Blessed Are The Peacemakers, For They Shall Be Called… The Bishop of Rome…


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

Today we take a break from our post-Modernist theme and our Nietzschean/Marxist analytical framework to address a situation that surfaced yesterday on account of an article based on an interview given by Cardinal Gerhard Muller. As you know, Cardinal Muller gave an interview in which he had some very interesting things to say. Today we will delve into his statements since your humble blogger sees them as being of very significant importance. (see here)

So today we begin by taking a closer look at the text of the Cardinal Muller interview, as it appeared on Rorate Caeli website and provide some background information about Cardinal Muller and the SIGNAL that he has sent out into the Catholic Universal Church.

And as has been noted earlier and often, CONTEXT is key, so let’s try and put a proper (most likely) FRAMING in place so that we can better “judge” the SIGNALS that Cardinal Muller was (most likely) emanating through the interview.

First, the KNOWN KNOWNS.

Cardinal Muller is by no means your typical Catholic Cardinal, nor is he even your typical German Cardinal. It would be a fair to say that Cardinal Muller isn’t intelligent enough to be known for his intellectual prowess, like a Cardinal Ratzinger. Yet Card. Muller is intelligent enough not to need to conform to any given “views” or even “zeitgeist” that may be reigning at any given time behind the Sacred Vatican Walls. Case in point, he is intelligent enough, not to mention confident enough, to rebuke a German Cardinal, one senior to himself and a Friend of Francis, such as a Cardinal Kasper or a Cardinal Schönborn without the slightest hesitation. He can even go as far as to label them as “flatters”. (see here)

On the one hand, Cardinal Muller has made a name for himself by going ROGUE. (see here) Cardinal Muller is so confident that he can be a friend of heretics and dissenters at one time (see here) while on the other hand, being a friend of Tradition at other times. (see here)

So what it appears that Cardinal Muller is attempting to do, is to cover all this bases, while simultaneously threading the needle so to speak.

What Cardinal Muller sees as his “target audience” is the supposed vast JPII “The Great” part of the Catholic Church, and especially those Cardinals who will be voting at the next conclave who have a sentimental view of the JPII years. These will be Cardinals who just what peace and quite after the upheaval of the Francis bishopric of Rome.

This part of the electors will constitute the largest sub-set at the next conclave and Card. Muller is angling for their vote. One such example of this sort of “masterful” attempt at just this, was writing an “orthodox” introduction to  the JPII apologist turned Francis “Joy of Sex” proponent Rocco Buttiglione’s materially heretical book. (see here)

But just in case Tradition reasserts itself by the time of the next conclave, which it is doing quite dramatically at present, Cardinal Muller is also making friendly with this part of the electoral base. To understand this, we first need to understand that Cardinal Muller used to be the direct superior of Archbishop Pozzo, the head of the Ecclesia Dei Commission.

Now Archbishop Pozzo during Card. Muller’s tenure at the CDF, became known for making “heretical – against the spirit of the new springtime” statement about Vatican II documents needing to be read in light of Tradition. He also made claims that the VII documents were not magisterial in their entirety. And Cardinal Muller did nothing to correct Archbishop Pozzo. (see here)

Now everyone knows that Cardinal Muller is competent, and he surrounds himself with competent people. He is even known to “go to bat” for competent people, (see here) so with respect to Archbishop Pozzo and his statements, competence was not an issue. And it was tolerated by Cardinal Muller, hence it can be interpreted as a “softening” of his position toward Tradition, i.e. Catholicism.

What is even more relevant to this “softening” of Cardinal Muller’s position with respect to Tradition and specifically toward the SSPX is the following anecdote relayed by Bishop Fellay, the Superior General of the SSPX of a conversation he had with the good Cardinal. We transcribed this passage in our post titled The Satanic Council and it reads as follows:

The Congregation for the Faith has to deal with these problems and they give the impression to put aside our problem. When in fact, already three years ago, Cardinal Muller told us in a meeting ‘ Your are occupying the Congregation of the Faith, you are obliging us to dedicate (?) to you such precious time while there are enormous problems in the Church’ So he was very unhappy to be dealing with us while there were enormous problems in the Church. 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. And here you have to understand something, which is very, very interesting. The excesses of the present pope have caused a startled reaction. It’s open now. It’s no longer hidden, or let’s say for people like were hiding themselves, no you have cardinals, you have bishops who have openly contradicted these new tendency, this new tendency of hitting the morals and even the doctrine. 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, til just a few years ago we were the only ones to state publicly these (to be) wrong. Now as they say, we have lost the monopoly of these attacks.


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…                       

What the above passage demonstrates is that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith during the tenure of the competent Prefect Muller was a hot bed of Traditionalist activism.

And even if we assume it was Cardinal Muller who was the lone voice insisting that the SSPX “accept the whole council”, this was most likely a tactical position rather than an ideological or “theological” position on the part of Cardinal Muller. This would be in keeping with Cardinal Muller’s history of being a “friend” to all sides. He maintained the “majority” position, while allowing the rest of his subordinates to argue for the “minority” position.

Given this information above, one can now see in a better, more accurate light the last act of defiance of Cardinal Muller’s as the Prefect of the CDF. That last act of defiance was to issue a statement that the SSPX still must “accept the whole council”. This statement was made during the height of the Francis “siren call” to the SSPX to “reconcile” first and clarify doctrinal questions later. (see this great summary of the details here)

In retrospect, this move on the part of the good Cardinal effectively, and one can say with German precision, short-circuited any reconciliation agreement that might have been on the table and saved the SSPX from a fate worse than death. (see here) As we know now, this Francis swan song, along with other hastily promulgated Moto Proprios were designed to create a “Traditionalist ghetto” (see here) where Catholicism could have been isolated and eventually extinguished. (see here)

So when history will be written, it could be argued with a high degree of confidence that Card. Muller was the person instrumental for saving the SSPX and the Restoration of Tradition in the wider Catholic Church.

With respect to the current subject matter though, it would not be a stretch to think that a pre-conclave NARRATIVE could arise wherein Cardinal Muller could be framed as the savior of the Traditional Latin Mass and protector of Tradition in the wider church due to his “strategic initiatives”. He can easily let it be known that if he were pope for example, he could easily unleash the dogs of Tradition that are presently being pent up in the CDF and unleash the Restoration in the entire Universal Church.

But if those dissenting priest still want to give the “breakfast wafer” to the serial adulterers and the intrinsically disordered and don’t want to adore the “Cupichian cookie”, well there’s the Buttiglione book, you know. But I digress…

Concluding, when looking at the totality of Cardinal Muller’s career, it is quite evident that the good Cardinal want’s to be pope.

This latest interview, when looking at it critically through this framework, can be seen as an attempt to promote just that. In that article, he in effect can be seen as trying to “eliminate his competition”. By using a straw man of “traditionalist groups” and the TeamFrancis dissidents as “progressivists”, the good Cardinal has framed his position squarely outside of these two “extremist” groups.

Further, he has harshly criticized equally these two groups. The charge against the Traditionalists, aka Catholics is that they are “disloyal” and their actions could cause a schism. A schism which Francis is knowingly actively pursuing. Therefore by extension, he has undermined such competitors as Cardinals Sarah and Burke.

Against the dissidents, the charge is that they are “unmerciful” and “flatters”. Here he has in mind Cardinals Tagle, Schonborn, and the poll position sitter, our DavosPope, Cardinal Parolin.

What is also interesting is that the harshest criticism was leveled at Francis though. Even if the Traditionalists are “disloyal”, them the height of disloyalty is the example of Luther, according to the Cardinal. And who is the largest promoter of the rehabilitation of Luther in the post-conciliar church? Well this doesn’t really need to be addressed, let alone answered, since it’s the 800 pound gorilla in the Domus Sanctae Marthae.

What even more interesting is that with the criticism of the Traditionalists, Card. Muller placates this charge by observing that even though their actions might be questionable, their position is a correct one. Their concerns need to be addressed by the Church authorities, but especially by the successor of Peter.

