made their decision not based on belief in the party, but rather as a reaction to their disappointment in the other parties.
Yet Francis’ next great populist idea is, you guessed it: (see here)
And guess who Francis put in charge of this “brilliant” initiative?
Yep, non other then our “disposable” Cardinal Tagle.
So how does all the above tie in together?
Well, quite possibly through what we call the Soap Bubble Papacy. For the new readers, see here.
As to the current state of the Soap Bubble Papacy, here is the relevant tweet:
What appears to be the case is that the final “shine off the FrancisBloom” moment, as it relates to the Fake News Media, could have come with the protecting of the alleged pedophile cleric, that the FrancisHomoMafia spirited away from the Vatican’s US Nunciature and back to the safe house friendly confines of the Vatican. (possibly here)
Here is a screenshot that I just couldn’t pass up posting: (see here)
Which in turn could explain this passage here that I posted from the LMSChairman’s blog:
I agreed to be spokesman or media contact for the Correctio Filialis I didn’t realise quite was I was letting myself in for. I’ve now lost count of the number of telephone and email mini-interviews I’ve done, and I don’t have time to keep track on the number of reports online which have resulted from these.
This could have been a nightmare, but it’s not at all. The journalists have been polite and professional. (Associated Press was a teeny bit naughty breaking the media embargo, but it was only by an hour or two.) And all things considered, we are getting amazingly favourable coverage in Catholic and non-Catholic sources.
Hmmm….
That’s odd.
But that’s not all. Take a look at this:
So now we have a story from CNN which is really very balanced, even favourable to us.
Concluding, what we most likely have is what is known in the public relation business as a “branding problem”.
For all the FrancisNovelty that was introduced to get on the right side of Fake News Media and their paymasters over at the Internationalist Left, i.e. the Globalists, FrancisChurch has now destroyed the FrancisBrand.
The way in which FrancisChurch destroyed the brand is through the recurring stories appearing in the headlines across the global news agencies about “pedophile priests”. The story that could have put the proverbial icing on the cake was no doubt the story at the US Nunciature. What most likely has happened is that the Fake News Media are distancing themselves from TeamFrancis.
Furthermore, seeing the tide turning on the acceptance of the human trafficking and warehousing industry by the local populations in various countries, the Fake News Media is beginning to shy away from actively promoting these sorts of initiatives. And by extension, the folks behind them.
Aside, it has gotten so bad that the Euroland politicians have stopped mandatory allocations to member states just yesterday. (see here) Talk about being on the wrong side of that curve!
Given the above, what could have happened is that mainstay of FrancisChurch, or what we call the Fake News Media inflatedSoap Bubble Papacy™ , has become deflated since the Fake News Media has stopped actively promoting it.
This in turn has tipped the playing field back to being more level (or less skewed depending on how one looks at it), which in turn has allowed the Filial Correction to be widely disseminated in a less hostile environment.
And in a less hostile manner.
It has also opened up the door for the Cardinals and Bishops to execute their Plan, provided that they have one. And if there is a plan, will stand a better chance of succeeding that we all suspect.
And they might not have a better time than now… (seehere)
Which could be the reason behind Jesus II Francis and TeamFrancis rummaging through the Canon Law of the Catholic Church to find a way to disband the College of Cardinals and the Curia so as to not so much secure a FrancisSuccessor, but to keep themselves in power. (see here)
They have a station in life and a level of comfort that they have grown accustomed to, you know?
Today your humble blogger will continue with a philosophical theme. The reason being, that in order to understand a PROCESS, any PROCESS for that matter, it is critical to understand the underlying PHILOSOPHICAL constructs on which it is based.
In other words, if the PHILOSOPHY is coherent, then a positive (as in intrinsically good) outcome can be reasonably expected.
On the other hand, if the underlying PHILOSOPHICAL construct is ERRONEOUS, than no matter how good the intentions are, the outcome will not be positive. What will happen is that the LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES, or as we say on this blog – the real “God of surprises” will appear and the results will be… shall we say: less than optimal.
So today, we look at the state of the post-conciliar church and systematic fragility.
It would be fair to say that the logical place to begin would be the “reforms” of the Second Vatican Council. Furthermore, it can be stated with a great deal of certainty that since this “new springtime”, what has in fact been happening within the Universal Institutional Church can be described as a PROCESS of BALKANISATION.
Through the introduction of the vulgar liturgy and with the introduction of national churches, a very IRRATIONAL and UNSTABLE system was created. These national churches were reinforced through the creation of the national bishops conferences, conferences that were intended to “decentralized” the decision making process (power) away from the Holy See and give it to the local churches. (see here) These national bishops conferences… cough Germany, cough… in turn drove the fragmentation of the Universal Church, a process that is reaching its logical conclusion under the current bishopric of Rome.
The justification for why this happened is irrelevant for our analysis, suffice it to say, any good prelate with a firm grounding in Catholic philosophical thought could have seen the disastrous consequences at the time.
On an aside, and referencing to yesterday’s post titled The “Lefebvrist Drift” Going Mainstream…, one reason behind the “rehabilitation” of Archbishop Lefebvre by parts of the mainstream post-conciliar church is in no small part due (actually, in large part) to his “prescience” as to the consequences that would befall the Catholic Church due to the changes that were being made at the time of the Second Vatican Council.
So today, your humble blogger will attempt to explain the tragedy that befell the Bride of Christ through presenting a PARALLEL PROCESS that also befell, and is still befalling Western Civilization.
For your information, two pieces of analysis are being presented today. The first is the video embedded at the top of this page. In this video, the Deus Ex Machina’s resident philosopher, Rocking Mr. E explains in 10 minutes what the strategy of BALKANISATION entails and how it has been deployed by the global elites, in order to bring about the dawn of the ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.
Note bene: In case any new reader thinks that the above is “conspiracy theory”, please provide a better explanation. Ockham’s razor is ready and waiting…
But back to the subject at hand…
The second piece of analysis, is the post republished below and comes from Charles Hugh Smith of the OfTwoMinds blog, via the ZeroHedge website. In this piece, Charles explains how a related PROCESS (in essence a SUB-PROCESS), which he terms as “SYSTEMATIC FRAGILITY”, enters into societal systems and degrades them to the point of making the core systems and institutions themselves, unstable.
