Cardinal Sarah and Deus Ex Machina Singing From Same Hymn Sheet…


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

Interesting developments over the last week or so coming from inside the Sacred Vatican Walls. But to fully understand the significance of these developments, a short digression is in order.

On an aside, this post falls into the category of “life comes at you fast”. But I digress again…

Over the last couple of posts, your humble blogger has been focusing on a philosophical theme. Your humble blogger has tried to pin down the difference between the philosophical foundation of the True Catholic Faith, namely Thomism and contrasting it with the post-conciliar ideology that replaced Thomism, known first as neo-Modernism but subsequently metamorphosing into post-modernism and even post-structuralism, that underpins (?) a post-conciliar FakeTheology™.

To understand the crisis in the current Institutional Church, we need to review the difference between what constitutes a philosophy and what constitutes an ideology. To this end, your humble blogger has produced a post title Everyone Has A Plan… In that post, a distinction has been made between “normative” or ideological statements and positive or philosophical claims. This paragraph reads as follows:

In philosophy, normative statements make claims about how things should or ought to be, how to value them, which things are good or bad, and which actions are right or wrong. Normative claims are usually contrasted with positive (i.e. descriptive, explanatory, or constative) claims when describing types of theories, beliefs, or propositions. Positive statements are (purportedly-) factual statements that attempt to describe reality.

Given the above, we can then use Dr. John Lamont’s seminal essay titled Attacks on Thomism to understand the ROOT CAUSE underlying the disintegration of the post-conciliar church. In that essay, Dr. Lamont makes the following observation:

Thomism made an easy target for this propaganda, just because it is a highly developed philosophy. Any advanced field of study, such as philosophy, mathematics, or physics, can be convincingly portrayed as ‘arid’ and ‘rigid’. For most people’s tastes, this portrayal will often be true. Precise and rigorous subjects inevitably have arid components. Because it deals with fundamental questions whose answers are true always and everywhere, philosophy will be ‘ahistorical’ and ‘immutable’. It will not meet the desires and expectations of individuals or societies, because these desires and expectations are never geared towards subtle and difficult concepts. It will meet their needs – if it is true. But a demonstration of philosophical truth is a feeble counter to propaganda.

So what happened leading up to and post Vatican II is that Thomism was replaced by another “philosophy” which was nothing more than an ideology in disguise. This pseudo-philosophy is what is known as Phenomenology. Here is the Wikipedia entry:

Phenomenology (from Greek phainómenon “that which appears” and lógos “study”) is the philosophical study of the structures of experience and consciousness. As a philosophical movement it was founded in the early years of the 20th century by Edmund Husserl and was later expanded upon by a circle of his followers at the universities of Göttingen and Munich in Germany. It then spread to France, the United States, and elsewhere, often in contexts far removed from Husserl’s early work.[1]

Phenomenology should not be considered as a unitary movement; rather, different authors share a common family resemblance but also with many significant differences. Accordingly:

A unique and final definition of phenomenology is dangerous and perhaps even paradoxical as it lacks a thematic focus. In fact, it is not a doctrine, nor a philosophical school, but rather a style of thought, a method, an open and ever-renewed experience having different results, and this may disorient anyone wishing to define the meaning of phenomenology.

Given that “A unique and final definition of phenomenology is dangerous and perhaps even paradoxical as it lacks a thematic focus”, we can then go to Dr. Lamont’s poignant debunking of what in essence is the “phenomenology as philosophy” narrative.

In the Lamont afore mentioned essay, he explains how the mid-20th Century neo-Modernists used two notions of the concept of “historical perspectivism”, one true and one false, to advance their phenomenological ideology. But at the end of the day, the false notion of “historical perspectivism” violated the law of thought known as the Law of Contradiction (non-Contradiction) and consigned the neo-Modernists to that Trotskyite trash heap of history. Here is that passage:

In addition, no great philosophical expertise is needed to see that the historical perspectivism of the neomodernists is self-refuting. Historical perspectivism is a universal philosophical claim about the nature of human concepts and human knowledge, a claim that is presented as being true for all people at all times, and as being known to be true by the neomodernists. But such a claim (it) contradicts historical perspectivism itself, which denies the possibility of knowledge of this sort.

So the neo-Modernists quietly rode this horse until they found a better, albeit a more irrational one. Actually, the neo-Modernists have been riding a series of more irrational ideological horses as time has gone by, over the last 100 years of so. But I digress…

Fast forward to the present and the current bishopric of Francis. Today we see that the ideology du jour is post-Structuralism. Just to provide a flavor of Francis’ favorite “philosopher”, one de Certeau, here is that passage:

Of all the French theorists… de Certeau is the most radical. He is critical of the poststructuralist Foucault for his use of documentary evidence and of Derrida for the way he privileges the practice of writing. For de Certeau, writing is a form of oppression… he argues… writing itself constitutes the act of colonisation…”

It’s really something to be even more TRANSRATIONAL than Foucault and Derrida… But I digress…

Back to the subject at hand.

In yesterday’s post, we republished a post written by Fred Martinez at the Catholic Monitor blog. Here is how he explains the ideological underpinning of Francis:

For Postmodernists like de Certeau, Derrida, Foucault and possibly Francis, if he is their disciple, falsehood or truth doesn’t matter.

The only thing that matters is achieving power for their liberal or leftist ideology.

And that ideology is… wait for it… Marxism.

NB: For my new readers, here is Dr. Jordan Peterson to explain.

And we know that Marxism, (Marxist-Leninist scientific atheism) does not provide for the possibility of a transcendent reality let alone entity,… let alone a Catholic God. The aim of Marxism is to control the physical means of production, i.e. the distribution of resources. The “poor” are a “means” to this end since it is they who need the resources. And it is the Marxists who are the ones that distribute those resources.

And this is the FrancisRabbitTheology in a nutshell.

Which brings us to the developments inside the Sacred Vatican Walls that I mentioned at the beginning of the post. Over at the OnePeterFive blog (see here), we get a GREAT post. In that post, we have a quote from Cardinal Robert Sarah, the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship. Here is that passage: (emphasis added)

But it is problematic that we seek merely human solutions as an answer for our [own quest for our] destination.” In the face of great problems, explains the cardinal, “we insist upon human means instead of lifting up our hearts to God.” [emphasis added] The African cardinal then presents a striking thought: “Sometimes I have the impression that this secularization has entered the Church in order also to reduce our Faith to a human standard.”  A “Faith according to human terms” is being presented to man “which is not any more rooted in the depth of the Revelation of Christ and the Tradition of the Church, but, rather, in the claims and [purported] needs of modern man.”

Nuff said?

PS Once again, please read the above linked post titled Is Catholic Opposition to Pope Francis Growing?

PPS When watching the video at the top of the page, please take into account the hosts historic Anglican background and current “atheist” pose. Also take into account that the video is over 2 years old and from regularly watching his latest productions, it is evident that he has “evolved” in the area of metaphysics and “spirituality”.

So don’t get triggered. 😉

Secularists Joining The War On Nihilism…


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

In today’s post we continue with the PROCESSES theme. This time, we chronicale a DIVERGENT PROCESS that is taking place.

The DIVERGENT PROCESS has to do with different sectors of the “faithless”, dare I say atheist community parting ways on the issues of morals, absolutes and of God.

On the one hand, we have the admitted (nominal) “atheists” (i.e. Stefan Molyneux) coming to the reasoned position that there are no moral universal absolutes without God, and an “atheist” society just doesn’t work. In other words, without the absolutes that God provides to His creation, society completely breaks down.

One very poingiant observation, and one that is explained in toto by the LEX ARMATICUS is that the society which is the most convinced in it’s absolutes, is the one that will dominate the other, less certain ones.

The case for the nominal “atheists” getting religion is contained in the above video. It is a must watch, and is so good that it should be watched more than once and promolgated far and wide.

On the other hand, we have nominal “catholics” who have long ago lost their faith and have adopted a post-Modernist cum Marxist understanding of “time and space”.

This position is represented by Francis, the bishop of Rome and a large part of the post-conciliar church. The key to a proper understanding this group’s loss of faith, is to understand that they completely reject the notion of absolutes.

Here are the main tenants of their “faith” as described in the post below:

Post Structuralists like de Certeau, more widely known as Postmodernists, believe all reality is fiction or “narrative.”

They change the “narrative” or story usually to compile with their leftist or liberal views on politics, sexual morality or whatever their pet project happens to be.

They rarely use scholarship to backup their “narrative” point of view, only mind numbing long confusing writing that obscures instead of clarifying.

The Postmodernists in the media are one exception to the obscurantism of non-clarity.

Their “narratives” are clear and well written, but again rarely is there scholarship or strong evidence to backup their stories. They use spin to obscure.

Media spin “narrative” is “news and information that is manipulated or slanted to affect its interpretation and influence public opinion.” (

They usually use their “narratives” in history, news, the Bible and any writing as a vehicle to promote their ideological ideas.

Yes, it sums Francis, the bishop of Rome and the FrancisRabbitTheology™ to a “T”!

On an aside, how many of you dear readers think that Francis actually read Michel de Cereau?

Yea, I don’t either.

It appears that the identification of Cereau as Francis’s favorite “philosopher” is a case of TeamFrancis putting in place some ex post facto justification for Francis’ eratic “teaching office”. Once again the key passage, and I can’t stress this point enough:

They usually use their “narratives” in history, news, the Bible and any writing as a vehicle to promote their ideological ideas.