As for the dissenters, there are no extenuating circumstances for their actions given. These folks are cast as unmerciful toward the Catholics, i.e. ignoring them, or worse, humiliating them”The motivation behind the actions of the dissenters is given as: an equally exaggerated progressive front which today seeks to credit themselves as super-papists”

Furthermore, in the above assessment by Card. Muller, these dissenters are as “equally exaggerated” as the “bloggers”. And the “bloggers” according to TeamFrancis and Francis himself, are presently being presented as the bane of the Catholic world, and the cause of all the problems that poor Francis is having in his steering of the post-conciliar Barque toward the newly rehabilitated Theihardian omega point.

And finally, if all this criticism of the extremes was not enough to sway the future electors, Card. Muller provides his Curriculum Vitae, written as with a particular focus on his history of as a “peace-maker” and reconciler of opposing, even “extreme” positions. Further, the good Cardinal stresses his intellectual credentials (16 years as professor of theology) as well as his pastoral acumen (40 years as priest). He further nods to Tradition by citing a 16th century theologian, while demonstrating his modern, contemporary “sociological” prowess by suggesting that prattlers” are in need of a “shrink”.  As to his humble person, he returns to his theme of “theological structurer” and sees his role as being a Cardinal “who help(s) him (Francis) with the truth and theological, human competence”. 

Notice that word? (COMPETENCE)

All in all, it would appear that Cardinal Muller has thrown his hat into the ring at the upcoming conclave. What is apparent is that Cardinal Muller is a very ambitious man. He is exactly the sort of “careerist bishop” and “climber” as was the former Cardinal Bergoglio, except that he is much, much more intelligent.

He is a threat to the Bergoglian “bishorpric of Rome” line of succession, which is why Francis removed him from the CDF. He also appears to be an immediate threat to Francis, which explains why Francis is baiting him with the “Some have told me anonymously that you are my enemy’” lines. Here Cardinal Muller relays this heart-wrenching story to most likely highlight this “victim-hood” status, which Francis handed the good Cardinal on a silver platter.

What ultimately motivates Card. Muller is ambition. Card. Muller wants to be pope. So he is laying out a path that would put him in a position whereby if the “god of surprises”, i.e. fate would present an opportunity at the next conclave, he would be ready to grab her by the skirt as she walks by, as the old German expression goes.

And at the next conclave, Cardinal Muller is positioning himself under a campaign theme that can best be described as follows:

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called… the bishop of Rome...




Analysis: What’s Wrong With This Framing?


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

What a guy?

Below is an excerpt from an interview that Cardinal Muller gave just recently. The excerpt below is from the Rorate Caeli website.

Now I am not one who would be questioning a Cardinals truthfulness, but something seems very odd with the Cardinal’s FRAMING. (Please keep in mind, to a post-Modernist, CONTEXT is everything.)

I will leave this posted up through the night, and will have some more thoughts about this tomorrow.

But one thing that I will say today is this: this is significant.

Question to consider: who is Cardinal Muller’s target audience?

Cardinal Müller: They want me to head a group against the Pope. But I’m staying with the Pope. However those who are complaining should be heard.

Excerpts from an interview conducted by Massimo Franco of Corriere della Sera:

Chiesa e Post Concilio
November 25, 2017

“There  is a front of traditionalist groups, just as there is with the progressivists, that would like to see me as head of a movement against the Pope. But I will never do this. I have served the Church with love for 40 years as a priest, 16 years as a university professor of dogmatic theology and 10 years as a diocesan bishop. I believe in the unity of the Church and I will not allow anyone to exploit my negative experiences of recent months.  Church authorities, on the other hand, need to listen to those who have serious questions or justified complaints; not ignoring them, or worse, humiliating them. Otherwise, unwittingly, the risk of a slow separation that might lead to a schism may increase, from a disorientated and disillusioned part of the Catholic world.  The history of Martin Luther’s  Protestant Schism of 500 years ago, should teach us, above all, what errors to avoid.”

“The Pope confided to me: ‘Some have told me anonymously that you are my enemy’ without explaining in what way” he recounts unhappily. “ After 40 years at the service of the Church, I had to hear this: an absurdity set up by prattlers who instead of instilling worry in the Pope they would do better visiting a “shrink”.  A Catholic bishop and cardinal of the Holy Roman Church is by nature with the Holy Father. But, I believe, as Melchoir Cano, the 16th century theologian said, that the true friends are not those who flatter the Pope, but those who help him with the truth and theological, human competence.” In all the organizations of the world, delatores of this type serve only themselves.” 

“The tensions in the Church arise from the contrast between an extremist traditionalist front on some websites, and an equally exaggerated progressive front which today seeks to credit themselves as super-papists”.


Translation: Contributor Francesca Romana     

The End Of The Age Of Benevolence


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


Today a republication of a Zero Hedge post.

It captures what your humble blogger is OBSERVING in very disperse sub-sets of the Visibilium Omnium, et Invisibilium and brings it down to the level of the individual.

I would also like all my readers to go the THIS LINK HERE. It is a reddit thread titled:


Notice the relationship between “sorting one self out” and returning to Christianity?

It’s something I have been noticing quite a bit lately.

I have also mentioned this in a recent post here.

Very interesting, yes?

I will have more to say about this in a follow up post.

But for now, the Zero Hedge post…

The End Of The Age Of Benevolence

Authored by Francis Marion of, via Jim Quinn’s Burning Platform blog,

The history of democracy, Marxism and feminism is the history of the snake, which, being hungry for more, stalks its own tail and consumes itself.

Some evenings I sit on the sofa in the family room with my teenage daughter and watch a TV program with her. I leave the choice of the show to her, it matters little to me, and when she finds something she likes she sits next to me, puts her head on my shoulder, and snuggles up for the hour it takes to watch whatever it is she’s chosen.

It’s our time.

Occasionally we’ll sneak in another twenty or thirty minutes to the objection of her mother but I like my time with her so I put up with the raised eyebrows and the, “She’s got school tomorrow,” scoldings. It’s important to me that she knows I love her, that I want to spend time with her and that she feels safe when she is with me. Someday, when she is a grown woman I want her to find a man that will take care of her and protect her like I do. I expect no less from a suitor and neither should she.

There will be women who read this who will object to my stance. They will say, “She doesn’t need a man to feel safe or validated or content,” but I would disagree. When she gets older she’ll need a good man, not just any man, and that’s as true today as much as it was ten years, twenty years, fifty years, one hundred years and even one thousand years ago. And it will become even more so as time goes on.

Indeed, we have reached peak denial in our civilization and whether we like it or not reality is about to make a come back.

The freedom that we have enjoyed in the west and the modern democracies that have sprung forth from our evolving and enlightened philosophies over the past few hundred years are not a given. Granted, they are preferable outcomes given our natural state but politically speaking they are an anomaly in the history of mankind and not the norm.

As such, democracy and the systems, social structures and institutions that have grown up around them are grossly misunderstood by the vast majority of the western world. Most of the people living in the west today have been raised to believe that democracy is a moral system of governance and that it is our gift to the rest of mankind. But democracy is not an inherently moral system nor is it a guarantor of linear, progressive political growth.

At its root democracy is quite simple. It is the exercise of political power by the majority over the minority. It is the power to choose in matters of politics. This, of course, begs the question: to choose what?

Since choices in general (and political ones are no exception) can be either good or bad, in this case, both for the individual and the body politic, then it follows that democracy is neither. It is nothing more than a tool for decision making where the majority holds the power to make decisions that affect everyone, either for better or for worse. Democracy is, therefore, a reflection of the character of the people who exercise it.

Additionally, democracy is also the use of soft force. That is, the minority bends to the will of the majority on political matters and the apparatus of the state is responsible for carrying out its demands. The minority consents, willingly or unwillingly not because violence is present but because, by the state’s presence, it is implied.

More importantly, though, democracy is a luxury that is preceded by benevolence but does not necessarily guarantee its continuance or creation if forgotten.

Societies in a state of internal turmoil, or where competing factions vie for political power, often through the use of overt physical violence, will forgo democracy because the primary component for its exercise, order, is absent.

Democracy in the western world has always followed ‘order’. ‘Order’ is a byproduct of force and, like democracy varies in severity on the scale of good and bad, its moral leanings by and large being dependent on the type of people who impose it from the top down. It can be fatherly and benevolent or it can be violent and oppressive. It is never universally both.