And to tie these two pieces of analysis together, and in the analogous post-conciliar church CONTEXT, what has in fact happened is through the post-conciliar “reforms”, a BALKANISATION PROCESS ensued inside the Universal Church.
The creation of the “national churches”, whether intentional or not, drove the BALKANISATION PROCESS to the point where it fragmented the Universal Church, entire nations, ethnic groups, communities and down to individual parishes, into enclaves of… wait for it…. individual identity groups.
Don’t believe me?
A good case in point can be seen here. In this post here, I am struck by the sheer irrational, illogical nature of the title.
Concluding, the Vatican II “reforms” ushered into the Catholic Church mechanisms that lead to the BALKANISATION of the Universal Church.
This BALKANISATION PROCESS has lead to the fragmentation of entire Catholic communities.
It can also be assumed that this fragmentation has alienated large sectors of the Faithful who could not define themselves as members of these individual identity groups. As an example, think about how many people would even consider formalizing an identify group under the banner: of “Swedish-German” ancestry? But I digress…
This fragmentation PROCESS has had a long term effect, in that it has resulted in what can be described as institutional “systematic fragility” – as per the Charles Hugh Smith post below, and has become apparent in the entire Institutional Church.
This “systematic fragility” can also be identified in individual Western countries and their country specific secular institutions and systems.
This wider institutional fragility has brought the entire post-conciliar church and entire Western nation states, which are in fact grounded in Catholicism or one of the break away sects, to the point of collapse.
And the current bishop of Rome and his “brain trust” appear to be hell bent on finishing what the Council Fathers, not to mention post WWII cultural Marxists and various post-Modernist charlatans started and collapsing the entire system right on top of their TRANSRATIONAL heads.
That’s the problem with fragility: everything looks fine on the surface until a crisis applies pressure. Then the whole rickety contraption collapses in a heap..
Life is inherently uncertain, but systems that were once considered certainties have increasingly become uncertain. Social Security is one example; recent polls reflect widespread doubts among Millennials and Gen-Xers that there will be any Social Security benefits left for them by the time they reach retirement age.
This doubt is fact-based; as the number of retirees swells, as Medicare costs soar ever higher and the number of full-time jobs paying into Social Security/ Medicare stagnates, these pay-as-you-go programs break down; Social Security is already paying out billions more than it collects from employers and employees.
Uncertainty is one thing, fragility is another. The socio-economic systems we rely on are also becoming increasingly fragile and prone to failure, for an entirely different set of reasons than those driving uncertainty.
Changing fundamentals drive uncertainty. The nation’s demographics and stagnant wages for the bottom 95% are extremely unfavorable for pay-as-you-go programs like Social Security and Medicare; their future is uncertain because the inputs and outputs are changing.
Fragility is a function of systems being thinned by cronyism, self-serving insiders, fraud, lack of transparency, lack of competition, monopolies, profiteering and a decline of quality. Systems that become too costly due to the above dynamics are hollowed out as everyone seeks some way to reduce the costs. Redundancies are stripped out, staff is slashed to the bone, senior managers with the most experience are pushed out to lower payroll costs, quality control is whacked, and inferior inputs are presented as equal to the higher quality inputs that they replace.
When these weakened systems are under pressure or face a crisis, they crumble. Shoddy materials fail, inexperienced managers make hasty, ill-informed decisions, the barebones staff is overwhelmed, equipment that wasn’t properly maintained to save money breaks down, and so on.
We’re assured by financial authorities and the media that our banking system is now monstrously resilient and robust, and it is impervious to financial crisis. You’re kidding, right? So when all the subprime auto loans go bust, and all the overleveraged commercial real estate loans go bust, and all the developing-world debt in U.S. dollars goes into default, and all the consumer debt issued to marginal borrowers goes bust, the hundreds of billions in losses are all going to be absorbed, no problem.
This is fragility writ large. You can bet the entire financial sector is making the same faulty, fragility-creating assumptions as a means of maximizing profits: only one auto loan in a hundred will go into default, near-zero commercial real estate loans will blow up, every dollar-denominated loan in the developing world will be paid in full, blah blah blah.
In other words, if we assume FantasyLand perfection of marginal borrowers–that once a global recession guts their opportunities to refinance and the income needed to service their loans, they will still magically make all payments in full and on time–the financial system is resilient.
Beneath the reassurances, the system is increasingly fragile because all the resilience has been stripped out of it to maximize profits in the current quarter. And as for the financial authorities–who believes the financial sector is serving the interests of the bottom 99.5%? Based on what evidence? Who believes the mainstream media is reporting the deteriorating fundamentals and the increasing fragility of our society’s core systems?
All we need is a few overlapping crises to reveal the structural fragility and lack of trust/certainty in our core systems. Profiteering, cronyism, self-serving insiders, a decline in quality, gaming the system, fraud, opacity, propaganda, and the erosion of competence all seem like good clean fun when the weather is calm and the sun in shining. But the true nature of our systemic failure will only be revealed when multiple storms arise and the system is pushed to the limit.
That’s the problem with fragility: everything looks fine on the surface until a crisis applies pressure. Then the whole rickety contraption collapses in a heap
Hope all my readers had a pleasant August. I know I did.
And even with all that has been happening this past month, I have been very good about focusing on my vacation and the vacation of the young Armaticii, and have not posted for quite a while.
But now, it’s time to get back to the chronicling work.
I have been wondering what topic I should elevate as the lead off topic post vacation and I have decided to start with the ongoing war on Western Civilization.
And as it just so happens, a familiar name for my dear loyal readers has been in the news currently. His name is Salil Mehta and he is our Deus Ex Machinaresident statistics expert and one who your humble blogger was referencing quite regularly before the November 2016 presidential election to help explain how the FAKE NEWS POLLS were being WEAPONIZED in order to create DESPONDENCY among the Trump voter base to keep them at home and give the election to Sick, Crooked, Unelectable Hillary.
What appears to be the case with Mr. Mehta, the notorious anti-civilization and leftist company Google, has “vaporized” Mr. Mehta’s presence on it’s servers, including his email account.
And what was Mr. Mehta’s transgression to merit this drastic, not to mention draconian actions on the part of Google?
Well, we don’t know.
For sure, that it.