Which leads to the question of why they need a “philosophical” read ideological justification in the first place?

The answer is provided by Dr. John Lamont: (see here)

The key to the neomodernist capture of power is however also the reason for their failure to sustain a religious culture. Neomodernism is not like Protestantism, which contains ideas with a positive content as well as being a rejection of Catholicism. These ideas – justification by faith, and the like – are not correct, but they say something substantial, and have an appeal that can give rise to an important movement. Neomodernism, however, on a religious level is a purely negative thesis. As a result it has no attractive force of its own, and ecclesiastical structures that fall into its grip eventually die away – a process now visible all over the world. This is one thing that on the natural level permitted the survival of Thomism, despite the drastic measures taken to uproot it from the Church; unlike neomodernism, it has something positive and substantial to say. Moreover, what it has to say is actually true. This is in no way a guarantee of broad success, but it ensures the continued existence of Thomism in the small constituency of good scholars who are concerned with the truth and in a position to discover it. Whether it will expand much beyond this constituency in the future is unknown, but there is no doubt that its future shows more promise than that of neomodernism.

So the complete disintegration of neo-Modernism as a “philosophical” base for sustaining a “religious culture” has moved the post-conciliar NUChurch further down the Nihilist continuum and squarely into the post-Modernists (Marxist) camp.

But the good news is on the other side. It would now appear that the “small constituency” of Thomist scholars that has survived the post-conciliar suppression is now being joined by secular philosophers and academics in the battle against post-Modernism, read Nihilism.

Who would have thunk?


Pope Francis and Nihilism (see here)

Does Pope Francis believe that there is no “possibility of an objective basis for truth” and that there is no objective meaning or reality? ( definitions of nihilism)

The nihilist Michel de Certeau believed in all of the above.

The present Pope considers him the most eminent modern theologian. Francis said:

“For me, de Certeau is still the greatest theologian for today.” (, March 8, 2016, “Pope Francis Reveals His Mind to Private Audience”)

De Certeau in his greatest book “Heterologies” said:

“It is not Mr. Foucault who is making fun of domains of knowledge… It is history that is laughing at them. It plays tricks on the teleologists who take themselves to be the lieutenants of meaning. A meaninglessness of history.” (“Heterologogies,” Pages 195-196)

Historian Keith Windschuttle shows that the Pope’s favorite modern theologian is a radical who thinks that there is no outside reality. Windschuttle wrote:

“Of all the French theorists… de Certeau is the most radical. He is critical of the poststructuralist Foucault for his use of documentary evidence and of Derrida for the way he privileges the practice of writing. For de Certeau, writing is a form of oppression… he argues… writing itself constitutes the act of colonisation…”

“Like both structuralist and poststructuralist theorists, de Certeau subscribes to the thesis that we have access only to our language and not to any real, outside world…”

“De Certeau claims that writing can never be objective. Its status is no different from that of fiction. So, because history is a form of writing, all history is also fiction.” (“The Killing of History,” Pages 31-34)

By Francis’s greatest modern theologian’s logic then Jesus Christ, true God and true man, who walked the earth during the reign of Pontius Pilate is fiction.

The central doctrine of Catholism, the Incarnation, is fiction.

Post Structuralists like de Certeau, more widely known as Postmodernists, believe all reality is fiction or “narrative.”

They change the “narrative” or story usually to compile with their leftist or liberal views on politics, sexual morality or whatever their pet project happens to be.

They rarely use scholarship to backup their “narrative” point of view, only mind numbing long confusing writing that obscures instead of clarifying.

The Postmodernists in the media are one exception to the obscurantism of non-clarity.

Their “narratives” are clear and well written, but again rarely is there scholarship or strong evidence to backup their stories. They use spin to obscure.

Media spin “narrative” is “news and information that is manipulated or slanted to affect its interpretation and influence public opinion.” (

They usually use their “narratives” in history, news, the Bible and any writing as a vehicle to promote their ideological ideas.

With that background, here is the Pope’s favorite theologian’s central religious ideas. The de Certeau Scholar Johannes Hoff wrote:

“According to this new approach to the Biblical narrative, the focal event of Christianity is not the incarnation, the crucifixion, or the resurrection of Christ, but the empty tomb. The Christian form of life is no longer associated with a place, a body, or an institution, but with a quest for a missing body: the missing body of the people of Israel, and mutatis mutandis the missing body of Jesus.”
(Article by Johannes Hoff, “Mysticism, Ecclesiology And The Body Christ: Certeau’s (Mis-) Reading of Corpus Mystium and the Legacy of Henri de Lubac” Page 87, Titus Brandsma Institute Studies In Spirituality, Supplement 24, “Spiritual Spaces: History and Mysticism in Michel De Certeau”)

The nihilist theologian believes that the central truths of Christianity are about “absence” or nonexistence. De Certeau scholar Graham Ward wrote:

“For de Lubac the… Eucharist is not a sign of the presence of Christ’s body, it is Christ’s body… And yet Certeau… makes the Eucharist (as later the church and body of mystical text he treats) into substitutes, acts of bereavement, signs of absence.” (“Michel de Certeau – in the Plural, ” Page 511)

In other words, Francis’s greatest modern theologian believes that the Eucharist is not the body of Christ present, he doesn’t even believe it is a sign of the presence of Christ’s body like some Protestants, but a sign of “absence.”

Might de Certeau’s influence on Francis be the reason he never kneels before the Eucharist, but kneels to wash the feet of those he like Certeau might consider oppressed?

De Certeau’s influence on Francis may be the reason he reportedly said:

“It is not excluded that I will enter history as the one who split the Catholic Church.” (Der Spiegel magazine, December, 23, 2016)

De Certeau scholar Frederick Christian Bauerschmidt wrote:

“Certeau… came increasingly to stress the clash of interpretation, the “law of conflict,” that applies even to the church. Under the pressure of this clash, the ecclesial/eucharistic body is “shattered.” (“Michael de Certeau – in the Plural”, Page 359)

Francis’s greatest modern theologian doesn’t believe in the central truths of the Catholic Church.

The Pope’s most eminent modern theologian doesn’t even believe in objective truth.

Does Francis believe in the central doctrines of the Catholic Church or in objective truth?

The question needs to be asked:

If the Pope is a disciple of de Certeau and Postmodernism, then what ultimately do he and these thinkers believe in?

Philosopher Stephen Hicks said:

The “Left thinkers of the 1950s and 1960s… Confronted by the continued poverty and brutality of socialism, they could either go with the evidence and reject their most cherish ideals – or stick by their ideals and attack the whole idea that evidence and logic matter…”

“Postmodernism is born of the marriage of Left politics and skeptical epistemology…”

“Then, strikingly, postmodernism turns out not to be relativistic at all. Relativism becomes part of a rhetorical political strategy, some Machiavellian realpolitik employed to throw the opposition off track…”

“Here it is useful to recall Derrida: ‘deconstruction never had any meaning… than as a radicalization… within the tradition of a certain Marxism, in a certain spirit of Marxism.'” (“Explaining Postmodernism,” Page 90, 186)

For Postmodernists like de Certeau, Derrida, Foucault and possibly Francis, if he is their disciple, falsehood or truth doesn’t matter.

The only thing that matters is achieving power for their liberal or leftist ideology.

Internationally renowned theologian Dr. Tracey Rowland said Francis’s “decision – making process” outlined in Evangelii Gaudium is “the tendency to give priority to praxis over theory.”

She states that chapter eight of Amoris Laetitia “might be described as the praxis chapter rather than a theory chapter.” Theory meaning Catholic doctrine.

The renowned theologian asks how footnote 351 of Amoris Laetitia “can be consistent with paragraph eighty-four of John Paul II’s Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio and paragraph twenty-nine of Benedict XVI’s Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis? A pastoral crisis may arise if the lay faithful and their priests have to choose between… two Popes (John Paul II and Benedict XVI) on one side, and a third Pope (Pope Francis) on the other.” (“Catholic Theology,” Page 192, 198, 199)

The choice appears to be between the infallible doctrines of the Catholic Church or praxis “theology.”

Rowland says “praxis types agree in rejecting classical metaphysics.” She then explains praxis ideology or “theology”:

“Doctrinal theory is at best extrinsic and secondary. The reflex character of theory-praxis tends toward a reduction of theory to reflection on praxis as variously understood. The normativity tends toward an identification of Christianity with modern, secular (liberal or Marxist) process.” (“Catholic Theology,” Page174)

If what the internationally renowned theologian is saying is true of Pope Francis and praxis “theology,” then the Church is in the greatest crisis in history.

The Church has a Pope who has betrayed Jesus Christ and His Gospel for the world.

Francis has exchanged the Gospel of Jesus Christ for “secular (liberal or Marxist)” ideology.

Pray for the Church, the beloved bride of Jesus Christ.

“That’s Just The Nature Of Things”


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

Today will be a good news day. Having said that, since most of the news coming from the FrancisRabbitChurch™ is so dreadful, the bar for what constitutes good news is quite low. But anyways…

First point of order is that your humble blogger has been observing a pattern which could lead to a identifiable PROCESS. The pattern that has been observed is one where bloggers from the Catholic blogosphere have been picking up and commenting on the work produced by Dr. Jordan Peterson.

Background is as follows. A few months after I started noticing and writing about Dr. Peterson’s videos and lectures, I noticed another blogger, namely Tantum from the Dallas Area Catholics blog also producing posts about Dr. Peterson’s work. (see here and here just to mention 2).