Thus democracy usually occurs where ‘order’ has been established and the apparatus of the state is at least somewhat benevolent.

In a political world ruled by strength, order and benevolence are precursors to suffrage. Without either suffrage would not exist, choices would be limited and brute strength would still be the order of the day.

Whether feminists are willing to admit it or not, brute, physical strength is at the root of all political power, thus feminism came into being because those who held that strength chose to exercise benevolence and reason over strength and subjugation. Their suffrage was dependent first and foremost on the benevolence of those who held political power. And like it or not, those who held political power at the time it was introduced were men.

As time progressed, at least in the West, democracy, and universal suffrage gave way to both physical and intellectual freedom for women. In the West during the twentieth century, its political structure (and the intellectual values it embodied) and the industrial revolution it spawned ushered in a new era for women, giving them choices they had not previously had, by and large, since the beginning of recorded history.

Women were finally free to choose between family, career or both. Rather than playing the role of the weaker, subservient sex women found their place beside men in society as intellectual equals. Physical strength was no longer a factor in the social structure of our civilization. An intellectual meritocracy came to be valued over a system based simply on brute force. This structure was the product of order created from benevolent strength.

But the rise of Marxism and feminism, particularly the rise of third-wave feminism has put ‘order’ at risk.

Without order, an intellectual meritocracy will once again become subservient to strength. It’s a hard pill for women and progressive liberals in general to swallow but it’s a fact.

Marxism and modern feminism work continuously towards a perfect world but ignore reality in the process. They forget an important lesson, born true repeatedly throughout history:

There is no utopia.

The best we can hope for in any civilization is for a society to be built and based on fundamental individual rights and freedoms. If we refuse this then we return to what we were before. This means rule by brute force which means the end of political and legal equality for women and the death of democracy itself.

The irony in the dilemma which the West now faces is that our demise, the continual erosion of a democratic, intellectual meritocracy, is by and large spurred on by the very people that our system was created to protect.

Feminists, both female and male, cry daily for more of the same poison which infects us.

More illegal and unscreened immigration. More tolerance of philosophies which are intolerant themselves. More invitations for an enemy created by a corrupt and immoral government to ignore our borders and live among us.

More cries for moral nihilism, the repression of speech (one of the cornerstones of their own suffrage) and the denial of fundamental biological reality.

More cries for the denial of basic math and the continuance of government-sponsored bread and circuses. More of everything which our civilization cannot sustain. More of everything which rots us from the core.

Subsequently, modern feminists decry the men of their own civilization as misogynists, racists, and intolerant while forgetting it was their own men who recognized that a society built on equal political rights for all was preferable to a society built on spoils taken by the strong.

They forget that it was the men they live among who valued justice over greed and force so much that they shed the old ways and took their place beside their women instead of in front of them. They do all of this while cheering on the invasion of their own countries by foreign men who view them as nothing more than chattel property. In doing so they have unwittingly invited the destruction of their own freedom.

While I sit next to my daughter I wonder what the future will hold for her. I have no desire to see her disenfranchised but the reality is that many of her own kind have chosen a future where reason has been rejected and instead, traded for thirty pieces of silver and whatever makes them feel good. Unfortunately, a world without reason is a world without order which is a world without choice. A world without choice is a world of brute force. And that’s a man’s world.


Benevolence and democracy should have ushered in an era of truth and reason but instead, they ushered in an era of denial and wishful thinking. Thus, democracy’s beginning will also be its end. What came from force will return to it.

For those of you paying attention and who can see the contradictions and the resultant decay, pray. Pray that what comes afterward will once again be benevolent.

“Ressentiment” – Reading “Francis” Through Nietzsche…


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

Today we continue our PROSELYTIZATION series. We begin this thread by IDENTIFYING and EXAMINING post-Modernism. The reason behind our in-depth coverage of post-Modernism is that your humble blogger has identified it as the foundational philosohpy IDEOLOGY for that which we today call the FrancisTheology™ of the FrancisChurch.

The starting point of obtaining any OBJECTIVELY CORRECT understanding of the FrancisTheology™ is through understanding post-Modernism. To be more specific, what is critical to understand about post-Modernism is how it relates to Modernism. As we can clearly observe on the philosophical level, post-Modernism is a rebellion against Modernism. It is this point that has been highlighted in a post titled Good New Is That Francis Is NOT A Modernist. But That Is The Only Good News…

Bringing our discussion to the ecclesiastical level, this post-Modernist/Modernist dynamic is playing itself out between the neo-Modenists (Pasceni Dominici Gregis  Modernists in a new wrapping – see here) as represented by the post-conciliar church of JPII the Great and the post-Modernists as represented in the FrancisChurch. It is this distinction that needs to be understood in order to understand the underlying tension that is presently visible behind the Sacred Vatican Walls, and understand the current situation in the Catholic Church with the highest degree of accuracy.

And just to tie the above into the PROSELYTIZATION thread, it is only by understanding the philosophical problems, dare I say internal self-contradictions of these two TRANSRATIONAL ideologies, i.e. Phenomenology and post-Modernism, that one can then make the case for a return to Scholastic Reason and Objective Reality. This then allows the heretic, schismatic, heathen, Jew or just your run-of-the-mill everyday fallen away catholic to return to the ONE TRUE FAITH. Or at least this is how your humble blogger sees this process going forward.

So today, we turn our analytical microscope to psychology and Nietzsche. Our aim today is to drill into the post-Modernist’s mind and try to understand what motivates these people. To this end, your humble blogger has transcribed a brilliant video from Dr. Stephen Hicks. In this video, Dr. Hicks turns Nietzsche’s brilliant analytical methodology against the post-Modernists.

For our purposes here, as we are watching these two videos, we need to IDENTIFY how much of what Dr. Hicks describes in the video, is an accurate representation to what we are observing in the behavior of Francis, the oracle bishop of Rome and in his various speeches, conversations, interviews, musings at the Domus Saencte Maerta, and other off the cuff comments, i.e the Francis “magisterium”.  I have added emphasis and emphasis, but if I missed anything, please feel free to drop me a line in the comment box.

So today, we read Francis through Nietzsche…


In older socialist writing, you can often see signs of resentment, envy, anger exalting in the destruction of the socialist revolution will bring. How those capitalists will finally get what’s coming to them.

With post-Modernism, the negative emotionalism is often more extreme. The sheer love of deconstruction, the chronic deployment of crude ad hominem argument. In my reading of the whole history of the Western tradition, these are unprecedented. Stanly Fish calling all opponents of affirmative action bigots lumping them in with the Ku Klux Klan. Andrea Dwarkins male bashing, in the form of calling all heterosexual males rapists. The rhetoric behind it is harsh.

Behind the emotion behind the rhetoric, there seems to be strongly felt negative emotion. Racism and sexism are currently the hot issues, so we might expect overheated language in debating them.

The same vituperation is leveled against historical figures. All those bad dead white European males. So if you are reading deconstructions of great authors like Shakespeare, you don’t find things like… ‘you know, Sharkespeare is great, and it really is kind of sad that I have to point out this element of sexism in him’.  It’s kind of a gleeful dismissing of all of Shakespeare, because he’s got these sexist elements in him.

So I want to try to capture this psychological component as well.   And I find, that for me what is most illuminating is Nietzsche’s concept of “ressentiment”. “Ressentiment” in the French is close to the English ‘resentment’, but it’s got kind of a more curdled bitterness. It’s more seething and poisoned and bottled up for a long time. That’s “ressentiment”. We’re trying to project this psychological state.

I kind of like using Nietzsche here and analyzing the post-Modernists because he’s one of the heroes of post-Modernism. They cite him for his perspectivalism  in epistemology, his use of the enigmatic and loosely structure aphoristic form, instead of the more scientific form, the treatise form, his psychological acuteness in unmasking various guises which is core to the deconstruction methodology. I want to use Nietzsche against the post-Modernists for a change.

Nietzsche uses the concept of “ressentiment” in the context of developing his famous account of master and slave morality. In Beyond Good and Evil, most famously and more systematically in the Genealogy of Morals.  Master morality for Nietzsche is the morality of the vigorous life loving strong. It’s the morality of those who love adventure, delight in creativity, in their own sense of purposefulness and assertiveness.