But there is a pattern forming…
And as my long time readers know, independent yet relatedOCCURRENCES lead to PATTERNS, fromwhich PROCESSES can be identified, and from which GENERAL PRINCIPLES can be extracted. But I digress…
On another Google owned platform, the internet channel You Tube has been suppressing Free Speech in its own right. The latest suppression has been directed against two young black ladies, Diamond and Silk.
It would appear that these ladies have also committed transgressions against the post-modernist “theology of Cultural Marxism”. Specifically, the context of the videos that these two ladies have been producing has run afoul of the Google sensors.
And to finish up with the introduction, these actions come on the back of the firing of a Google employee that has been the biggest news a couple of weeks ago. That former employee is Jim Damore and his transgression was to write a document that was requested during a internal company meeting, and to base that document on OBJECTIVE REALITY, not to mention the current and latest scientific research. Here and here and here and here are those facts.
These independent, yet related OCCURRENCES have earned the company the moniker: GOOGLAG.
So what we are seeing unfolding before our very eyes and all within one corporate structure, and a very important one at that, is the WAR ON WESTERN CIVILIZATION in full swing.
And they ain’t hiding it either…
So to wrap this up, at the top of the post is another video with Stefan Molyneux and Jesse Lee Peterson. What is important to note, as apparent in this video, is that the current situation has created a dynamic among men of good will in which a purported “atheist” and a protestant “pastor” can have a conversation about the spiritual nature of evil, and both agree that that it is this spiritual battle that is the ROOT CAUSE of the current predicament.
Who would have thunk only a few short months ago…
And now, on to the Zero Hedge post (see original here) with a primer from Stefan Molyneux about another empire and predecessor of our current government and political order, namely the Roman Empire. (It’s a long one, so save it for a weekend viewing.)
Even thought this video is rather long, it should speak to us…
One Statistics Professor Was Just Banned By Google: Here Is His Story
Statistics professor Salil Mehta, adjunct professor at Columbia and Georgetown who teaches probability and data science and whose work has appeared on this website on numerous prioroccasions, was banned by Google on Friday.
What did Salil do to provoke Google? It is not entirely clear, however what is clear is that his repeated attempts at restoring his email, blog and other Google-linked accounts have so far been rejected with a blanket and uniform statement from the search giant.
Here is what happened, in Salil Mehta’s own words.
Don’t do a googol of evil
Freedom is not free unless corporations who exert a large influence in our lives believe in our well-being. I am a statistics professor and understand that there needs to be reasonable standards to control a large social network and make sure everyone is able to enjoy it freely. Invariably people disagree (we all see this), but some principles, such as simply showing probability and statistics with the sole hope of educating others, should be acceptable and in the middle of the distribution. I am for a higher standard, and a higher purpose. There is great care that I have taken to make sure that people treat one other well, admit faults, and present math and probability education to a wide audience.
On Friday afternoon East Coast Time by surprise, I was completely shut down in all my Google accounts (all of my gmail accounts, blog, all of my university pages that were on google sites, etc.) for no reason and no warning. A number of us were stunned and unsure, but clearly we know at this point it wasn’t an accident. Here are some examples commented from best-selling author Nassim Taleb, and they have been retweeted by government officials, and the NYT and WSJ journalists.
My ads-free blog itself is a probability theory site, with 27 million reads and has somewhere near 150k overall followers. It’s been read by Warren Buffett, Elon Musk, Nobel Laureates, multiple governments, celebrity athletes around the world, deans of many universities (on the syllabi of same), and a number of TV news anchors. So it’s been a great boon for Google to be noticed so kindly by essentially a charitable site promoting math education. What great people from all corners of the world and at all levels who can enjoy Google, until it suddenly died Friday afternoon.
My background is clean, and without a political or social agenda. I am not promoting any specific viewpoint. I teach probability math and that’s it. Have worked with both the Obama administration and advised on polling statistics for the Trump campaign, am an adjunct professor at three top universities, an editor of the peer-reviewed journal of the American Statistical Association, and wrote a best-selling statistics book (all the proceeds of which I gave to charity!) https://www.amazon.com/Statistics-Topics-Salil-Mehta/dp/1499273533
This doesn’t look good. Now instead of mathematics, reporters have turned to this latest circus nightmare from Google as an example of how they are compounding bad decisions on good people anywhere and at any time.
Can they not differentiate me from an evil person? Can they not see the large and reputable people and institutions that have relied on my work? Do they have better people who can coach them on how to make decisions with much better taste and finesse? What’s next, all CEOs and professors and politicians are going to be shut down from social media whenever it is least expected? Overnight hi-tech lynching squads are a thing of the past. We can’t have kangaroo courts and hope to lead with moral authority.
There is a lot of energy being spent right now thinking about how this happens to your best customers, just like that. Fear is running wild about who is next and on what other social media platforms. Have used Google for 11 years with no issue. Have driven enormous free traffic to your products and properties. But now that’s been severely damaged as the trust/reputational value has been crushed, and I have to re-emerge quickly elsewhere and deal with this fall-out. I have many students, family, coworkers, etc who typically send me e-mails each day and all of it is vanishing with a kicked-back “user doesn’t exist” error. And that’s totally unacceptable. Through my many companies have business accounts on different social media and have no issue getting a marketing line, but one needs to know who they are dealing with and not treat them this badly. The wrongs here are not being done by me.
Again, a math site. An academic site that you can see from the various header tabs of the archives (http://web.archive.org/web/20170518181653/http://statisticalideas.blogspot.com/2012/11/statistical-ideas-website.html). These are applications of formulas and shouldn’t be subject of limitations of free speech. A lot of great people like it. Hopefully Google needs to take huge step back and reexamine what went wrong and how the product could be better for others going forward, so that they and all of us grow well. People’s faith in democracy is on the line. Faith that technology companies are looking out for our good first.
I have followed their common “appeal” form but no response for three days. Also connected with one of the VPs over the weekend and it still takes time until receiving this today! Just more of a reflection of how cold a company can treat someone very poorly: without any information, and lack of ability to move forward in their life (can I get real reasons if any, can I get advance notice, can I get my contact list back from gmail, and why are university properties unrelated to my blog shut down?)
We are going to be looking back on this time in Google’s history and those of other social media and know that they have done some very immoral and confusing things, and it has hurt their public reputation with decent people who wanted to grow into the next future with them.