Now a third blogger has entered the fray. Over at the The Orthosphere blog, I came across a post titled Some ideas either from or inspired by listening to Jordan Peterson podcastsThis post is so good, and written with what one can call a “Nietzschian compactness”, that I am reposting it here:

The one thing God lacks is limitation. Every being that exists is limited. Limitation creates suffering. I would add that overcoming current limitations involves suffering; but limitations will continue and thus suffering will continue. The trick is not to become angry and resentful due to the necessary suffering that existence involves. In the pathological, the anger and resentment at one’s own existence is directed at all of existence in toto, which makes a kind of sense since suffering and existence are coextensive; it’s nothing personal! Peterson sees certain dictators, among others, as ultimately infected with this nihilistic urge for total destruction.

So, suffering is not just part of the human condition, but at the heart of all existence. If it were possible to exist outside of actually being a limited creature, then upon hearing of the existence of a person with even the greatest blessings of health, wealth and beauty, one can imagine sending one’s condolences.

What I find interesting about this above text is that it is a perfect example of what we call the CONVERGENCE PROCESS on this blog. What is in fact happening is that the subset of the Visibilium Omnium, et Invisibilium that is clinical psychology, as represented by Dr. Peterson is CONVERGING with the philosophical (theological) subset as represented by Richard Cocks at the Orthosphere blog.

Another PROCESS that could be taking form, but is still in the early stage is what I will call: The proper categorization of what is the “theology” of Francis. Your humble blogger has been writing about this, and placing Francis’ “theology” in the post-modernist camp. Just to review, the post-modernists are a quasi-religious sect, whose basic tenants of their belief system are described as follows: (see here) (emphasis added)

The post-Modernists don’t believe in coherency, and I’m not making this up. This is part of their philosophy. They don’t believe in logic. You know, Derrida says straight out that Western is fallo- logo centric, by which he means male centered and privileging the idea of logic. Well, he doesn’t buy any of that.  He doesn’t think that there is a truth that is out there. He doesn’t believe that individuals can reach any sort of truth by thinking. He certainly doesn’t believe that we can move towards truth in dialogue. Because that’s “dia-logic”. Right? There’s none of that. (case in point here)

Given the above as context, over at the Musings of a Pertinacious Papist blog, a post appeared titled ‘Is Francis a Postmodernist’? Here is that post:

I’m not sure the discourse of the Holy Father rises (or ‘sinks’) to the level of academic abstraction sufficient to qualify him as a ‘Postmodernist,’ but when you read some of the seemingly hyperbolic praise he heaps on the likes of nihilistic Postmodern writers like Michel de Certeau (right), you can see how someone might come up with an article like that of the pro-life activist, Fred Martinez, “Pope Francis and Nihilism” (Catholic Monitor, Sunday, May 28, 2017).

What I think is key to understand the above is that there really is no such thing as ‘Postmodernism’. As Dr. Peterson explains, post-Modernism is just a veneer that masks Marxism. (Here is Noam Chomsky, an eye witness to explain how post-Modernism came into being.) Reverting back to the Peterson video, we get an explanation of the difference between the post-modernist FrancisTheology™ and the “populist cum Marxist” – Francis, the bishop of Rome:

Anyways, forget about logic. That’s out the window. That’s just a construct of Western society and the whole point of the construct was to oppress those other people and to take their wealth. And to privilege the people who live in that so called logic system, so that they can justify to themselves and other people their predator rapaciousness.  Straight and simple. And that’s partly because post-Modernism was influenced by Marxism and that of course because that’s what the Marxist think about any  situation where there is a power status differential. The people at the top are only there because they stole everything from the people at the bottom.

Going one step further, and as we know from Hilary White’s great assessment of Francis (see here), he is all about CONTROL. So using a “populist cum Marxist” framework disguised in a post-Modernist FrancisTheology™, and given the current intellectual state of the post-conciliar church, especially the hierarchy, this is what works now.

A minor digression… But if Vladimir Putin took over the world, and the power structure turned to a “conservative/nationalistic” mindset, kind of like in Argentina during the rule of the Generals, Francis would no doubt sound like this here.

Notice the difference?

If Francis is anything, it is malleable!

Concluding, what is important to understand is that PROCESSES are taking place. These PROCESSES are independent events, outside the control of anyone or any group that would like to control them. These PROCESSES appear to be driven by rational thought and can be characterized as independent and stand alone.

In the above text, we see two such PROCESSES, namely the CONVERGENCE between the secular and ecclesiastical sub-sets of human activity.

Next, we also notice a PROCESS in its early stages, one that attempts to identify the “verbiage” coming from Francis, the bishop of Rome and categorize it into the CORRECT “school of thought” that it objectively represents. By identifying and categorizing what it is that Francis is telling us, we can then assess… or rather judge the VALUE of that message.

What is important to take away from the Pertinacious Papist post is that the classification of Francis’ message is definitely falling outside of that which we can call a Catholic “school of thought”.

And rightly so.

And finally, what is the most encouraging is that these questions are beginning to be asked, and in forums that are Catholic. In other words, we are beginning to see the early signs of an Institution (Catholic Church) that is trying to understand the situation that it finds itself in, and hopefully the beginning of the PROCESS of righting itself.

And this appears to be due just to the nature of the things…

Reading The FrancisRabbitChurch™ Through Marx…


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

Abstract rabbit dog sculpture – Salisbury Cathedral


Today is a watershed day. The news that appeared on the Eponymous Flower blog CONFIRMS IN TOTALITY several open threads that your humble blogger and much of the Catholic blogosphere have been pursuing. The post confirms the following issues:

  1. The ROOT CAUSE behind the destruction of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate,
  2. The ROOT CAUSE behind the destruction of the SOVEREIGNTY of the “Sovereign” Order of Malta,
  3. The “KEY” through which Francis, the bishop of Rome and his RabbitChurchMUST be read,
  4. The FrancisRabbitCurch™ plan for the SSPX and the breakaway Ecclesia Dei Commission communities and,
  5. Answers the question of WHY Francis and the FrancisRabbitChurch™ are desperately seeking reconciliation with the Society of St. Piux X.

So let’s get cracking.

In the below post, Giuseppe Nardi informs his readers and by extension you about the latest “happenings” in the case of the suppression of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate. For our purposes, the key is the following passage:

Recently, Father Manelli officially and in the name of the Pope was asked to renew his allegiance of loyalty and obedience to the Pope. The demand appears to be doubtful, since officially no reproaches have been made by the founder of the Order. This, however, has deprived him of the possibility of defending himself for whatever reason. Father Manelli did not contend, but renewed the required oath.

Two weeks ago, he received another letter from the Congregation of Religious. This time he was asked to make the entire property available to the Church, as mentioned above.

“Naively, the founder of the Franciscans of the Immaculata responded,” says Tosatti, that he can not provide anything because he has nothing. The above-mentioned assets are not subject to his authority, but to that of the lay associations.

Father Manelli evidently did not see through the “trap” which had been made for him with the renewal of his loyalty first and then the money demand. Maybe he’s just too honest, too old or too tired to dodge the trappers with prudentia.

For my long time readers, you will know that the HIDDEN AGENDA behind the destruction of the “Lefebvrist drifting” FFI was for one of the other Franciscan Orders to get their hands on the FFI tangible assets. We outlined the situation in a post titled Let My People Go! in early 2015. Just to refresh everyone’s memory, at that time it was still a mystery as to why this brutal repression was taking place, with several motives identified. Needless to say, the Deus Ex Machina Pierce/Ockham Pragmatic Methodology easily identified the economic issues as the ROOT CAUSE.

Today we have complete confirmation.

Numquam Ponenda est Pluralitas Sine Necessitate!

NB: To my new readers, the above is what is known as Ockham’s razor. The Latin text translates as: Plurality must never be posited without necessity. In other words, the simpler the explanation to a complicated problem, the more probable that it will be the correct explanation. (More detailed explanation here.)

With respect for why this is happening, in yesterday’s post we identified the striking similarities between characteristics exhibited by a “population” that has adapted a r Selection Theory model and the post-conciliar church. The “evolution” of the post-conciliar church has created what your humble blogger has labeled as the the FrancisRabbitChurch™.

Just to put the entire chain in one post, here is the explanation that your humble blogger offered yesterday:

Concluding, what we are seeing in the above examples is a societal breakdown created by period of unlimited resources. In the secular side of the Visibilium Omnium, this was created by national central banks printing money and the governments themselves issuing large and unsustainable amounts of debt. Greece is the poster child for this phenomenon. On the Ecclesiastical side, the post-conciliar heirs to the Catholic Church’s YUGE patrimony adopted a very reckless and likewise unsustainable approach for managing their monetary and ecclesiastical affairs.

But now, we have entered into a phase where the resources are becoming scarce. The pewsitters are long gone and the churches are being, or have been sold off. The diocesan trust funds have been monetized and depleted…

And just to finish this chain of thought, the post-conciliar FrancisRabbitChurch has entered a phase where it is trying to gather as many of the “free” resources as it possibly can in order to survive and keep the r Selection environment going.

So what does this tell us about the intent behind the “kind” offer of recognition made by Francis to the SSPX?

Well, what it tells us is that at present, Francis can’t get his hands on the SSPX’s assets since he has no CONTROL over them. But if he can bring them into the FrancisRabbitChurch™ fold, he will have leverage to execute one of his “cunning as a fox who just got appointed Professor of Cunning at Oxford University” plans.