Slave morality is the morality of the weak, the humble, those who feel weak, victimized, afraid to venture forth into the big bad world. Weaklings are the chronically passive, largely because they are afraid of the strong. As a result, the weak feel frustrated. They can’t get what they want out of life. They become envious of the strong, and they also secretly start to hate themselves for being so cowardly and weak. But no one can live thinking that he or she is deeply hateful. And so the weak invent a rationalization, a rationalization that tells them they are the good, the moral, because, they are weak, humble, passive. Patience is a virtue. So they have to wait a long time to get something that they want. So patience is a virtue. Obedience is a virtue. They can’t do their own will, they have to obey, and make it a virtue. Humility, and so is being on the side of the weak and the downtrodden. People just like you. And so of course, the opposites of those things must be the evil. Aggressiveness, pride, independence, being physically and materially successful.

Does this sound familiar? Sure. But of course Nietzsche says it’s a rationalization. And a smart weakling is never quite going to convince himself of it. And that will do damage inside. Meanwhile the strong will be laughing at him. And that will do damage inside. And the strong and rich will carry on getting stronger and richer and enjoying life. And seeing that will do more damage inside. Eventually the smart weakling will feel such a combination of self loathing and envy of his enemies that he will need to lash out. He will feel the urge to hurt in any way he can, his hated enemy. Of course, he can’t risk direct physical confrontation. He’s a weakling. His only weapons are words.

Now in our times, the capitalists are the strong, the exuberant, the active. For a while in the past century, the socialists could believe that the revolution was coming, that whoa would come to them that are rich and blessed would be the poor. But that hope has been dashed cruelly.  Capitalism now seems like a case of twice 2 makes 4, and like Dostoyevsky’s Underground Man, it’s easy to see that the most intelligent socialist would just have that fact. Socialism is the loser. And if the socialist know that , they will hate that fact, they will hate the winners for having won and they will hate themselves for having picked the losing side. Hate as a chronic condition, leads to the urge to destroy. But again, your only weapons are words. How can you use words to destroy? I think the whole idea of deconstruction come out of this.

Post-Modernism is populated by large numbers of people who like the idea of deconstructing other people’s work. The opposite of constructing something of your own. Consider parallel examples from the world of visual art. I think the visual art world was a little ahead of the post-Modernists this century. Asked to submit something for the display at the Art Institute of Chicago, Marcel DuChamp sends a urinal, which is then displayed. This makes a statement about art. Art is something you piss on. Or there’s the painters De Kooning’s version of the Mona Lisa, a reproduction he makes of Leonardo’s masterpiece with a cartoonish mustache added. That too makes a statement. ‘Here’s an achievement I can’t hope to equal and so I’ll turn it into a joke.’ In fact, destroy it. So you become a bully and a thug, not because it destroys something bad, but just because it feels good to wreck something. So words are your weapons now, you want to destroy the achievements of Western Civilization, especially the Enlightenment, how do you do it?

Well, consider a more personal case. If you have someone and you want to hurt him, hit him where it counts. You want to hurt a man who loves his children, and hates child molesters, what would be the worst thing to say about such a guy? Well accuse him publicly of child molesting, or better yet, spread sneaky rumors that he’s a child molester. You want to hurt a women who takes pride in her independence, spread through the gossip grapevine that she married the man she did, because he’s wealthy. Now the truth or the falsity of the rumors doesn’t matter and whether you believe them yourself doesn’t matter and whether the people you tell them to don’t really believe them doesn’t matter. They get out there and they do their damage. What matters is that you score a direct hit on the psyche of your enemy, your target person. And you know that the accusations and the rumors are going to cause some tremors, even if they come to nothing. And you get that wonderfully dark glow inside knowing that you did it. And it just might come to something after all.

Now the best example of this psychology comes from the deadest and whitest of the European males, Shakespeare. Think of Iago and Othello. Now here I think, Shakespeare nailed this psychology centuries ago, long before the post-Modernists. What we’ve got is that Iago just hates Othello. But he couldn’t hope to defeat him in open confrontation. So how best to destroy him? Well, hit him where it hurts most. His passion for Desdemona. Hint that she’s been sleeping around. Spread subtle lies and innuendo.  Raise a doubt in Othello’s mind about the most beautiful thing in his life. And let that doubt work like a slow poison. And like the post-Modernist, Iago’s only weapons were words. The only difference between the post-Modernsts and Iago is that the post-Modernists are hardly subtle.

Now let’s bring it back to the Western tradition. The Western tradition, it prides itself on its commitment to equality, justice, open mindedness, making opportunity available to all.  The West is proud, full of itself, confident and it knows that it is the wave of the future. This is unbearable to someone who is totally invested in an opposite and failed outlook. And so, that pride is what you want to destroy. Your best bet is then to attack the West’s sense of its own moral worth. Attack it as racist and sexist, as inherently dogmatic and cruelly exploitative. Undermine it at the core.

The words don’t have to be true in order to do their damage. And so, I don’t think it’s accidental that post-Modernism has launched the kinds of attacks on the core values of the West. And it’s done so knowing full well that the accusations it’s making are not true. It’s a psychological compulsion in some cases and so that allows you to hold the contradiction. You can be an absolutist in your assertions and you could assert the relativism and it just doesn’t matter as long as it’s harming someone, your enemy, that’s fine.

That’s the final explanation, my final hypothesis here. I call it the NIHILIST explanation, for obvious reasons.

I think some post-Modernists, the worst of them anyways, are individuals of deep “ressentiment”, psychologically. And the combination of alienation, bitterness, envy and rage leads them to lashing out with an intent to destroy any aspect of culture that seems to them to be the opposite.

Bonus Video:

And here is Dr. Jordan Peterson also explaining why it is “Ressentiment” that is driving the destruction of Western Civilization and the Institutional Church.

And here is a shorter version of the Stephen Hicks video, but set to music…

Post-Modernism – Why They Give Free Needles To The Junkies…


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

Today your humble blogger returns to a staple thread of this blog, or what has become a staple thread of this blog, namely post-Modernism.

Given our subject matter, your humble blogger will use post-Modernism as a jump off point into a new direction for this blog, namely PROSELYTIZATION. The reason being, PROSELYTIZTION is becoming quite the topic in Catholic, catholic and “c”atholic circles of late.

So here goes…

As we know from OBSERVING the post-Modernists, CONTEXT to them is everything.

Furthermore, for us who live in OBJECTIVE REALITY, CONTEXT is likewise a very critical issue, yet CONTEXT must be anchored in a rational, objective reality if it is to provide for us an understanding of whatever it is that we are OBSERVING. To use the famous Spadarian meme “2+2≠5”, if our OBSERVATION is to produce any RELEVANT results. RESULTS that affect, in a positive manner our subjects, like those on the periphery or those who “smell of sheep”.

Or to use another metaphor, we will not be giving free needles to the junkies.

Getting back to the subject at hand, i.e. post-Modernism, the reason for this thread came about through something I noticed on my Twitter timeline. The entry was from Fr. Pius Pietrzyk OP and I have reproduced it, along with my answer below:

Reading this entry, I was taken aback that someone, especially a member of the Order of Preachers, would not know why in FrancisChurch “culture” determines “theology”. To the post-Modernist, “culture determines everything”. But more on this in a follow-up post.

The only explanation for this above described situation is that there is a general lack of understanding of post-Modernism and its down stream implications.

Therefore, your humble blogger will take it upon himself to initiate a series of explanatory posts that will bring any and all of you dear readers, up to speed on this… what is in fact… the foundational philosophy IDEOLOGY of FrancisChurch.

And in so doing, make the Deus ex Machina contribution to the Catholic PROSELYTIZATION effort…

So let’s get cracking…

To understand how “culture” figures into the Spadarian “2+2=5” IDEOLOGICAL equation, we need to go to the sources. One of those sources, and by far the most important one is Jesuit trained and notoriously “intrinsically disordered” Michel Foucault. Below is a transcript from a short introductory video that I have found. Below the video are the transcripts.

When reading the transcripts, please keep an eye out for the many similarities between post-Modernist IDEOLOGY of Foucault and the FrancisTheology™ of the current bishop or Rome. There are quite a few.