Here’s the skinny. Francis has been trying to strangle the Restoration by abrogating the Summorum Pontificum. He tried to do this by first “recognizing” the SSPX, giving them a Personal Prelature. This would allow him to RESTRICT the offering of the Holy Sacrifice according to the 1962 MISSALE ROMANUM to the Society chapels while eliminating it in the Universal Church.
This plan was short circuited by the former Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine for the Faith. This was why Card. Muller INSISTED that the SSPX accept in toto all the documents promulgated at Vatican II in May.
In other words, by sabotaging the “recognition” agreement, Card. Muller saved the SSPX and the Summorum Pontificum for now.
One more element that the Deus Ex Machina’s filters picked up that has not been picked up by the other bloggers or new sites is the reason for the replacement of Card. Muller with Archbishop Luis Ladaria Ferrer, a Spanish Jesuit.
And here is the last piece of the puzzle:
The reason Archbishop Ladaria was made the new Prefect of the CDF is for one reason and one reason only. That reason is this:
What this means is that Francis seems to think that the good Archbishop has a good rapport with the SSPX and is in a position to get the deal done.
This is the only reason why Francis would give such a BIG prefecture to a relative nobody, and someone from inside the CDF. Further, Archbishop Ladaria being a fellow Jesuit, it is as close as Francis could get to a “sure thing”.
At this point, the question that needs to be asked is: What’s in the box?
As for Bishop Fellay and the SSPX, in no way can they now accept any offer from Francis.
Folks, we need to pray, and pray hard that the SSPX does the right thing…
Vatican rumblings: Pope Francis aiming to end Latin Mass permission
ROME, July 26, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – Sources inside the Vatican suggest that Pope Francis aims to end Pope Benedict XVI’s universal permission for priests to say the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM), also known as the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. While the course of action would be in tune with Pope Francis’ repeatedly expressed disdain for the TLM especially among young people, there has been no open discussion of it to date.
Sources in Rome told LifeSite last week that liberal prelates inside the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith were overheard discussing a plan ascribed to the Pope to do away with Pope Benedict’s famous document that gave priests freedom to offer the ancient rite of the Mass.
Catholic traditionalists have just celebrated the tenth anniversary of the document, Summorum Pontificum. Pope Benedict XVI issued it in 2007, giving all Latin Rite priests permission to offer the TLM without seeking permission of their bishops, undoing a restriction placed on priests after the Second Vatican Council.
The motu proprio outraged liberal bishops as it stripped them of the power to forbid the TLM, as many did. Previously priests needed their bishop’s permission to offer the TLM.
Additionally, Summorum Pontificum stated that wherever a group of the faithful request the TLM, the parish priests should willingly agree to their request.
The overheard plans are nearly identical to comments from an important Italian liturgist in an interview published by France’s La Croix earlier this month. Andrea Grillo a lay professor at the Pontifical Athenaeum of St Anselmo in Rome, billed by La Croix as “close to the Pope,” is intimately familiar Summorum Pontificum. Grillo in fact published a book against Summorum Pontificum before the papal document was even released.
Grillo told La Croix that Francis is considering abolishing Summorum Pontificum. According to Grillo, once the Vatican erects the Society of Saint Pius X as a Personal Prelature, the Roman Rite will be preserved only within this structure. “But [Francis] will not do this as long as Benedict XVI is alive.”
The plan, as related to LifeSite, involved making an agreement with the Society of St. Pius X and, with that agreement in place, sequestering those Catholics wanting the TLM to the SSPX. For most, that would strip them of access to the TLM since there would not be nearly enough SSPX priests to service Catholics wanting the TLM worldwide.
Moreover, LifeSite’s source suggested that the plan may explain a May 20, 2017 letter by the recently ousted Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, Cardinal Gerhard Müller. Even though Cardinal Müller wanted the SSPX fully reconciled to help fight modernists in the Church, the May 20 letter seemed to scuttle an agreement between Pope Francis and the SSPX which would see them get a personal prelature. The letter includes provisions long known to be completely unacceptable to the SSPX, thus nullifying an understanding SSPX leader Bishop Bernard Fellay believed was imminent.
The LifeSite source suggested that the May 20 letter by Muller perhaps was written because he knows what Francis was up to and wanted to avoid the plan to bury Summorum Pontificum with Pope Benedict. “It’s directed not so much against Fellay but against the agreement,” said the source. “Pope Francis was very angry that document came out from Cardinal Muller and some say that’s why he made the decision to dismiss him.”
Over the last couple of months, several of my readers have asked me to comment on the current “recognition” situation between Francis, the bishop of Rome and the SSPX, yet I have held off.
Held off til now that is.
Recently, new information has come to light which give us a really good idea of “the FrancisPlan” going forward.
To begin, I draw your attention of a post that your humble blogger wrote in on the 1st of August 2016 titled Desperately Seeking Reconciliation. In that post, the following summary of the “reconciliation” situation, at that time, appears as follows:
Therefore, what is becoming quite clear for all observers of this situation is:
the SSPX will not budge.
Francis desperately needs a reconciliation.
The reason Francis desperately needs reconciliation is in order to gain some sort of control over the SSPX and ring-fence the NORMALIZATION PROCESS™ inside the Ecclesia Dei Commission. Hence Diocesan bishops must consult with the Vatican before establishing a diocesan religious order, Pope Francis ruled.
Francis needs to gain control over the SSPX so as to block off any escape route for the Catholics stuck in NUChurch. Hence clampdown on contemplative orders.
Francis is planning a repression of the larger Western Church and understands that it will not go as easily as with the suppression of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate. Hence Come una madre amorevole in case of rebellion.
But most importantly, Francis needs to do something IMMEDIATELY since the Restoration is spreading in the Catholic Church, especially in the wealthy Western countries.
The neo-modernist’s who support Francis are freaking out since they see that with their demise, so will end their Novus Ordo NUChurch.
This will end their IDEOLOGICAL life’s work and consign them to not only the trash-heap of history, but will earn them the hatred of future generations of the Faithful.
Therefore they are leaning on the hapless Francis.
And Francis has backed himself into a corner and has only one option left, and that is the “UNILATERAL RECOGNITION” of the SSPX.
But regardless of what Francis does, he has lost already.