Like they say, better to have some leverage than no leverage at all.

But what does this mean for the SSPX breakaway communities holed up in the Ecclesia Dei Commission?

Simple. They are just the bait.

And once the fox is caught, there will be no more need for the bait.

Once again, Numquam Ponenda est Pluralitas Sine Necessitate!

And finally, what this post also does is it confirms that the only way you can read the FrancisRabbitChurch™ is through Carl Marx…

And now, the Giuseppe Nardi post that appeared on the Eponymous Flower blog…


“‘na roba”, the Franciscans of the Immaculate and the New Chess Move of the Congregation of Religious

(Rome) There is no end of the Calvary of Father Stefano Maria Manelli, the founder and until his dismissal, head of the Order of the Franciscans of Immaculata. Since July 2013, the young and, until then, flourishing, Order has been under the administration of a Commissar appointed by the Roman Congregation of Religious. Although four years have passed since, and the second Pontifical Commissioner has already overseen the prescription, there is still no official reason for the grave intervention in the Order. An alleged “Lefebvrianian deviation” was attributed to the Order. “What makes this all so comical today is that the Pope is ready to welcome the heirs of Marcel Lefebvre with a Personal Prelature into the Church,” as the Vaticanist Marco Tosatti noted two days ago.

The Commissioner and a slander campaign

Tosatti sees “from the outside,” a “variety” of reasons leading to the provisional administration of the Order: first the attack against the founder by a group of “young Turks” who wanted to take over the Order, “one of the most flourishing with vocations.” Today the vocations must be imported, contrary to the Vatican directives, which provides training on location, from Nigeria), but then also for property, “na roba”, the “reason”.

What Tosatti does not mention, however, is to be guessed at: that the Order which had changed with Pope Francis, and with the Motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, had changed from the new to the traditional form of the Roman Rite, and yet (or precisely for this reason) attracted numerous vocations while the “modern”, “cosmopolitan” orders dried up. Benedict XVI held his protective hand over this extraordinary case among Catholic religious orders. With the new pope, the defeat of the Order began, as it was evidently a thorn in the eye.

The assumption of background touched upon by Tosatti in any case helps to understand the “angry slander campaign” which was unleashed against sisters of the Order because of alleged abuses. The starting point of the campaign in November 2015 was with Corriere della Sera, the flagship of the Italian “quality press”. The alleged “scandal” led to investigations by the prosecutor’s office, which concluded a year later and was unceremoniously archived. The media claims proved to be what one would call Fake News today.

“However, they will probably have a sequel to some newspapers and websites with severe financial consequences, because they are civilly faced with high claims for damages by the victims,” ​​Tosatti said.

“Na’ roba”

There are now fresh actions of the Roman Congregation of Religious. It is not so much about the Cardinal Prefect, the Brazilian João Braz de Aviz, but “about the secretary of the Congregation, the Franciscan José Rodriguez Carballo, who has a direct connection with the Pope,” says Tosatti.

Carballo is one of the first personnel decisions of this pontificate. Pope Francis proclaimed him on April 6, not four weeks after his election, as Secretary of the Congregation of Religious. Until then, the Spaniard was Minister General of the Franciscan Order. As such, he is directly involved in the financial scandal that exploded in December 2014 and brought the general leadership of the Order to the brink of bankruptcy. The Swiss public prosecutor’s office had seized accounts of the Franciscan Order in October 2014 because of the suspicion of money laundering. The money, several tens of millions of euros, had been invested in ill-fated companies, which are being investigated for illegal arms and drug trafficking. Nothing is known of consequences of any kind against Carballo in the Vatican.

This brings us to “,na roba”, which is not insignificant in the Order of the Franciscans of Immaculata (canonically recognized in 1990, not to be confused with the Franciscans, founded 1210/1517). It has about 59 buildings, 17 properties, five photovoltaic plants and a series of banking accounts. The entire property, however, is not in the hands of the Order, since it has the vow of strict poverty, but in the hands of lay associations. The proceeds from the estate were given to the Order for its duties in pastoral care and mission.

When the Order was placed under the Commission, the first Commissioner, Father Fidenzio Volpi, a Capuchin, who died in office in 2015, had the property confiscated. The court then decided completely differently. The entire assets were released again and reunited with the lay associations.

As the Congregation of Religious could not get at the Order through the secular courts, it is now exerting pressure on the now 84-year-old founder of the Order, Father Manelli. Since the provisional administration, he has been under house arrest by the Vatican, “which in 2017 is in extremely bad taste,” says Tosatti.

Recent actions of the religious congregation: the “Trap” and the demand

Recently, Father Manelli officially and in the name of the Pope was asked to renew his allegiance of loyalty and obedience to the Pope. The demand appears to be doubtful, since officially no reproaches have been made by the founder of the Order. This, however, has deprived him of the possibility of defending himself for whatever reason. Father Manelli did not contend, but renewed the required oath.

Two weeks ago, he received another letter from the Congregation of Religious. This time he was asked to make the entire property available to the Church, as mentioned above.

“Naively, the founder of the Franciscans of the Immaculata responded,” says Tosatti, that he can not provide anything because he has nothing. The above-mentioned assets are not subject to his authority, but to that of the lay associations.

Father Manelli evidently did not see through the “trap” which had been made for him with the renewal of his loyalty first and then the money demand. Maybe he’s just too honest, too old or too tired to dodge the trappers with prudentia.

Tosatti wrote:

“Perhaps he would have done better to meet with the laity and to present the Vatican demand to them.The laity, who are not under obedience, would have made a decision. But he did not apply this ruse.”

The “weapon of obedience” and an “act of disobedience”

His response is now interpreted by the Vatican as an act of disobedience to the Pope. With the letter one wants to turn him with a rope. In other words, in the Congregation of Religious, it is now believed that they have the occasion to impose sanctions against the founder in the Church. And all without being told by the Vatican why the Order is under commissionerial administration, and why Father Manelli was deposed as General-General.

In the Vatican, someone is obviously rubbing his hands. So far, the Congregation of Religious and Pope Francis have been wrong. In which state can sanctions be imposed without charges, without the possibility of defense and without a regular canonical procedure? Now, however, one must not talk about it any more, because one has the statement by Manelli, who answered truthfully, but not satisfactorily. Is this for an ecclesiastical condemnation? In the face of the bad experiences the Order has had to overcome for the last four years, no one in the Order would doubt it.

The real concern, however, is “‘na roba”, the property. Manelli is particularly stifled, because he can not “relinquish” the possession of valuable property. Legally, he is unquestionably in the right, which is why the Vatican operates the moral lever. The exact disposition of the lay associations are not known, but they can be seen. For a long time the hope existed (and perhaps still exists) that the Order of the Franciscans of the Immaculate could be reestablished in the bosom of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, then it would have the means to continue its work blessedly. Such a new foundation has been prevented by the Vatican for four years. Yet another reason is not insignificant: it can be argued that the benefactors who have given the estate to the Order have left it to the Order founded by Father Manelli. Not to any order or in general “of the Church,” but in a very particular order with a very definite charism. However, after four years of commissionership, it is no longer the same order.

“As a sidenote” it is also addressed, again to quote Marco Tosatti, “that it is more and more frequent that obedience is used as a weapon. Let us recall how Fra Matthew Festing, the Grand Master of the Order of Malta, was forced by the Pope to resign and sign a letter of doubtful content, by obedience. A bad habit, which is at the risk of becoming chronic … “

There’s Something Happening, And That Something Is The RESTORATION… That RESTORATION!


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

Today I re-post an article that appeared at the Zero Hedge website, written by Daniel Lang via website, with which I completely agree.

However, as good this post is at identifying what could be termed “symptoms” (defined as: any phenomenon or circumstance accompanying “something” and serving as evidence of it) of a “something” that is transpiring, it does not even try to identify what that “something” is.

So today I will take as stab at what that “something” is and why it is happening.

As to the something, I think that it is easy to name. That something is what we call the “Restoration of all things in Christ”.

I will leave this claim hanging just for a minute or so…

As to why the “Restoration of all things in Christ” is happening, and is happening in a much wider space than just the ECCLESIASTICAL subset of the Visibilium Omnium, et Invisibilium, I have a theory.

Allow me to explain.

What I think is behind this wider Restoration is what is known in the biological sciences as the r/K Selection Theory within Evolutionary Ecology. I did a post on just this titled Lex Armaticus, r/K Theory And The Rabbit Papacy…

A quick review. ( I add emphasis and added emphasis)

In r/K Selection Theory in Evolutionary Ecology, if you provide a population with free resources, those who will come to dominate the population will exhibit five basic traits, called an r-selected Reproductive Strategy. These traits are all designed to best exploit the free resource availability. In nature, the r-selected strategy is best seen in the rabbit, which lives in fields of grass it will never fully consume. The five traits are, competition and risk avoidance, promiscuity, low-investment single parenting, earlier age of sexualization of young, and no loyalty to in-group. These traits are ultimately designed to selfishly maximize the numbers of offspring produced. Each of these offspring, though of lesser fitness, will be able to survive and reproduce freely themselves, due to the free resource availability. In r-selection nobody ends up dead, and killing or being killed is not a concern.