At the top of this post, once again I embed the Dr. Jordan Peterson video explaining the TRANSRATIONALITY behind post-Modernism, just for the sake of a balance presentation of the subject matter.

Oh, and one more thing. There will be a test at the end of this series…

PS Just to help, I will add emphasis to highlight the similarities. If you dear reader pick up something I missed, please feel free drop a line in the comment box.


Michel Foucault was a famous 20th Century philosopher and historian who spent his career forensically criticizing the power of the modern bourgeois capitalist state, including its police, law courts, prisons, doctors and psychiatrists. His goal was to work out nothing less than how power worked and then to change it in the direction of Marxist anarchist utopia.

Thought he spent most of his life in libraries and seminar rooms, he was a committed revolutionary figure. He met with enormous popularity in elite Parisian intellectual circles. Jean Paul Sartre admired him deeply and he still maintains a wide following among young people studying at university in the prosperous corners of the world.

His background, which he was extremely reluctant to talk about and tried to prevent journalists investigating at all cost was very privileged. Both his parents were inordinately rich, coming from a long line of successful surgeons in Poitiers, west central France. His father, Dr. Paul Foucault came to represent all that Michael Foucault would hate about bourgeois France. Michel had a standard upper-class education. He went to elite Jesuit institutions, was an altar boy and his parents hoped he would become a doctor.

But Michel wasn’t quite like other boys. He started self harming and constantly thinking of suicide. At university, he decorated his bedroom with images of torture by Goya. By twenty-two, he tried to commit suicide and was forced by his father, against his will to see Frances most famous psychiatrist, Jean Delay (?) at the Hospital Sainte Anne in Paris. The doctor wisely diagnosed that a lot of Michel’s distress came from having to keep homosexuality and in particular his interest in extreme sado-masochism away from a censorious society.  

Gradually, Foucault entered the underground gay scene in France, fell in love with a drug dealer and then took up with a transvestite. For long periods in his twenties, he went to live abroad in Sweden, Poland and Germany, where he felt his sexuality would be less constrained, all the while Foucault was progressing up the French academic ladder.

The seismic event of his intellectual life came in the summer of 1953 when Foucault was 27 and on holiday with a lover in Italy. There he came across Nietzsche’s book Untimely Meditations which contains an essay on the Uses and Abuses of History for Life. In the essay, Nietzsche argued that academics have poisoned our sense of how history should be read and taught. They made it seem as one should read history in some sort of disinterested way in order to learn how it all was in the past. But Nietzsche rejected this with sarcastic fury. There was no point in learning about the past for its own sake. The only reason to read and study history is to dig out from the past ideas, concepts and examples which can help us lead a better life in our own times. This essay liberated Foucault intellectually as nothing had til then. Immediately he changed the direction of his work and decided to become a particular kind of philosophical historian. Someone who could look back into the past to help to sort out the urgent issues of his own time. Eight years later, he was ready to publish what was recognized as his first masterpiece Madness and Civilization.

The standard view is that we treat people with mental illness in so much more of a humane way then we ever did in the past. After all, we put them in hospitals give them drugs and look after them by people with PhD’s. But this was exactly the attitude that Foucault wished to demolish in Madness and Civilization. In the book, he argued that things way back in the Renaissance were actually far better for the mad then they subsequently became. In the Renaissance, the mad were felt to be different rather than crazy. They were thought to possess a kind of wisdom because they demonstrated the limits of reason. They were revered in many circles and were allowed to wonder freely. But then, as Foucault historical research had showed him, in the mid 17th Century, a new attitude was born that relentlessly medical-ized and institutionalized mentally ill people. No longer were they allowed to live alongside the sane. They were taken away from their families and locked up in the insane asylums and were seen as people one should try to cure rather than tolerate as just being different.

You can recognize a very similar underlying philosophy in Foucault next great book, the Birth of the Clinic. His target here was medicine more broadly. He systematically attacked the view that medicine became more humane with time. He conceded that of course, we have better drugs and treatments now, but he believed that in the 18th Century the professional doctor was born and that he was a sinister figure who would look at the patient with what Foucault called the medical gaze, denoting a dehumanizing attitude that looked at a patient just as a set of organs, not as a person.  One was under the medical gaze a malfunctioning kidney or liver, not a person to be considered as a whole entity.

Next in Foucault’s (?) came Discipline and Punish.  Here, Foucault did his standard thing on state punishment. Again, the normal view is that the prison and punishing systems of the modern world are so much more humane then they were in the days when people just used to be hung in public squares. Not so argued Foucault. The problem he said, is that power now looks kind, but isn’t. Whereas in the past, it clearly wasn’t kind and therefore could encourage open rebellion and protest. Foucault noted that in the past, a convicts body could become the focus of sympathy and admiration. And the executioner, rather than the convict could become the locust of shame. Also, public executions often lead to riots in support of the prisoner. But with the invention of the modern prison system, everything happened in private and locked gates. One could no longer look and see and therefore resist state power. That’s what made the modern system of punishment so barbaric and properly primitive in Foucault’s eyes.

Foucault’s last work was the multi-volume History of Sexuality. The maneuvers he preformed to sex are again very familiar. Foucault rebelled against the view that we’re all now deeply liberated and at easy with sex. He argued that since the 18th Century, we have relentlessly medical-ized sex, handing it over to professional sex researchers and scientists. We live in an age of what Foucault called Scientia Sexualis, science of sexuality. But Foucault looked back with considerable nostalgia to the cultures of Rome, China and Japan, where he detected the rule of what he called the Ars Erotica, erotic art. Where the whole focus was on how to increase the pleasure of sex, rather than just to try and understand and label it.  Once again, modernity was blamed for pretending there had been progress when there was in fact just the loss of spontaneity and imagination.  

Foucault wrote the last volume of this work while dying of AIDs that he had contracted in the San Francisco gay bar. He died in 1984, aged 58. Foucault’s lasting contribution is in the way we look at history. There are lots of things in the modern world that we’re constantly being told are fantastic and were apparently very bad in the past. For example, education or the media or our communications systems. Foucault encourages us to break away from our optimistic smugness about now and to go back and see in history many ways of doing things which were perhaps superior. Foucault wasn’t trying to get us to be nostalgic, he wanted us to pick up some lessons of way back in order to improve how we live now. 

Academic historians have tended to hate Foucault’s work. They think it inaccurate and keep pointing out things he hadn’t quite understood in some document or other. But Foucault didn’t care for total historical accuracy. History for him was just a storehouse of good ideas and he wanted to raid it, rather than keep it pristine and untouched. We should use Foucault as an inspiration to look at the dominant ideas and institutions of our times and to question them by looking at their histories and evolutions. Foucault did something remarkable. He made history life enhancing and philosophically rich again.


All’s Not Well In The German Reich, Version 3.2… (Updated)


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

We begin this week with some fantastic news. For my long time readers, you will know that your humble blogger sees the destruction of the Holy Catholic Church as the work of … wait for it… the Germans.

Now I know what you new readers are thinking. You are thinking that the Deus ex Machina blog is going “conspiracy theory”.

Well, as we know, in the age of Trump, many of the so-called “conspiracy theories” have become “conspiracy facts”. So today, we will assume that it is the German’s who are responsible for not only the Vatican II disaster, which they hijacked (see here) but also for the strategy (as laid out by Karl Rahner – see here) which Francis is now executing.

Aside, a good explanation of why the German Bishops’ Conference prelates just hated Pope Benedict XVI, it could be that he “betrayed” his mentor, one Karl Rahner. A good understanding of this major crack in the German Theological School can be seen from this to this and this, ….

UPDATE: Your humble blogger had a video of Pope Benedict XVI in this space earlier. This video has been taken down until it can be verified that it was what your humble blogger claimed it was. Hat tip to B Flat who brought this to my attention. Once I have established what was on the tape, I will comment in a follow up post.


And just as a friendly reminder, this “German Project’s” origins are detailed in Fr. Ralph M. Wiltgenth’s classic “The Rhine Flows into the Tiber: A History of Vatican II”.

Yet this is only part of the story. What is also of critical importance is to understand how the German government, through it foreign spending (i.e. soft power) has been able to wreak havoc not only in the Universal Church, case in point South America, but also in other sub-sets of human activity. One sub-set is what is now known as the FAKE NEWS MEDIA. This background information has been laid out in our post titled: Drilling Down To The ROOT Source Of The Problems…

Given that the above is our starting PREMISE, your humble blogger has been following the trials and tribulations of what can correctly be called The German Reich Version 3.2.