Just like Our Lord promised!
Today, we have more info…
What should be apparent to any reader from the above passage, is how well it fits into the most recent information that has come out of the Team Francis and FrancisChurch.
First, it would now appear that the reason Francis, the bishop of Rome was so desperately seeking “reconciliation” is that he plans to quarantine Tradition in the future SSPX Personal Prelature, as opposed to in the Ecclesia Dei Commission.
All actions up to now have been consistent with that “ring fencing” HYPOTHESISpresented in that post. This appears to be the scenario playing itself out.
Furthermore, it now appears that Francis, the bishop of Rome knows that what he is doing, will split the Church, i.e. create a schism. In a moment of weakness, he admitted as much.
Next, the changes he intends to bring about in the church, the ones that he knows will create the schism, are such, and so radical, that the Catholics cannot accept them. It is as if he is goading them to leave… (see here and here)
It also might be the case that Francis is already responsible for one casualty.
As to the FrancisSchismAgenda going forward, today we learn that this agenda has to do with introducing “wymen priestesses” and introducing the FrancisTheology of Death into the Francis”magisterium”.
First, the wymen priestesses will be done through the new committee to study the issue. Schism through feminism will also be OPTICALLY pleasing to the FakeNewsMedia. His last bastion of support…
The FrancisTheology of Death is being introduced by “Monsignor” Paglia at the Pontifical Academy for LifeDeath. We got a clue as to the intent accidentally through the situation with the infant Charlie Gard (#CharlieGard). For those unaware, little Charlie, who suffers a genetic defect that threatens his life, was sentenced to death by the European courts. In defense of the death sentence, “Monsegior” Paglia threw in his weight. (see here) After a clumsy attempt to walk back the support for the death sentence by Francis, the Pontifical Academy of Death is back to its initial position. (see here)
Aside, where is Helen Prejean when you need her?
And finally, the last piece of the puzzle to understanding the FrancisPlan is to understand the recent developments within the “Sovereign” Order of Malta. It would appear that Francis, the bishop of Rome intends totransform the Catholic Church into a secular NGO.
We now have a confirmation of just this that we can easily derive from the last meeting of the new “Sovereign” Order of Malta. Notice that all the leadership showed up in mufti. Here is that photo.
What is of importance to understand is that this is most likely a massive SIGNALING EFFECT to the international aid agencies and their donors that the NewVatican is open for business.
As to the source of the donatio…?
In the new FrancisVatican, there is no need bother about the origin and/or end use of those funds…
“Monsignor” Paglia will take care of that… (see here)
Quickly summarizing what is most likely the lay of the land on this 11th day of July Anno Domini 2017, is that we have Francis, the bishop of Rome trying to engineer a schism in the Catholic Church.
Actually, he is trying to formalize the already existing schism.
He is creating a situation within the post-conciliar church that no Faithful Catholic or cleric can accept.
This is intended to drive the Catholics out of the post-conciliar church, thereby leaving all the physical assets and cash for the FrancisChurch and at the FrancisChurch’s disposal.
As for the future funding needs, FrancisChurch will now rely on donations from international foundations and the Non Governmental Organizations. Lot of money to be had, and you don’t have to bother with the pesky “Catholic fanatics”.
And finally, this is how Jorge Bergoglio, the bishop of Rome intends on having his changes make “a deep impact”. Just like his ghostwriter, one Victor “heel me with you lips” Fernandez explained a couple of years ago. (see here)
I will leave you off with this pertinent passage: (see full interview here)
No doubt, and in a deep and clear way, especially at the beginning. And yet, more recently, there’s a certain anxiety. Thing is proceeding more slowly. The reform of the curia seems to be stalled.
“The pope goes slow because he wants to be sure that the changes have a deep impact. The slow pace is necessary to ensure the effectiveness of the changes. He knows there are those hoping that the next pope will be turn everything back around. If you go slowly it’s more difficult to turn things back. He makes this clear when he says ‘time is greater than space.’”
Today your humble blogger will stay on the “definition” theme. As a quick refresher, in the last couple of post, we have been introduced to such terms as “platforming”, “normalization”, “tone policing” and “privileged rage”.
Today we add two more. One comes by way of Ann Barnhardt’s excellent blog. The term is “Ghira”. Ghira is defined as: Rage In the Face of Logic. Please venture over to Ann’s website and get the load down on this quite prescient observation. Last word, it is a very post-Modernist thing.
Our term for today is “Red Pilling”. Red Pilling is a situation where a person, upon coming into contact with an objective truth that resonates with that person (pscyche), is so overpowered by the objective truth, that it forces that person to substantively change their approach to the decisions that that person subsequently makes.
‘Red pill’ has become a popular phrase among cyberculture and signifies a free-thinking attitude, and a waking up from a “normal” life of sloth and ignorance. Red pills prefer the truth, no matter how gritty and painful it may be.
Before we go on, one word about the “red pilling” PROCESS itself. This PROCESS is an “individualistic” PROCESS. Actually, it is very similar to what we call conversion in the Catholic Church. One can say that “red pilling” can be seen as either a first step toward conversion or maybe a “transitional” PROCESS along the individual’s very own “road to Damascus”.
Now this doesn’t mean that the “red pilled” individual will actually travel the entire road, but it is a first step and a rather large one at that. I would also go as far as to say that this is the end point of the second source of the Catholic Faith, i.e. that is known through “natural light of human reason from the things that are made”.
Everything past this point requires the intervention of a really good priest.
So that’s the theory.
Now to reinforce the above HYPOTHESIS about what constitutes a “red pilling” EFFECT, I bring you one link and three video.
Last weekend, I traveled home to Milwaukee for a wedding. I attended Mass at St. Stanislaus, which I am sure you have visited.[Indeed I have.]In a way, I felt like I was attending Mass itself for the first time ever. This was my first Latin Mass outside of my new small Latin Mass parish.
Again, I don’t understand the Latin Mass. But I feel dedicated and energized by my experience to understand it the way so many in my generation understand it.
If we want to fix the world, we have to [with reliance on the grace of God] fix ourselves. I have known for a long time that this is something I needed to do. And I am going to figure it out.
So what we can observe in the above passage is that an individual, upon coming into contact with an objective Truth that resonated with his psyche, is forced to substantively change his approach to the decisions that this person subsequently makes, i.e. attend the proper Catholic Mass in this case.