In r/K Theory, there is also a strategy exactly opposite to the rabbit’s, which emerges under conditions of resource scarcity. It is called the K-selected Reproductive Strategy. There, where resources are scarce, competition for resources is everywhere, and some individuals will die due to failure in competition, and the resultant resource denial that this produces. This produces the K-strategy, which is best seen in the wolf. This strategy also has five psychological traits – competitiveness/aggressiveness/protectiveness, mate monopolization/monogamy, high-investment two-parent child-rearing, later age of sexualization of young, and high loyalty to in-group. This psychology is designed to form highly fit and competitive groups that succeed in group competition, all while capturing and monopolizing the fittest mate possible, as a means of making their offspring genetically fitter than those of competitors. Here, the goal is not to simply consume as much as possible yourself and produce as many baby-making machines as you can, with little regard to their fitness. Here, the goal is to help your group succeed in its competition for the scarce resources, and then produce offspring of as high a fitness as possible, so they may carry your genes forward by succeeding in competition themselves. It is obvious why every r-strategy ideal would act as a repellent to a K-strategist, since each ideal would guarantee failure in the K-selected environment.

Now just to once again stress the critical point. The r/K Selection has been observed as holding across all of God’s creatures, including man. The difference with respect to man is that he exhibits both types of Selection criteria, depending on the state of the RESOURCES that he has at hand.

In other words, when RESOURCES are abundant, man will tend toward the r Selection, while when RESOURCES are scarce, he will be forced into the K Selection mode. And these have bee identified as epigenetic processes that take place in the human body regardless of whether that person is conscious of them or not.

Once again, hold that thought.

Event 1

In 2005, the Vatican Conclave elected Joseph Ratzinger as the supreme Pontiff. This was a very surprising move since it put the Universal Church under a “conservative” regime.

This “conservative” regime was continuously under attack throughout the entire pontificate by a cabal that would eventually be known as the St. Gallen Mafia and the operational unit was Team Bergoglio. It also came to light that there was most likely outside influence being exerted on the conservative regime from such insitutions as the Obama White House, the German soft power forces through the SWIFT clearing system and Deutsche Bank specifically, and countless other Non-Governmental Organization including the United Nations.

The result was the instillation of a dissident regime that exhibited the characteristics of the r Selection reproductive theory. Those characteristics can be identified as 1)  competition and risk avoidance (the aversion to proselytization) , 2) promiscuity (Fr. Ricca, say no more), 3) low-investment single parenting (dereliction of seminarian training and dilapidated state of seminaries – think seminary in Buenos Aires), 4) earlier age of sexualization of young (introduction of sexualization into Catholic schools), and 5) no loyalty to in-group (hate Catholics and prefer protestants, muslims, etc., i.e. strong ecumenism).

Event 2.

In 2016, Donald J. Trump unexpectedly (to most clueless people) won the presidential election. He won due to a platform that was highly based on characteristics of a K Selection strategy. The characteristics of Mr. Trump’s platform were: competitiveness/aggressiveness/protectiveness (change US doctrine to one of competition with other nations), 2) mate monopolization/monogamy (married three times, but always loyal to current wife), 3) high-investment two-parent child-rearing (Don Jr. Eric, Ivanka and Barron – need I say more), 4) later age of sexualization of young (all adult family members in stable relationships), and 5) high loyalty to in-group (America First).

And finally, it needs to be repeated that the reason that humans and the rest of God’s creature select either of the two strategies has to do with the availability of resources.

Using the availability of resources as the metric, we can now make the following observations.

  • We can infer that the Bergoglians have have the luxury of employing an r Selection approach since they have all the patrimony of the Church at their disposal. They also have no offspring (officially), so they have no pressing need to bequeath anything to posterity. Therefore, true to the rabbit mentality, they can consume everything that they can now.


  • On the Trump side, he has a large family and a successful business, therefore he has a pressing need to adopt a K Selection strategy, which he did for himself. Being in a competitive environment, he has to invest in his off spring so that they will also be able to compete. And now as POTUS, he is implementing the K Selection strategy for the entire country and by extension forcing it onto the rest of the world.

Aside, I think it is the “competition” aspect of the Trump administration’s K Selection strategy that the Eurolanders simply hate.

Now that we have the framework in place, we can try to explain why the youth (Generation Z) is becoming very “conservative”.

Now as the author of the below post quite clearly explains, this new “conservatism” isn’t your father’s or grandfather’s Rockeffeler or neo-conservatism. What this new conservatism is, as can clearly be seen from the above, is the K Selection conservatism.

This is pure Natural Law and Natural Moral Law conservatism.

Or to put it another way, this is Catholicism!

And why is this K Selection based conservatism reestablishing itself?

Due to the fact that the younger generation is beginning to experience a scarcity of resources.

Don’t believe me?

Here is one anecdotal headline that should provide all the context that is needed to support my point:

For First Time in Modern Era, Living With Parents Edges Out Other Living Arrangements for 18- to 34-Year-Olds.

And if you think that this is just a US phenomenon, here is how the situation looks in the UK and the rest of Europe? Here are those details:

Europe’s young adults living with parents – a country by country breakdown

Concluding, what we are seeing in the above examples is a societal breakdown created by period of unlimited resources. In the secular side of the Visibilium Omnium, this was created by national central banks printing money and the governments themselves issuing large and unsustainable amounts of debt. Greece is the poster child for this phenomenon. On the Ecclesiastical side, the post-conciliar heirs to the Catholic Church’s YUGE patrimony adopted a very reckless and likewise unsustainable approach for managing their monetary and ecclesiastical affairs.

But now, we have entered into a phase where the resources are becoming scarce. The pewsitters are long gone and the churches are being, or have been sold off. The diocesan trust funds have been monetized and depleted. The national governments have amassed a massive debt burden and the debt service alone is making their debt unsustainable. The markets do not want to purchase this debt any longer, so the central banks are intervening to bail out the governments. In Italy we have a situation where the European Central Bank is the lone purchaser of Italian government debt. Greece is on life support from the EU and globalist institutions. So all in all, one can say that the rats have eaten all the cheese.

The brunt of the above situation however, is being born by the young. The youth, not having any assets, find it hard to get jobs (European unemployment for 18-30 year olds is above 30%), they can’t start families, those that do are forced to live with their parents, they can’t afford to purchase homes since they do not work, and the list goes on and on…

Therefore, they are being forced to adopt a K Selection reproductive strategy by their environment. And this choice that they are making is beginning to be reflected in the voting choices that they are making.

So when Dr. Jordan Peterson sees that what is most important to youth is to assume “responsibility”, this is by no means a frivolous or independent, stand alone decision. But before you can assume responsibility, you need to satisfy you basic physiological needs. At least to the point where you can move out of your family’s basement.

And as it just so happens, the above situation also fits in very well with the Catholic Church and its immemorial doctrine. On the one hand, it makes for a strong support community. On the individual level, if the Catholic Church teaches anything, it is personal responsibility. But not only does it teach individual responsibility, it also provides the FRAMEWORK for how to reduce the suffering in this vale of tears. That FRAMEWORK is what is known as Catholic Dogma. And it is this time proven Catholic dogma, dogma that has allowed EVERY generation of Catholics, whether they face a scarcity or abundance of RESOURCES to survive if not prosper, but also to work out their salvation in fear and trembling.

And it would appear that there are many Catholic prelates and clerics who might understand just this. This is the reason that I included the background of the Benedict election. I would appear that some in the hierarchy (majority of the College of Cardinal) knew something was going horribly wrong back in 2005.

It had to take a concerted conspiracy to dethrone Pope Benedict. And now they have chaos and most likely regret their decision!

So finally, finally it would appear that something is changing.

And changing for the better it would appear.

Now, the re-post… (see here)


Five Reasons Why America Is About To Become A Very Conservative Country

For generations, we’ve seen the political landscape in this country teeter back and forth between the Left and the Right. Usually about every 8 years or so, whichever political party is dominating Congress, the Executive Branch, and the state legislatures, is kicked out by voters and replaced with the other political party.

However, there’s something very different going on this time around. Donald Trump’s ascent to the oval office represents a major shift in our society and culture, and I’m not talking about the intermittent shuffle of politicians that we see every few years. Instead, the pendulum is about to swing very hard to the right.

I think that the political landscape in America is going to be drifting towards conservatism for the next 20-40 years. Though it may not be identical to what we view as conservative today, and it certainly won’t be the phony neoconservatism that dominated the past, it will be right-wing nonetheless. Here’s why:

1. The Supreme Court Is About To Change

President Trump has already chosen one Supreme Court justice, and there’s a good chance that he’s going to wind up choosing several more (much to the dismay of the Left). Because of their advanced age, we may see three more Supreme Court justices retire or die over the next four to eight years, two of whom lean to the left.

If Trump lasts two terms, we’re definitely going to see a Supreme Court that is dominated by conservatives for the next 20-30 years. So even when liberals take back Congress and the presidency on occasion, many of their most radical ideas won’t be able to take hold for many years.

2. Immigration Is Going To Decline

The percentage of the population that is foreign born hasn’t been this high since the early 1900’s, and most of those immigrants are liberal. That’s why our loose borders, combined with The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, have probably done more to bolster the ranks of the Left than any other law.

But just as our nation’s political landscape tends to swing back and forth between the Left and the Right, so to does number of immigrants in America. In the short term, we can expect people like Trump to restrict the border and maybe pass laws that will decrease immigration to some degree.