As to the current situation in the Fatherland, what has happened  is that the German government has experienced an economic Wirtschaftswunder of sorts, over the last 10 years. Quickly, by adopting the EURO currency, the German export sector has experienced an economic boom at the expense of the other European countries, most the southern countries presently known as Club Med. This new source of funds has allowed the Germans to fund many disastrous initiatives globally. (see here) But I digress…

This “economic miracle” version 3.2 has allowed Germany to ramp up it’s foreign aid, i.e. soft power spending. This soft power spending has been instrumental in such activities as funding contraceptives for Africa, funding heretical prelates in South America, not to mention keeping the Venezuelan dictators in power and is now behind the promotion of what we can rightly call the “KirchensteuerPope”, i.e. the promotion of Card. Tagle of the Philippines as the successor of the St Gallen’s Mafia’s Team Bergoglio installed Jorge Bergoglio.

So naturally, following the general political and economic situation in Germany is of particular importance to this blog in particular as well as to the wider Restoration in general.

Therefore, today your humble blogger can report that as a result of the last election, all is not well politically in Germany. (see here) Last night, talks to form a new exotic government comprised of “Christian” socialists, neo-Marxist socialits, libertarian socialists and environmental-whacko socialists broke down.

The significance of this breakdown is that it creates instability in the key driving force behind another one of the the German created Version 3.2 Reich initiatives, i.e. the Euro Project. This instability is being created at a time when the mainline political parties are at their weakest since the end of World War II. The weakening is coming at the expense of the Rationalist party, the AfD that represents a break with the post-Modernist immigration policies and anti-European obsession that is possessed by the globalist ruling elites in power in Germany at present.

In addition, other countries in Europe, namely Hungary, Poland, Romania, Czech Republic and now slowly Slovakia are beginning to rebel. To add further discomfort, the Austrians elected a government that is headed by a purported “Catholic”. Now, the guy did use to stand on street corners and hand out condoms in an earlier life, but hey… he can always convert. But more important in terms of politics, he is thinking of taking Austria into the camp of countries that are standing up to the Germans.

And this is all happening while in Italy, the anti-Euro parties have about 70% of the vote in the latest polls. Italy must hold it parliamentary elections by end of May of next year, and it would appear as if the Italians will get their own version of BREXIT afterward. This PHENOMENON is being called: ITALEAVE.

So that is the background and the latest.

Concluding, below is a Zero Hedge post about last nights developments. (see original here) I will have more to say on this as the situation develops. But folks, it is good news…


“Worst Case Scenario” Looms As Merkel’s “Jamaica Coalition” Collapses; EUR Sinks

We warned on Friday that German Chancellor Angela Merkel faced a ‘night of the long knives’ in her efforts to bring together the co-called ‘Jamaica’ coalition of four parties and after a desperate weekend of talks, Bloomberg reports Merkel’s efforts at forming a coalition have failed meaning a second election looms and sending the euro sliding.

As Bloomberg reports, talks on forming German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s next government collapsed, throwing the future of Europe’s longest-serving leader into doubt and potentially pointing the world’s fourth-biggest economy toward new elections.

After a 12-hour negotiating session that ended shortly before midnight Sunday, the Free Democratic Party walked out of the exploratory talks, saying the differences with the Green party were too great to bridge.

Merkel has sought for four weeks to enlist the two smaller parties for her fourth-term coalition.

It’s better not to govern than to govern badly,” FDP head Christian Lindner told reporters in Berlin.

No further coalition talks were scheduled, he said. There was no immediate comment from Merkel.

EURUSD is down aroound 80 pips on the news…

As MINT Partners’ Bill Blain noted previously, Germans are not used to multiple elections – and a second vote early next year would be massive negative for Merkel herself – she may even have to stand down if coalition looks like falling. That could be massive shock.

As a result, the prospects for more volatile European peripheral markets, particularly Greece and Italy, are likely to be exacerbated, and we might well see some of the currency and European stock market froth blow away in coming days as the scale of the “German Problem” becomes clearer.

  • My worst case Germany scenario is a second election early next year, political uncertainty as Mutti Merkel finds herself squeezed out, and a scramble to build a new coalition government in her aftermath.
  • The best case scenario isn’t much better: that Merkel manages to forge a new coalition, but it will be a long drawn out affair and the resulting administration will be vulnerable, weak and fraxious.

These sound like German problems, but they mean the “leader of Europe” is likely to be entirely inward focused in coming months/years.. at a time when the European union will be facing a host of new issues regarding closer union, banking union and reform of the ESM, bailout and QE policies. There will also be new potential crisis points – Italian elections next year, Greece bailout, renewed immigration crisis or a blow-up with Trump. And these are just the known unknowns.

This has profound implications for the so-called French/German axis as it slides towards Paris. We are not going to see a new German government “waste time” on issues like closer EU union, European Banking Union, or critical finance issues like reforming ESM or new approaches on QE and Bailout funds. Forget Wiedemann for ECB president, it’s more likely to another Frenchman (Trichet II) – I’m sure its already underway. In short.. Germany negotiations could get very fraxious while Europe is dragged down in its wake. I doubt the markets have discounted it yet.

USCCB Sends MASSIVE Signal To “DavosPope” That Pro-Life Movement More Important Than FrancisChurch…


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

I have been traveling lately, so today will be a quick one.. But an interesting one…

But that is for you dear reader to decide.

Today we talk about MONEY. And POWER. 

To be more specific, today start off by talking about MONEY at the “intersectionality” of neo-Modernism and post-Modernism.

We begin with our very own Cardinal Timothy Dolan. In a homily he gave recently at the USCCB in Baltimore, Cardinal Dolan made a defense of the Papal Encyclical Humanae Vitae (HV) and he stated the following: (see here) (emphasis added)

There’s “no question” that the late pope’s (Pope Paul VI) prediction that “a widespread contraceptive mentality would lead to ‘marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards’” has come true, said Dolan. 

Little did our Cardinal know, or maybe not…, that right after his defense of HV, we would get this information from the bowels of the Ricca Hostel, i.e. the Casa Sanctae Marthae: (see here)

Pope Francis’ emphasis on “mercy” over “law” allows him to view a “second marriage” after a first valid marriage in such a way that it is not “characterized continuously as adultery,” suggested a Catholic priest and seminary professor in an article recently published in the Vatican’s official newspaper L’Osservatore Romano.

So what we are witnessing here dear reader, is that if you don’t like what the law says, change the meaning of the words.

A very “fluid” approach, if I do say so myself.

And yes, we are OBSERVING post-Modernism in its ESSENCE. Words have no objective meanings, so change the words and 2+2 can equal 5. Or whatever you want them to mean.

Next, given that 2+2 can equal 5, we get the following:

Pope Francis on Thursday rebuked those who deny the science behind global warming and urged negotiators at climate talks in Germany to avoid falling prey to such “perverse attitudes” and instead accelerate efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions. (see here)

So what we see here is that objectively real scientific dialogue is “perverse”. Which would infer that those who do not share ScientistBergoglio’s ClimateTheology are “perverts”. As Tantumblogo correctly observes. So we see that the current bishop of Rome just redefined this term likewise.

Using this line of reasoning, a “pervert” can be identified as… wait for it… “having children”.

Don’t believe me?

Over on the Life Site News blog, we get this beaut..:

Having many children is “wrong, or at least morally suspect,” an ethicist wrote in an article for NBC about the impact of family size on the environment. (see here)

So your asking yourself dear reader, especially if you are new to this blog, what does NBC have to do with the Holy See? Here is that link:

This became patently clear at a Pontifical Academy for Sciences seminar last week when a key speaker said “it’s a little ambitious” to think we can cut the population in half by 2050, but it is “smarter” to cull the number of people first, thereby making the move to renewable energy easier. (see here)

See how the circle closes?

We are seeing a call for the “culling” of human beings here folks. That word IS NOT being arbitrarily used.