What we see in the above example can be considered a “supernatural” red pilling EVENT.
And now for an example of a “natural” red pilling EVENT. On the You Tube channel, I found a new “personality” who is producing video about her own individual “conversion”. Now this conversion is strictly limited to the that part of our Faith that is known through “natural light of human reason from the things that are made”.
The individual goes by the name of Robyn (hope I spell it correct) and her channel is called CRITICAL CONDITION. The background of this limited conversion is that this young lady, upon moving to Ireland, was unhappy because the types of people she was meeting were of what we call the TRANSRATIONAL variety. In other words, they were what is commonly called Social Justice Warriors or leftists. So Robyn adopted their “belief system”, but deep down inside, she was not happy about it.
Robyn was in this unhappy state for the better part of four years. What changed her life, i.e. the red pilling EVENT, was due to coming across a video produced by Dr. Jordan Peterson.
I will stop with the story here and will embed three of Robyn’s videos. They are approximately 18:00 long and worth the watch. I will start with her first video, where she explains here conversion. I will include the follow-up video of the relief she had that the first video really resonated with others on You Tube. And the third video is her application of one of Dr. Peterson’s metaphor in her own relationship with her father.
NB: What I have come to understand is that the “Rescuing the Father” metaphor can be viewed as a sort of half way house into the full Catholic Faith. The “Rescuing the Father” metaphor comes from the literary work Pinocchio. The father figure, as explained by Jordan Peterson, appears to be nothing more than the First Person of the Most Holy Trinity, and it is not the individual who saves the father, but rather it is the individual who becomes “re-aquainted” with the Father. But more on that in a follow-up post.
So for your viewing pleasure, I bring you Robyn of the CRITICAL CONDITION You Tube Channel:
TheCONVERSION
2. Post CONVERSION
3. Application of rational thought
Concluding, what I think is important to understand, and is quite evident in the above three videos, is the state of mind of your typical individual from the age demographic commonly referred to as MILLENNIALS. We can observe that these children have been completely destroyed by the educational establishment. Furthermore, as in the case of Robyn, she came from a broken home, which only exacerbated her fragile emotional condition.
However, what is also apparent from the above videos is that, that part of our Faith that comes from that which is known through “natural light of human reason from the things that are made” is so powerful, that it can breach any ideological filters or blockades that the eduction establishment has been able to put up over the span of that child’s formative years.
What is also striking about these videos is that an intellectually honest person, when coming into contact with basically one video (Dr. Jordan Peterson) and being introduced to a number of definitions (how Thomist?) contained in that video, was able to reason out a quite rational understanding of OBJECTIVE REALITY and their predicament in that REALITY.
Now this above conclusion by no means implies, that this is the end of the road for Robyn. She has found some good advice that will put some MEANING back into her life. To be more precise, the Peterson advice will provide her with a better, more natural, rational and individualistic definition of MEANING than that which she had before. If she had any at all, that is to say.
But she still needs the help of a good priest to fill in the rest of the missing blanks in order to give her life true MEANING, not to mention set her on the road to working out her “salvation in fear and trembling”.
But this is a personal decision, and as we know from the Catholic Canon, Our Lord came to save pro multis…
So the takeaway from the above is that “red pilling” could just describe the first step toward salvation…
Today we stay with our parallel theme, what one may call:understanding the operational aspects of post-Modernism.
The reason I am interrupting the main theme, i.e. the interdisciplinary attempt to form an understanding of where the post-conciliar church went wrong and to define a “cure” that would allow it to return to its mission, as defined by its Founder, namely: the salvation of souls, is that the parallel theme provides invaluable insights into the manner in which the post-Modernists are attempting to overthrow the existing societal order, be it in the POLITICAL or the ECCLESIASTICAL sub-set of the Visibilium Omnium, et Invisibilium, an order that took anywhere from 4000 (if we date it back to Mosaic Law) to 2500 (if we date it back to the Greek Academy) years to put in place.
Given the above, and if you recall dear reader, in the recent post we learned about such contemporary concepts (strategies) as “platforming”, “normalizing” and the “normalization” NARRATIVES.
Today, we add “tone policing” and “privileged rage” to our post-Modernist lexicon. I will not go into detail in this post, since the below republication does an excellent job of explaining these concepts. But one thing I will note is that some anger is “privileged” while other anger is not. Excuse the small digression…
What I will mention though is that there are a lot of people catching on. Not only are they catching on, they understand the danger in allowing this TRANSRATIONAL behaviour to become rooted in our legal and societal… let’s call them “conventions”.
Furthermore, they are beginning to organize the resistance to this post-Modernist ideology.
Today I post two videos, for your weekend viewing pleasure. The first is from Stefan Molyneux titled: The Ugly Truth About Relativism. Aside, doesn’t that title just give you dear reader a warm and fuzzy feeling inside? It does me… But I digress…
What I find interesting in this video is that Stefan takes one more observable step towards Catholicism, or what we call on this blog: the CONVERGENCE PROCESS.
The second video comes by way of Dr. Jordan Peterson. This is a two-hour video but definitely worth the watch. In this video, Dr. Peterson also takes some large steps toward Catholicism. In this video, he inadvertently crushes Francis, the bishop of Rome and the entire FrancisMercy and Bergoglian Theology of Hate cult. One such face smash comes when Dr. Peterson talks about borders. Both material borders, like walls, and immaterial borders, like the Law. In this monologue, Peterson succinctly explains why Francis and the rest of the Death cult (without naming them) are nothing more than your typical run-of-the-mill Nihilists.
But what is the most interesting aspect of this video is that Dr. Peterson provides guidance for a strategy to combat the above mentioned death cult. And the strategy is so clear and reasonable that it should easily register with the average citizen, those who will subsequently go into a voting booth and have to make an educated decision. After watching even one video like this, that decision should be much easier to make and should be of a much better quality.
On the ECCLESIASTICAL side, watching this video should allow the pew sitter to make a much better decision at the time when the collection plate is being passed around. Like these folks here.
And since we have touched on ECCLESIASTICAL matters and “privileged anger”, one more thing needs to be mentioned here and that is this: Francis’ anger is “privileged”...