But there’s a long term trend to consider as well, because the election of Trump likely represents a turning point for our society. Considering how crucial his immigration stance was to his victory, it’s clear that a growing number of Americans want the border tightened up, and the number of immigrants moving here to decrease. And rest assured that in the near future, there will be more conservatives voting for politicians who will try to lower immigration rates, because…

3. The Next Generation Is Incredibly Conservative

Over the years we’ve seen each generation of Americans become a little more liberal than the last, but that’s about to change. According to a study from last year, Generation Z, which represents kids born after the year 2000, is the most conservative generation since World War Two. To give you an idea of just how right-wing the next generation is, when asked if they are “quite conservative,” 14% of teenagers say they are, compared to just 2% of Millennials. That’s a mind boggling shift, from one generation to the next.

4. Liberal Birth Rates Are Declining

The Left is about to pay a huge price for denigrating the family and traditional gender roles for so many years. Because liberal women tend to be more career minded and wait longer to have children, they often have fewer kids over the course of their lives. That’s why liberal states always have lower birth rates than conservative states.

All of the states with a birth rate of of 60 or less per 1000 people are liberal, and all of the states with a birth rate of 70 or more per 1000 people are conservative. That may not sound drastic, but consider that these states still have a sizeable mix of conservatives and liberals. Even the most liberal states have millions of conservative residents and vice versa, which offsets the results. If ideology is really driving birth rates, then liberals are probably having very very few children. They’re probably not reaching the minimum replacement rate of 2.1 children per mother.

When you consider how many values kids learn from their parents and carry into adulthood, it’s obvious that the Left has a serious demographic problem. The only way they’ve been able to create more liberals, is through immigration and through indoctrination in the school system. Unfortunately for the Left, they’re not going to have a stranglehold on our schools for much longer either.

5. Leftist Academia Is In Serious Trouble

From Kindergarten to college, our schools are breeding grounds for liberal ideas. That’s become abundantly clear in recent years, as we’ve seen the horrifying rise of political correctness and social justice beliefs on college campuses. These institutions are little more than indoctrination centers for the Left.

But this isn’t going to go on for much longer. We have a whole generation of kids who were buried in over a trillion dollars worth of debt, just so they could get worthless liberal arts degrees that won’t ever help them get a job. They paid tens of thousands of dollars to be indoctrinated by liberal professors, before going back home to live with their parents.

That’s why student loans constitute a bubble in our economy, and once it pops, colleges are going to have to cut back on many classes that don’t actually increase the earning power of students. Coincidentally, the fields of study that harbor the most liberal professors, are the ones that don’t help most students get jobs, like the arts, humanities, liberal arts, gender studies, etc. Someday soon, colleges are going to be forced to trim the fat, and many of these Marxist professors and diversity administrators are going to get the axe. Their positions are incredibly superfluous.

As for the leftists public schools, let’s not forget that the number of kids being homeschooled is growing rapidly, and most of their parents are conservatives. They’re raising a new generation that isn’t going to be brainwashed by government run schools.

And let’s not forget that the mainstream media, which has been largely wed to the left, is dying. So basically, every institution that the Left uses to teach its ideas, from the media to academia, is slowly crumbling away.

In summation, everything liberals have relied on to bolster their ranks, propagate their ideas, and pass their laws, are failing. So there shouldn’t be any doubt. Over the next few decades, America is going to become a very conservative place.

Restoration Round-up – Ça marche!


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

SSPX (see here)

It’s ordination season and information coming in from the SSPX seminaries. This year, 23 priests will be ordained this summer in the North American and European seminaries.

Deo gratias!


Society of Saint Pius X: 23 Priests Will Be Ordained This Summer

The priestly ordinations of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) for the northern hemisphere will take place on June, 29, 2017 in Ecône (Switzerland), July 1st in Zaitzkofen (Germany) and July 2 in Dillwyn (United States).

On June 29, 2017, at the seminary Saint Pius X of Ecône (Switzerland), Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta will ordain 12 new priests for the Society: eleven French and one Spaniard.

On July 1, 2017, at the Seminary of the Sacred Heart in Zaitzkofen(Germany), Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais will ordain two new priests for the Society of St. Pius X: a German and a Czech.
On July 7, 2017, on the feast of Sts. Cyril and Methodius, and first Friday of the month, at the seminary of St. Thomas Aquinas in Dyllwin (United States), Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Society, will ordain nine new priests, all Americans.
In total, 23 new priests will be ordained this summer for the SSPX.

Founded in 1970 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the purpose of the Society is the priesthood and all that pertains to it and nothing but what concerns it; i.e., the priesthood as Our Lord Jesus Christ willed it when He said, “Do this for a commemoration of me.”

Six international seminaries, established in Switzerland, Germany, the United States, France, Argentina, and Australia, form the aspirants to the priesthood. Ecclesiastical studies aim at giving a sufficient knowledge of theology and doctrine and at the same time instill a profound piety, oriented towards the liturgy of the Holy Mass, which is the heart of theology, of pastoral activity, and of the Church’s life.


And now for the breakaway communities:

FSSP (see here)

Priestly Ordinations: May 26, 2017

With great joy, we announce the ordination of ten deacons to the holy priesthood for the Fraternity of St. Peter. On Friday May 26, 2017, His Excellency, Terrence Pendergrast, Archbishop of Ottowa, will come to ordain seven deacons at North American Martyrs Church, in Lincoln, NE at 10:00am. A warm reception will follow the ordination at Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary.

In addition to the ordinations to be held in Lincoln, two deacons, the Rev. Mr Alex Stewart and Rev. Mr. Krzysztof Sanetra, will be ordained in England on June 17, in the Fraternity’s apostolate in Warrington by His Excellency, Malcolm McMahon, Archbishop of Liverpool. Later this summer, On August 15, the Feast of Our Lady’s Assumption, Rev. Mr. Charles Ike will be ordained a priest in Nigeria by His Excellency, Gregory Ochiagha, Bishop Emeritus of the Diocese of Orlu.

Please keep these ten men in your prayers as they prepare for their ordination to Our Lord’s priesthood.

The men to be ordained priests in Lincoln will offer their first Solemn Masses in the nearby area on the next day (Saturday, May 27). The location and time of their Masses can be found in the list below:


And Now A Message To Our Sponsors…


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

Folks, this is important.

As you know, your humble blogger called the 2016 US Presidential Election the Flight 93 Election. It was the election that could have saved our country, our civilization and out way of life.

Yet the forces of evil are not relenting and have not accepted that they lost an election. It is as if elections have no consequences. They also have declared complete war on the free peoples of Western Civilization.

Observing what is happening, I think it is still early in this campaign. What I also think is that the best way to fight this evil at present is through the wallet.

To be more specific. What I would like all my readers to start doing is becoming very discriminatory about what and where they spend their Catholic Dollar/Pound Stirling/Euro/Zloty/Forint etc.

The first place to start is by canceling your cable subscriptions. This is the best place to start because as the old saying goes, politics is downstream of “culture” and “culture” is downstream of economics.

NB: Notice how I didn’t say “everything is downstream of economics”. That’s because we are not communists. But I digress…

To help understand the gravity of the situation, as well as the prophylactic steps we all can take now to try and battle this evil, I have republished a Gateway Pundit post that sets out the idea below.

And before I leave off, and since we are speaking about money, I would like to remind everyone here about why God created money. For those who don’t know…


Please spread this good word far and wide.

Your lives and the lives of your children could just depend on …

… eating a lot at Chick-fil-A


Note to Business Owners: Conservatives Control the Purse Strings in AmericaPurchasing 60% of All Products and Services

Our study shows that conservatives in the US control the purchasing power of nearly 60% of all household purchases in the country.  

We performed an analysis to determine whether conservatives or liberals account for more of the purchases of products and services in the US.  To determine this we obtained various sources of data.

We first obtained the most recent information we could find regarding purchasing power per US household per state. This data was readily available from 2015.  Next we obtained the number of households per state which was available from the US Census Bureau along with population.  Finally, we obtained the number of representatives per party in the House of Representative for the same time period (2015).  We used the US House of Representatives as it is a good estimate of the level of conservative versus liberal households in a state.

By multiplying the purchasing power per household by the number of representatives per party per state we derived the purchasing power equivalent for each party.

Our results show that 57% of the purchasing power in the US is by Republican or conservative households.  This is nearly 3 out of 5 household dollars are spent by conservative households.  If you take away California and New York the results would be even more lopsided.

The results of our study are not shocking.  In May of 2014 we performed an analysis of Congressional Districts at that time.  The outcome of that study showed similar results.  We collected the 2012 US census data housed at the government census site.  We also obtained a list of Congressional Representatives and their party affiliation from the US Congressional website for the 113th Congress voted into office starting in 2012.

What we found from the US Census data was that Democrats were the party of the super rich with 14 of the top 20 richest districts in America being Democratic districts at that time.

But what was also found was that 36 of the 39 poorest districts in America were Democratic districts.

(Note that the data used at that time did not include the US territories of Guam, Samoa, Mariana Islands, Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico which are also represented by Democrats and are also very poor districts.)

The working class districts were represented by Republicans by almost a two-to-one ratio.

If you excluded the 20 richest districts and the bottom 39 poorest districts there were 225 Republican working class districts and only 152 Democrat working class districts.  Republicans overwhelmingly represented the middle class districts by almost a two-to-one ratio. 

The middle class has the purchasing power in the US and the middle class predominantly votes Republican. 

US corporations take note because conservatives are the people who buy your products and services. 

When corrupt and dishonest Soros-funded liberal machines like Media Matters contact you to stop advertising with conservative media like the Gateway Pundit or Hannity know that the majority of country’s purchasing power lies with conservatives.

Ignore this at your own peril. 