Understanding the above, one can then “discern” the proper CONTEXT of the USCCB’s vote in the election to name the new head of the Committee on Pro-Life Activities.

Furthermore, this vote was taken in the presence of a Vatican dignitary (see here)

One can even go as far as saying a “campaigning Vatican dignitary”.

But back to Baltimore…

In that vote on the head of the Pro-Life Committee, the USCCB … whacked Francis upside his head.

What the USCCB did is put the kabash on the entire TeamFrancis AGENDA. It gave Francis a massive black eye, and they did it in the presence of the Papabile who is considered to be in pole position at the next conclave.

He is another poignant observation:

“Not to put too fine a point on it, but this amounted to the bishops giving the middle finger to Pope Francis.” (see here)

What is interesting to note is that this is a fight within our neo-Modernist/post-Modernist framework.

We see the neo-Modernist Card. Dolan and the majority of the USCCB up against the post-Modernist Francis cabal, as represented by the FrancisCardinal Blase “Francis pulls a rabbit out of his hat” Cupich.

Behind Cupich is the FrancisVatican, which is in ESSENCE a front for the German governmental soft power as projected through the KIRCHENSTEUR -> German Bishops’ Conference on the one side., while on the other side is the German government soft power through the NGO’s -> George Soros fronts -> UN organizations.

And at the end of both these channels of German soft power is GELD.

Or to you and me: MONEY.

And that money is needed to keep the FrancisChurch living in the lap of luxury as we can see here. 

Nota bene: Whatever did happen to that dossier?

In the case of the USCCB, what we have is no such steady source of funding as in the case of the German Bishops’ Conference and their proxy FrancisChurch/FrancisVatican. The USCCB are cleaning up presently through their “human trafficking” activities, but as we see, the Trump Administration is working the cut off those funds. (see here)

Cardinal Dolan and a number of the other US ordinaries, realize that much of his funding also comes via their cozy relationship with the homosexualists. (see here) This is the reason that these ordinaries tolerate this state of affairs. Yet they also realize that each party is using each other like the proverbial cheap condom. Once either of the two parties gets what they are after, the “partner” will be disposed of.

And to be honest, these ordinaries really have no choice. With their dwindling numbers of pew sitters, who are either dying off or are withholding their support, since they see where the sectarian, humanist, anthropocentric neo-Modernism has led. And from what I hear, there are a lot of these folks.

So the Catholic Bishops in these here United States have come to the realization that they are in a catch 22 situation. They are trying to hold onto the human trafficking funding, quietly appease the homosexualists, while at the same time trying to stop the atrophying of their conservative and neo-conservative funding source.

And it is this latter source of funding that is represented by the Catholic Pro-Life Movement.

Let that sink in for a second or two…

Concluding, this is the primary reason behind the election of Archbishop Naumann of Kansas City as the head of the Pro-Life Committee and the defense of the neo-Modernist Humanae Vitae “document”.

Your humble blogger suspects that the USCCB has come to realize that it is not through the culling of His creationg, but rather through the culling of the FrancisBishops, from the various leadership positions at the USCCB, as was done at the conference in Baltimore, that the Bishops could keep the USS Barque of St. Peter financially afloat and hold out for better times.

If my hunch is correct, for the PRO-LIFE Movement, they have received a massive SIGNAL as to how strong they in fact really are within the US Institutional Church. To be more precise, how important the US Bishops see them being. The USCCB showed their hand, and their hand reads as follows:

Pro-Life Movement > FrancisChurch.

If the Pro-Life Movement leaders were smart, they should act on this immediately, and leverage this strength into positions of authority not only at the USCCB level, but also in the diocesan chancelleries and parish administrations.

It appears as if their time has come…

And the Restoration is right behind them. (see here and here and here and here … o heck, the entire New Liturgical Movement is for all intents and purposes should change its name to the  Restoration Movement– see here.)

Nota bene: Wonder what the DavosPope thought when he was witnessing all this?

Would have loved to be the fly on that wall…







Meanwhile In Poland… (w/Update)


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

Guest post today via Zero Hedge. (see here)

EU “Values” Fit Poland Like ‘The Saddle Fits The Cow’


“We want God”, “Great Independent Poland,” “Death to the Enemies of the Fatherland!” “Christ is Poland’s King”, “Deus vult” (Latin for God wills, a battle cry of the Crusaders) these are the principal banners carried in the annual Independence March that is held in Warsaw and also in other cities on 11 November, Independence Day.

Also, in the one two days ago, at the head of the marching column you could see a few white flags sporting the red Jerusalem cross.

Tens of thousands of people, waving tens of thousands of white-and-red national flags young and old, of all walks of life, with whole families take to the streets.  

The people participating in the march think of themselves as patriots (the word which in Poland still has positive overtones) paying tribute to the fallen heroes.

To the western media these are Nazis, racists, anti-semites and islamophobes. An abomination for the European Union.

What has positive overtones in Poland (patriotism, faith, family), has negative ones in Western Europe and the other way round. Migrants, LGTBQ and gender mainstreaming is not welcome in the area between the Oder and Bug Rivers. The EU values cannot be farther from Poland’s values and vice versa.

The Independence March denigrated by the Western media was favourably covered by the Polish government and other national media, except for those which are far to the left and very much pro-European. The former shored up the positive aspects of the event, the latter only looked for incidents to blow them out of any proportion and join the chorus of their western counterparts in condemning “fascists” and “white supremacists”.

A thirty-six million nation in the heart of Europe (i.e. with a population approximately the size of Spain’s) is throwing down the gauntlet to the EU establishment and its view of European unity based on cultural and religious indifference and anti-nationalism.

While in France or Belgium Muslims pray openly in the streets, Turkish nationalists stage large rallies waving Turkish flags in the heart of Dutch cities and construct mosques, with empty Christian churches as sad witnesses thereto; Poles pray the rosary on the borders of their country and march, proudly displaying national emblems and flags, demanding God and rejecting multiculturalism.

At the time when the Soviets were establishing the communist political system in Central Europe someone said (someone ascribed these words to Stalin himself) that communism fits the Polish nation like a saddle fits a cow. Is the attempt to Europeanize Poles another attempt at saddling the cow?


UPDATE 04:50 15 November 2017

Here is Stefan Molyneux and Tommy Robinson on Poland.

Mr. Robinson was actually at the march:

About Flipping Burgers At McDonalds…


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

Today we extend our War on Competence thread into the ECCLESIAL sub-set of the Visibilium Omnium. Looks like this thread is being picked up by other bloggers and especially blogging priests.

Today, over on Fr. Blake’s Blog, we get a post titled: Has it worked?” the question we dare not ask. Yes, the neo-Modernists and the post-Modernists dare not ask that question.

And it’s not just the Catholic hierarchy that dares not ask this question.

For those following this blog, you dear reader will know exactly why they dare not ask this question.

For those that don’t, the reason is that they would have to admit that they are INCOMPETENT. 

Actually, they would have to admit that they have put in place a system that allows INCOMPETENT individuals to advance, when otherwise they would…. well be flipping burgers at Micky D’s.

Here is an example of a system just like the one described above:

Thinking about the flipping burger’s metaphor, I’m having second thoughts…

I will have more to say in a follow up post…


“Has it worked?” the question we dare not ask

In this centenary year of the Soviet Revolution, it is worth reflecting that after 70 years the Russian people actually asked the question, “Has it worked?” It is the question an efficient business asks regularly, I suspect parents in a healthy family ask that question. it should be the fundamental question of the spiritual life.

Fifty years after the implementation of the liturgical changes, it is the question the Church should be asking itself, any business would have product tested before a change of brand. I suppose that Summorum Pontificum was Benedict’s way of doing this retrospectively.

Vatican II’s liturgical reforms were introduced en masse everywhere and within a few years of the Council, unlike the gradually introduced liturgical reforms of Pius V that percolated gradually as old books were slowly replaced but even then only where the Roman Rite was used, the Milanese, Lyonese, Bragans, Dominicans, Carthusian, for example, continued using their own Rites, and acted as a kind of quality control or reference point for the reformed Roman Rite.