So without any further comment, I bring you… (see original post here)
If you want to know who has privilege in a society and who doesn’t, follow the anger…
There are people in this country who can safely express their anger. And those who can’t. If you’re angry that Trump won, your anger is socially acceptable. If you were angry that Obama won, it wasn’t.
James Hodgkinson’s rage was socially acceptable. It continued to be socially acceptable until he crossed the line into murder. And he’s not alone. There’s Micah Xavier Johnson, the Black Lives Matter cop-killer in Dallas, and Gavin Long, the Black Lives Matter cop-killer in Baton Rouge. If you’re black and angry about the police, your anger is celebrated. If you’re white and angry about the Terror travel ban, the Paris Climate treaty, ObamaCare repeal or any leftist cause, you’re on the side of the angry angels. But if you’re white and angry that your job is going to China or that you just missed being killed in a Muslim suicide bombing, your anger is unacceptable.
If you’re an angry leftist, your party leader, Tom Perez will scream and curse into a microphone, and your aspiring presidential candidate, Kirsten Gillibrand, will curse along, to channel the anger of the base. But if you’re an angry conservative, then Trump channeling your anger is “dangerous” because you aren’t allowed to be angry.
Not all anger is created equal. Some anger is privileged rage.
Good anger gets you a gig as a CNN commentator. Bad anger gets you hounded out of your job. Good anger isn’t described as anger at all. Instead it’s linguistically whitewashed as “passionate” or “courageous”. Bad anger however is “worrying” or “dangerous”. Angry left-wing protesters “call out”, angry right-wing protesters “threaten”. Good anger is left-wing. Bad anger is right-wing.
Socially acceptable displays of anger, from Occupy Wall Street to Black Lives Matter riots to the anti-Trump marches to the furious campus protests, are invariably left-wing.
Left-wing anger over the elections of Bush and Trump was sanctified. Right-wing outrage over Obama’s victory was demonized. Now that left-wing anger led a Bernie Sanders volunteer to open fire at a Republican charity baseball practice outing. And the media reluctantly concedes that maybe both sides should moderate their rhetoric. Before listing examples that lean to the right like “Lock her up”.
Not all anger is created equal. Anger, like everything else, is ideologically coded
Why were chants of “Lock her up” immoderate, but not Bush era cries of “Jail to the chief”?
Why were Tea Party rallies “ominous” but the latest We Hate Trump march is “courageous”?
Why is killing Trump on stage the hottest thing to hit Shakespeare while a rodeo clown who wore an Obama mask was hounded by everyone from the Lieutenant Governor of Missouri to the NAACP?
Not all anger is created equal. Anger, like everything else, is ideologically coded. Left-wing anger is good because its ideological foundations are good. Right-wing anger is bad because its ideology is bad.
It’s not the level of anger, its intensity or its threatening nature that makes it good or bad.
And that is why the left so easily slips into violence. All its ideological ends are good. Therefore its means, from mass starvation to gulags to riots and tyranny, must be good. If I slash your tires because of your Obama bumper sticker, I’m a monster. But if you key my car because of my Trump bumper sticker, you’re fighting racism and fascism. Your tactics might be in error, but your viewpoint isn’t.
There are no universal standards of behavior. Civility, like everything else, is ideologically limited.
Tone policing is how the anger of privileged leftists is protected while the frustration of their victims is suppressed
Intersectionality frowns on expecting civil behavior from “oppressed” protesters. Asking that shrieking campus crybully not to scream threats in your face is “tone policing”. An African-American millionaire’s child at Yale is fighting for her “existence”, unlike the Pennsylvania coal miner, the Baltimore police officer and the Christian florist whose existences really are threatened.
Tone policing is how the anger of privileged leftists is protected while the frustration of their victims is suppressed. The existence of tone policing as a specific term to protect displays of left-wing anger shows the collapse of civility into anger privilege. Civility has been replaced by a political entitlement to anger.
The left prides itself on an unearned moral superiority (“When they go low, we go high”) reinforced by its own echo chamber even as it has become incapable of controlling its angry outbursts. The national tantrum after Trump’s victory has all but shut down the government, turned every media outlet into a non-stop feed of conspiracy theories and set off protests that quickly escalated into street violence.
But Trump Derangement Syndrome is a symptom of a problem with the left that existed before he was born. The left is an angry movement. It is animated by an outraged self-righteousness whose moral superiority doubles as dehumanization. And its machinery of culture glamorizes its anger. The media dresses up the seething rage so that the left never has to look at its inner Hodgkinson in the mirror.
The angry left has gained a great deal of power
The left is as angry as ever. Campus riots and assassinations of Republican politicians are nothing new. What is changing is that its opponents are beginning to match its anger. The left still clings to the same anger it had when it was a theoretical movement with plans, but little impact on the country. The outrage at the left is no longer ideological. There are millions of people whose health care was destroyed by ObamaCare, whose First Amendment rights were taken away, whose land was seized, whose children were turned against them and whose livelihoods were destroyed.
The angry left has gained a great deal of power. It has used that power to wreck lives. It is feverishly plotting to deprive nearly 63 million Americans of their vote by using its entrenched power in the government, the media and the non-profit sector. And it is too blinded by its own anger over the results of the election to realize the anger over its wholesale abuses of power and privileged tantrums.
But monopolies on anger only work in totalitarian states. In a free society, both sides are expected to control their anger and find terms on which to debate and settle issues. The left rejects civility and refuses to control its anger. The only settlement it will accept is absolute power. If an election doesn’t go its way, it will overturn the results. If someone offends it, he must be punished. Or there will be anger.
The angry left demands that everyone recognize the absolute righteousness of its anger as the basis for its power. This anger privilege, like tone policing, is often cast in terms of oppressed groups. But its anger isn’t in defiance of oppression, but in pursuit of oppression.
Anger privilege is used to silence opposition, to enforce illegal policies and to seize power. But the left’s monopolies on anger are cultural, not political. The entertainment industry and the media can enforce anger privilege norms through public shaming, but their smears can’t stop the consequences of the collapse of civility in public life. There are no monopolies on emotion.