Soros and the Democrats stand with violent Black Lives Matter while conservatives are your major purchasers.  It’s an easy decision to choose which side to focus on (Hint – not Black Lives Matter).

Francis’ FakeTheology™ – I Guess It’s Just A Matter Of Faith…


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

In yesterday’s post we identified and explained Francis’ FakeTheology™. Your humble blogger also identified what I consider as the ROOT source of this contemporary phenomenon: nominalism.

We also explained how FakeTheology™ has its counterparts in other subsets of the  Visibilium Omnium, et Invisibilium. The equivalent phenomenon in the communications subset of human activity is obviously known as FakeNews.

Today we move over into another area of human activity, i.e. the physical sciences. The below post is an example of the counterpart of Francis’ FakeTheology™ in the field of quantum physics.

One can call it FakeScience.

And yes Virginia, a purely objective science like quantum physics is seen as “oppressive to marginalized people”. And if the sensitive post-modernist “theoreticians” could just get those “rigid” scientists to “deconstruct” the male hierarchical nature of quantum physics and “re-construct” the science along “feminized intersectionality” (whatever that is), then quantum physics can be remade so as to enable “apparatuses that allow for new possibilities of safer spaces.”

Didn’t you know that dear reader?

Because after all, “enabling apparatuses that allow for new possibilities of safer spaces” is what science is all about.

And just to track back to Francis’ FakeTheology™, today we have another great example of post-modernist’s deconstructing the male dominant hierarchical structured Catholic Church into something else.

Now to understand the deconstruction of Catholicism that Team Francis is undertaking, we must understand the foundation of a typical program for priestly formation. In the typical seminary education program, the future priest receives instruction in philosophy. The recommended philosophy program includes: the study of logic, epistemology, philosophy of nature, metaphysics, natural theology, anthropology and ethics.

The key to understanding what it is that is being deconstructed, is to understand what is natural theology, i.e.:

The study of the philosophy of nature, which treats fundamental
principles like substance, form, matter, causality, motion, and the
soul, provides seminarians a foundation for the study of metaphysics,
natural theology, anthropology, and ethics.

Pretty objective stuff, if you ask me.

But hold that thought.

In yesterday’s news cycle, we have a report from the Catholic Register where we can find the following passage: (see here)

“The direct experience of God’s saving grace is the perfect antidote to a faded, weak faith and to that kind of cultural Catholicism that too often prevails,” the bishop said.

And this faded, weak faith and to that kind of cultural Catholicism” is opposed by:

From the Pentecostals, Martinez said, the first thing Catholics can learn is “love for the Holy Spirit, who remains the great unknown for Catholic theology.”

Which leads to the question: how did the Pentecostals “learn” about this “Holy Spirit”?

Furthermore, how was it that the Pentecostals “learned” about this “Holy Spirit” while the Catholic Church, with its highly developed theology which includes the study of logic, epistemology, philosophy of nature, metaphysics, natural theology, anthropology and ethics” et. al, and spanning 2000 years, has not?

And how did a “catholic bishop” learn about this new fangled “direct experience of God’s saving grace” and why did he not tell anybody else about this?

One would think that this “knowledge” would constitute a major academic/theological/doctrinal breakthrough in our understanding of the nature of God?

These questions however, are not answered.

I guess we just have to take it on faith.

Kind of like Whitney Stark’s claim that quantum physics is “culturally oppressive”.


Academic Journal: Quantum Physics Is ‘Oppressive’ to Marginalized People (see here)

Culture and gender-studies researcher Whitney Stark argues that physics is oppressive.

A feminist scholar has published a paper claiming that quantum physics is oppressive and that we must use “quantum feminisms” to make the science more intersectional.

In a paper for The Minnesota Review, culture and gender-studies researcher Whitney Stark argues that physics is oppressive because it has “separated beings” based on their “binary and absolute differences” — a structure that she calls “hierarchical and exploitative” — and the same kind of system is “embedded in many structures of classification,” making it “part of the apparatus that enables oppression.” Stark explains:

This structural thinking of individualized separatism with binary and absolute differences as the basis for how the universe works seeped into/poured over/ is embedded in many structures of classification, which understand similarity and difference in the world, imposed in many hierarchical and exploitative organizational structures, whether through gender, life/nonlife, national borders, and so on.

According to Stark, the tendency to categorize in this way particularly hurts marginalized people because it can cause the activist efforts of minority groups to be “overshadowed” by the efforts of dominant groups.

“For instance, in many ‘official’ feminist histories of the United States, black/African American women’s organizing and writing are completely unaccounted for before the 1973 creation of the middle-class, professional National Black Feminist Organization,” Stark writes.

“Part of this absence is the frequent subsuming of intersectional identities under supposedly encompassing meta-identities more readily recognized by/as hegemonicized groupings,” she continues. “For instance, black women subsumed under ‘black,’ equated with male, or ‘feminist’ equated with white women.” ‘Combining intersectionality and quantum physics can provide for differing perspectives on organizing practices long used by marginalized people.’

Thankfully, Stark has a solution to this very clearly serious problem: “quantum feminisms” and “intersectionality.” “By taking a critical look at the noncentralized and multiple movements of quantum physics, and by dehierarchizing the necessity of linear bodies through time, it becomes possible to reconfigure structures of value, longevity, and subjectivity in ways explicitly aligned with anti-oppression practices and identity politics,” she writes. “Combining intersectionality and quantum physics can provide for differing perspectives on organizing practices long used by marginalized people, for enabling apparatuses that allow for new possibilities of safer spaces.”

Honestly, all of this makes perfect sense. Personally, whenever I think about oppression, the very first thing that comes to my mind is: “Damn it Isaac Newton! This is all your fault!” I’m just glad someone is finally writing about it. Maybe someday we can take it a step further, and replace all lessons on the outdated, sexist, racist concept of “quantum physics” in our schools with lessons on quantum feminisms. Ah, yes. Then, and only then, will our nation be truly great.

This story was initially covered by the College Fix.

Nominalism – Francis’ Achilles Heal…


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

I’ve been thinking about doing a post about nominalism since this is where the post-conciliar church’s contemporary problems truly lie. Or at least there is a consensus forming in the Catholic camp, with which I completely agree. And by a stroke of luck, an article appeared at the National Catholic Register that did the work for me. So I will repost the article below.

So what is nominalism?

Simply stated, nominalism is the idea (error) that immaterial “objects” do not exist. An example of an immaterial object would be things like “success”, “profit” or “numbers”. With respect to the definition of “object”, the one that interests us is: the end toward which effort or action is directed; goal; purpose.  

My regular readers will remember one very important immaterial object that we have extensively discussed, namely “state of necessity” (state of exception). But I digress…

Now, the notion of nominalism was actually first defined by our favorite Franciscan “heretic”, one William of Ockham. The below post provides a great explanation of William’s thinking, so I will not go into it here. He was actually trying to do good, which is why I place “heretic” in parentheses.  But I digress again…

What is of paramount importance to understand about nominalism is that it:

divorces physical objects, those that exist externally, from those immaterial objects that exist in ones mind, yet are know through ones senses.

This interconnectedness provides the link between the Visibislium Omnium and the et Invisibilium and ties both into the Creator who made them. It is this universal concept that stands behind the LEX ARMATICUS.

For a more extensive discussion of nominalism, please see here.

Now, what makes the above debunking of the error of nominalism critical to understand for our purposes, is that the interconnectedness between the Visibislium Omnium and the et Invisibilium gives us a tool by which we can verify our observations throughout the different subsets of human activity.

One good example of just this verifiability process can be observed in yesterday’s post titled The Derivatives Trader’s Theology… In that post we observe a derivatives trader’s discussion about the VIRTUES. These VIRTUES that Nick Taleb discusses are the same VIRTUES that are defined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  And it is these same VIRTUES that Stefan Molyneux discusses in the below video. What this means is that the term VIRTUE has a common meaning, with common usage across ALL the different disciplines of human activity.

Taking this train of thought one step further, by the proper application of VIRTUES, an individual can observe (and objectively measure) whether his application of a said VITRUE has been successful or not. NB: One good case of a misapplied (if ever applied) VIRTUE is the decades long War on Poverty started under the Johnson administration. (see here)

Which brings us to Francis. As most of my readers know, Francis the bishop of Rome has been making quite a large number of not only doctrinally, but likewise scientifically questionable claims over the last four years, and with ever growing frequency.

The last example of these questionable claims come in the area of global warming. At the recent meeting with President Trump, Francis gave the POTUS his “Laudato Si document” ghostwritten by one Archbishop Victor “heal me with your kiss” Fernandez

The problem that will… and should arise for the current bishop of Rome is that since he has ventured into the area of the physical sciences of the Visibilium Omnium, an area that can be objectively measured, and since his claims can now be objectively verified, the long term prospects for the survivability (read: validity) of his “works” is close to nil.

Furthermore, Francis’ “teaching office” will also need to be scrutinized with respect to how it conforms to the et Invisibilium of what is known in the behavioral sciences. These documents will need to be gone over with a fine tooth comb to eradicate any errors that could have crept in.

So concluding, we can posit the following: a sizeable part of Francis’ “teaching office” cannot be supported by knowledge that we have obtained presently from the physical and behavioral sciences. This means that Francis’ “work” is not verifiable. What’s worse, this sort of “work” presently has acquired a name. And that name can be stated as:


And it is the error of nominalism that can be identified as Francis’ FakeTheology’s™ Achilles Heal.