There are two areas where, ‘has it worked?’ should be asked, the first is liturgical reform, the second is the modern use of the papal fiat that introduced them, it was an unprecedented use of papal power. The second of these, Pope Francis is dealing with very effectively by forcing even the most conservative to ask about the modern use of papal power, “has it worked?”. I half think that it is a deliberate policy, a reductio ad absurdum, that the Pope is raising with allies like Fr Spadaro and Dr Ivereigh and other cheerleaders. Are they cooperators who will heroically sacrifice their careers in a successive papacy. Dare one suggest that Magnum Principium might actually be a return of the Church to local Rites and Usages that are mutually enriching? I suspect not but it is a possibility. The Ordinariate Rite after all seems to have this effect where it is celebrated.

Apparently a large number of French Seminaries are closing, as are a whole lot of ancient monasteries and practically every convent has become a retirement home. I am not sure what the number is this year, but last year, in our diocese we had only 3 seminarians. Whilst I was at the seminary we had in this city of Brighton and Hove almost 30 priests, in 17 years time by the year 2030 we will be lucky to have 2 under 65, they will age prematurely out of exhaustion.

The thing is that there isn’t an absence of vocations, from my little parish we have three men, two preparing for the priesthood and one in a rather rigorous contemplative monastery but they were very much involved in the Old Rite and have gone to communities outside of the diocese. It isn’t even that there is an absence of contemplative religious, there are new convents opening in the Channel Islands and in the Diocese of Lancaster but again the sisters will worship according to Old Rite. The only monastery flourishing, without scandal, in Italy (despite episcopal opposition) is Old Rite, at Norcia. The same in France, where a quarter of this years ordinations were of priests attached to the Old Rite, and where monastic life is retracting but Old Rite monasteries like Fontgombault are actually making new foundations. I am quite willing to accept that it is not necessarily the Rite itself but if it is not then it is the theology that goes with the Rite, or the ‘ecclesiological experience’ that goes with it. On a practical level the Old Rite seems to work.

Why are we incapable of asking, “Has it worked?”, presumably it is because of an ideological attachment, rather like the politburo of the Soviet Union that will not allow itself to question givens until long after they had collapsed.

What Will Be Saved And What Should Be Saved…


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

Today a quick republication continuing the thread started in our last post. That thread can best be described as the post-Modernist’s War on Competence.

As your humble blogger has pointed out on numerous occasions, the War on Competence is at the heart of post-Modernism and its tangential offspring. In the mathematical and scientific sub-sets of human activity, we have observed the phenomenon of the “2+2=5” based Common Core and the rise of “postmodernist physics”. In the  ECCLESIASTICAL sub-set of human activities, this post-Modernist infested mindset is known as Phenomenology. Here is a great description:

Phenomenology is the study of perception, thought, imagination, emotion, memory, and action from the first person/subjective perspective. “Phenomenology is the study of “phenomena”: appearances of things, or things as they appear in our experience, or the ways we experience things.” (Sanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) Thus, Phenomenology is the interpretation consciousness. It is the study of appearance as opposed to the study of reality.

Now, this last sentence should not be understood thus, that the study of appearance cannot encompass observations that are in conformity with reality. But the problem comes in when the observers detach themselves from reality. And since the human creature has the ability to think abstractly, he can image things that don’t exist. Furthermore, he can allow those delusional thoughts to substitute for his perception of OBJECTIVE REALITY.

When this phenomenon occurs, and it occurs within an institution’s organizational structure, it usually ends in one result: BANKRUPTCY.

The reason that I mentioned “usually” is that if the organization is subsidized by a governmental entity, i.e. a government sponsored enterprise, then this end result can be postponed. But only to a point. And that point is when the state collapses. And this usually ends in the collapse of SOCIETY as well. To make this point, I have embedded a recent Stefan Molyneux video which makes this point quite well.

Back to the specific now. Over at Breitbart News website, we get an article about the bad week at CNN. This bad week comes on the back of many, many bad weeks. But yet, we see that the management that is the cause of these bad weeks, is still in place.  Not what they taught us in the economics department or business school for that matter. Got to wonder who is paying these bill? (Maybe these folks…)

And it is not just CNN which is having “bad weeks” and the resulting financial problems because of their TRANSRATIONAL phenomenological approach. We see this situation in other “commercial” enterprises such as the NFL, Keurig (coffee machines) and what can be called our base case, namely Target. 

And we see this same PHENOMENON behind the Sacred Vatican Walls.

And Stefan Molyneux nicely sums this all up…

PS Here is a bonus video:

Aside, wonder why the Order of Preachers aren’t doing these types of volume?

Sounds like something up their alley…


CNN’s Awful Week: Lies, Meltdowns, Ratings Collapse, New Discrimination Suit

Drudge Report founder Matt Drudge, who knows of what he speaks, dropped a bomb Thursday with the newsy prediction that CNN chief Jeff Zucker is doomed. “Jeff Zucker out either way at CNN,” Drudge wrote before adding, “primetime ratings abysmal. Feud with President Trump too personal and ridiculous…”

Jeff Zucker out either way at CNN, primetime ratings abysmal. Feud with President Trump too personal and ridiculous…

— MATT DRUDGE (@DRUDGE) November 9, 2017

Then, as if to prove the “ridiculous” part, CNN’s public relations team immediately and directly responded to Drudge with this sorry piece of spin:

If CNN was only in competition with itself and its own dismal ratings, that tweet would make sense. The problem for last-place CNN, though, is that it has actual competition in the form of MSNBC and Fox, both of which are shellacking The Least Trustws Name In News in every conceivable metric.

Moreover, when compared to the same month last year, CNN’s October 2017 ratings collapsed a whopping 52 percent. Meanwhile, Fox News is only down 26 percent, MSNBC down a mere 6 percent.

My reference to “last place” is not a specious one. Until CNN turned into a 24/7 RedBaitingAntiTrumpFakeNewsHateMachine, the left-wing network was in second place, beating MSNBC much more often than not. So not only has CNN lost more than half of its year-over-year viewers, it has lost its bragging rights over its left-wing counterpart at MSNBC.

And things continue to get worse, primarily through unforced errors caused by CNN’s blinding hate and rabid partisanship. Without a doubt, CNN has just suffered through its worst week since those hilarious weeks back in June when CNN staffers had to be fired over hate-sprees against President Trump, and a barrage of firings occurred after the network was caught red-handed telling one audacious lie after another.

To begin with, although CNN and its elite media brethren are covering this news up, on Thursday we learned that CNN is facing yet-another massive racial discrimination lawsuit — a class-action suit. And when you look back and remember the efforts CNN put into stirring up riots in predominantly black neighborhoods, this should surprise no one.

CNN’s public missteps this week, however, left all kinds of bruises.

Last-week Wednesday, in the immediate aftermath of the worst Islamic terror attack in New York since 9/11, and for reasons only clear to him, CNN’s struggling afternoon anchor, Jake Tapper, decided that it was a smart idea to misinform his viewers about the meaning of Allahu Akbar,” and do so in the most inappropriate way imaginable.

To make matters worse, rather than apologize and correct the record, Tapper chose to have a public meltdown over criticism of his inaccurate reporting.

On Monday, CNN’s twisted hatred for Trump red-lined with a double barrel of very fake news. In order to publish a false fact check, CNN deliberately edited out a portion of a Trump quote that would have disproven the fact check. Worse still, with the use of fake video, CNN was caught attempting to fabricate a Trump gaffe involving fish food.

Is a news outlet willing to lie about fish food willing to lie about anything? The asking of the question is your answer. Which brings me to Thursday…

For at least three hours, primarily led by Tapper (who apparently has never found a rake he won’t step on), CNN lied about Trump setting a precedent in China when he chose not to take questions from the media.

To make matters worse, once it was discovered that in 2009 then-President Barack Obama did not take media questions in China, again, rather than apologize and correct, Tapper was caught in a clumsy attempt to try and cover up his fake news fusillade. To his credit, Tapper’s CNN colleague, Jeremy Diamond, did apologize and retract.

Also caught in a scandal is CNN’s Chris Cillizza. With the release of Donna Brazile’s new book, we are learning that, during the 2016 campaign, concerns about Hillary Clinton’s health were legitimate but covered up by both Democrats and a cooperative media. And no one was more cooperative in that regard than Cillizza (who was at the Washington Post at the time).

CNN’s tombstone will read “death by fakenewsicide.”