James Hodgkinson absorbed all this. The left fed his anger. And eventually he snapped
When anger becomes the basis for political power, then it won’t stop with Howard Dean or Bernie Sanders. That’s what the left found out in the last election. Its phony pearl clutching was a reaction to the consequences of its destruction of civility. Its reaction to that show of anger by conservatives and independents was to escalate the conflict. Instead of being the opposition, the left became the “resistance”. Trump was simultaneously Hitler and a traitor. Republicans were evil beasts.
James Hodgkinson absorbed all this. The left fed his anger. And eventually he snapped.
Anger has to go somewhere.
The left likes to think that its anger is good anger because it’s angry over the plight of illegal aliens, Muslim terrorists, transgender bathrooms, the lack of abortion in South Carolina, the minimum wage at Taco Bell, budget cuts, tax cuts, police arrests, drone strikes and all the other ways in which reality differs from its utopia. But all that anger isn’t the road to a better world, but to hate and violence.
Millions of leftists, just like Hodgkinson, are told every day that Republicans are responsible for everything wrong with their lives, the country and the planet. Despite everything they do, all the petitions they sign, the marches they attend, the donations, the angry letters, the social media rants, Republicans continue to exist and even be elected to public office. Where does that anger go?
Leftist anger is a privileged bubble of entitlement that bursts every other election
Either we have a political system based on existing laws and norms of civility. Or we have one based on coups and populist leftist anger. And there are already a whole bunch of those south of the border.
Leftist anger is a privileged bubble of entitlement that bursts every other election. Its choice is to try to understand the rest of the country or to intimidate, censor, oppress and eventually kill them.
James Hodgkinson took the latter course. His personal leftist revolution ended, as all leftist revolutions do, in blood and violence. The left can check its anger privilege and examine its entitlement.
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 intelligencesystems, 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!
Given that we have been hitting the philosophical aspects of His creation’s existence quite hard lately, today we will turn to the practical. In the video above, you will observe a self proclaimed “nominal atheist” giving one of his best “homiletics” to date, one of a supernatural character at that, about the necessity to fight EVIL.
Yes, Stefan Molyneux has hit another one out of the ball park.
One reason why I bring this video to your attention, is to make amends for an older Molyneux video that I linked to in the previous post, one in which Stefan derided some dogmatic aspects of Catholicism. Now, as I noted in a comment to that post, this earlier video that I posted was made in mid 2015. If we look at and compare the Stefan of 2015 and the Stefan of literally yesterday, we see a CONVERGENCE PROCESS taking place.
The second reason I am brining this to your attention is to begin the discussion about RESOURCES.
Why RESOURCES you might ask?
Well, because of something that God told us when he cast out our original parents from the Garden of Eden. Here is what He said: (Genesis 3: 17-19)
“And to Adam he said, Thou hast listened to thy wife’s counsel, and hast eaten the fruit I forbade thee to eat; and now, through thy act, the ground is under a curse. All the days of thy life thou shalt win food from it with toil;
thorns and thistles it shall yield thee, this ground from which thou dost win thy food.
Still thou shalt earn thy bread with the sweat of thy brow, until thou goest back into the ground from which thou wast taken; dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.”
Now to translate this into contemporary terms, what God told Adam was that he and his descendents would have to continuously acquire their RESOURCES through hard work.
Or as Milton Freidman would say: there is no such thing as a free lunch.
Which brings us to our practical advice on how to fight EVIL.
One sure way to fight EVIL is to deprive EVIL of their RESOURCES.
Going one step further, the manner in which one can deprive EVIL of their RESOURCES is to STOP patronizing those businesses that promulgate EVIL, whether intentionally or not.
To this end, you humble blogger has created a new page titled “They Hate Us!” On this page, a list of businesses will be named (and shamed) that are promulgating EVIL. EVIL is defined as per Catechism of the Catholic Church. Therefore, if one patronizes these businesses, one is effectively promulgating EVIL.
And just to demonstrate that we will not be the only ones who have adopted this strategy of FIGHTING EVIL, I re-publish a Zero Hedge post that has some interesting information. (see here)
It would appear that approximately 25% of adults already boycott selective brands.
And finally, a few words about hatred.
Over at the Catechism of the Catholic Church, we can read the following:
1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).
The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts – such as fornication – that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.
1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.
And Canon 1756 is subject to Canon 1789 which reads as follows:
– One may never do evil so that good may result from it;
– the Golden Rule: “Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them.”56
– charity always proceeds by way of respect for one’s neighbor and his conscience: “Thus sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience . . . you sin against Christ.”57Therefore “it is right not to . . . do anything that makes your brother stumble.”58
And Canon 1789 is the best answer against sophist arguments about “an adolescent spirituality” as promoted by certain FrancisCardinals, and is being allowed by the bishop of Rome himself.
And pointing out these inconvenient inconsistencies is why they literally hate us.
25% Of Americans Admit Partisan Politics Drove Them To Boycott Brands
Amid the increasingly divided electorate, it appears the most important part of America – the consumer – is now caught up in the political partisanship like never before.
Think there’s more hoopla about brand boycotts than actual boycotting? Maybe not. As Adage.com reports, a new Ipsos survey found that 25% of Americans said they had stopped using a brand’s goods or services in the previous three months because of protests, boycotts or the brand’s perceived political leanings.
A quarter of the U.S. population amounts to around 80 million people according to US Census data.
“That’s a lot of people that are saying politics are driving their purchasing behavior,” said Chris Jackson, VP and strategic communication research lead at Ipsos Public Affairs.
“Socially conscientious consumerism has been on the rise for years,” said Ronn Torossian, CEO of 5W Public Relations.
“Given the combination of that trend and the current politically charged climate, it’s not surprising to see that such a significant number of Americans have changed their shopping habits due to politics.”
The big takeaway according to Ipsos: Marketers can’t always avoid the political fray any more, and are well-advised to at least know their consumers’ political leanings.
“It’s really important to understand are your customers liberal or conservative, or do they cross the line or are they both,” Jackson said.
Daniel O’Connell, managing director and Brand Definition, a agency that works primarily with tech clients including Hitachi and Philips, was not convinced, arguing that brands shouldn’t worry about political biases of consumers and should refrain from getting caught up in politics.
“Swaying one way versus another to mollify or pander maybe to one part of the group — that makes no sense whatsoever,” he said.
“As a brand, you’ve got to stand for something yourselves and it’s got to be your values.”
As in Solzhenitsyn’s 