Takeaway question: will a future cadaver synod dig Francis out of the ground, like they did with Honorius, so that they can condemn him?



When Did the Decline of the West Really Begin?

Once nominalism severs the sacred chain connecting all being to God, creation shrinks back from its Creator.

A common answer among conservatives is the 1960s. Some conservatives trace the problem back further, to the development of modernism, from the 19th century into the 20th. Distributists might pinpoint the Industrial Revolution, from the 18th into the 19th century. And a good case could be made for the Enlightenment, which spanned 1685-1815, or even the Protestant Reformation, starting in 1517. 

Rod Dreher, in his new book, The Benedict Option, goes back even further—to the onset of nominalism, a philosophy formulated by William of Ockham, who died in 1347. The thesis is not wholly original to Dreher—Richard Weaver, a traditional conservative intellectual, also contends that Western decline began in this way in his classic 1948 book, Ideas Have Consequences. But Dreher offers one of the most accessible summaries of what nominalism really is and why it still matters today.

Dreher’s highly anticipated book, which appeared in March, advances the thesis that the current dilapidated state of our society requires revisiting the approach of St. Benedict, widely credited as the founder of Western monasticism. But, in order to understand the solution, one must fully reckon with the problem, hence Dreher’s treatment of nominalism.

He begins with a brief sketch of the worldview of the Middle Ages, which nominalism challenged. Medieval Europeans viewed the real world—the one external to their mind and senses—was interconnected and therefore sacramental, as everything ultimately was related to God. This was innate sense of the inherent relatedness of everything is sometimes referred to as the ‘Great Chain of Being.’

This worldview was rooted not only in the sacramentalism of the Catholic Church, but also in philosophical stance, inherited from ancient thinkers, known as metaphysical realism. As Dreher explains it:

“Realism holds that the essence of a thing is built into its existence by God, and its ultimate meaning is guaranteed by this connection to the transcendent order. This implies that Creation is comprehensible because it is rationally ordered by God and a revelation of Him (Benedict Option 27).”

So a table is really a table with a purpose—to hold other objects, or a set of dinner plates. But this is not so with nominalists. For the nominalist, there is really no such thing as a ‘table.’ As Dreher puts it, “A table is just wood and nails arranged in a certain way, until we give it meaning by naming it ‘table’”—hence the term nominalism, which is from the Latin nomen, the word for name (to paraphrase Dreher’s etymology).

For the nominalist, the table has no inherent meaning—its meaning is merely something extrinsic, imposed from without. This may not seem to matter much when we’re talking about tables, but it takes on serious implications which we talk about reality in general and our place in it. If the world has no meaning, it has no purpose and it cannot point to the Creator who made it.

Now, you might be wondering, what was William of Ockham, the founder of nominalism, thinking? It seems highly dubious that Ockham, who was a Franciscan friar and theologian, set out to dismantle medieval Christendom. His was a misplaced ‘zeal to protect God’s sovereignty,’ according to Dreher:

“If the infinite God reveals Himself through finite matter, does that not imply limitation? Ockham thought so. He denied metaphysical realism out of zeal to protect God’s sovereignty. He feared that realism restricted God’s freedom of action. For Ockham, if something is good, it is because God desired it to be so. The meaning of all things derives from God’s sovereign will—that is, not because of what He is, or because of His participation in their being, but because of what He commands. If He calls something good today and the same thing evil tomorrow, that is His right (Benedict Option, 27).”

One can now readily see the theological pitfalls of this position. It means that in Genesis, when God called creation ‘good’—it was only because He said so, not because it was really good. It also contravenes the testimony of the Old Testament, where creation as seen as reflecting the beauty and goodness of God—Dreher quotes Psalm 19:2, “The heavens declare the glory of God.” Finally, Ockham’s position is at odds with the reality of the Incarnation itself, along with the reality of the visible Church and the sacramental system. (Certainly it is now apparent how nominalism helped pave the way for the Protestant Reformation.)

In the context of the Christian faith, the errors and perils of nominalism may seem manifest, but what about its broader cultural implications? As Dreher explains, once the world had been emptied of inherent meaning and bore only that meaning imposed on it by God, the next big step was to replace God with man.

How and why did this happen?

The real answer, of course, is beyond our scope, but we can briefly point to it here. (See Dreher’s second chapter, “The Roots of the Crisis” for the full summary.) Once the sacred chain connecting all being to God was severed, creation shrunk back from its Creator: the world became a smaller place. This left man as the new center of attention. Again, Dreher well sums up what happened:

“In the world of art and literature, a new emphasis on naturalism and individualism emerged. The old, with its metaphysical certainties, its formal hierarchies, and its spiritual focus gradually ceased to hold the imagination of Western man. Art became less symbolic, less idealized, less focused on religious themes, and more occupied with the life of man (Benedict Option, 29).”

In this way it was only a natural transition from believing in a God who imposed meaning on things to thinking it was man who did this. We can see this mindset well-illustrated in our society’s acceptance that marriage and gender mean whatever people say they mean.

Of course, it took us many centuries and quite a few revolutions to get us from William of Ockham to today. (And, it must be noted, not everything has been downhill since then!) But understanding how it all began is the first step towards recovery and restoration. 

The Derivatives Trader’s Theology…


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

And finally, the above actions by the President of the United States, as opposed to those by the other G7 “leaders” is exactly what the derivatives trader Nick Taleb explains in the below post.

Biblical references and all…

PS And here is how the President Trump’s power game positioned the “European” opposition. But I digress…

Nassim Taleb Crushes The ‘Merchants Of Virtue’

Authored by Nassim Nicholas Taleb via,

I will always remember my encounter with the writer and cultural icon Susan Sontag, largely because it was on the same day that I met the great Benoit Mandelbrot. I took place in 2001, two months after the terrorist event, in a radio station in New York. Sontag who was being interviewed, was pricked by the idea of a fellow who “studies randomness” and came to engage me. When she discovered that I was a trader, she blurted out that she was “against the market system” and turned her back to me as I was in mid-sentence, just to humiliate me (note here that courtesy is an application of the Silver rule), while her female assistant gave me the look, as if I had been convicted of child killing. I sort of justified her behavior in order to forget the incident, imagining that she lived in some rural commune, grew her own vegetables, wrote on pencil and paper, engaged in barter transactions, that type of stuff.

No, she did not grow her own vegetables, it turned out. Two years later, I accidentally found her obituary (I waited a decade and a half before writing about the incident to avoid speaking ill of the departed). People in publishing were complaining about her rapacity; she had to squeeze her publisher, Farrar Strauss and Giroud of what would be several million dollars today for a book advance. She shared, with a girlfriend, a mansion in New York City, one that was later sold for $28 million dollars. Sontag probably felt that insulting people with money inducted her into some unimpeachable sainthood, exempting her from having skin in the game.

It is immoral to be in opposition of the market system and not live (like the Unabomber) in a hut isolated from it

But there is worse:

It is even more, much more immoral to claim virtue without fully living with its direct consequences

and this will be the main topic of the chapter: exploiting virtue for image, personal gain, careers, social status, these kind of things –and personal gain is anything that does not share the downside of a negative action.

By contrast with Sontag, I have met a few people who live their public ideas. Ralph Nader, for instance, leads the life of a monk, identical to the member of a monastery in the sixteenth century,

The Public and the Private

As we saw with the interventionistas, a certain class of theoretical people can despise the details of reality, and completely so. If you believe that you are right in theory, you can completely ignore the real world –and vice versa. And you don’t really care how your ideas affect others because your ideas make you belong to some virtuous status that is impervious to how it affects others.

Likewise, if you believe that you are “helping the poor” by spending money on powerpoint presentations and international meetings, the type of meetings that lead to more meetings (and powerpoint presentations) you can completely ignore the individuals –the poor is some abstract reified construct that you do not encounter in your real life. Your efforts in conferences gives you a license to humiliate them in person. Hillary Monsanto-Malmaison, more commonly known as Hillary Clinton, found it permissible to heap abuse at secret service agents. I was recently told that a famous socialist environmentalist who was part of the same lecture series abused waiters in restaurants, between lectures on equity and fairness.

Kids with rich parents talk about “white privilege” at such privileged colleges as Amherst –but in one instance, one of them could not answer D’Souza’s simple and logical suggestion: why don’t you go to the registrar’s office and give your privileged spot to a minority student who was next in line?

Hence the principle:

If your private life conflicts with your intellectual opinion, it cancels your intellectual ideas, not your private life


If your private actions do not generalize then you cannot have general ideas

This is not strictly about ethics, but information transfer. If a car salesman tries to sell you a Detroit car while driving a Honda, he is signaling that it may have a problem.

The Virtue Merchants

In about every hotel chain, from Argentina to South Africa, the bathroom with have a sign meant to gets your attention: “protect the environment”. They want you to hold off from sending the towels to the laundry and reuse them for a while, because avoiding excess laundry it saves them tens of thousand dollars a year. This is similar to the salesperson telling you what is good for you when it is mostly (and centrally) good for him. They, of course, love the environment but you can bet that they wouldn’t have advertised it so loudly had it not been been good for their bottom line.

So these global causes: poverty (particularly children’s), the environment, justice for some minority trampled upon by colonial powers, or some unknown yet gender that will be persecuted; these global causes are now the last refuge of the scoundrel advertising virtue.

But virtue is precisely what you don’t advertise. It is not an investment strategy. It is not a cost-cutting scheme. It is not a book selling (and worse, concert tickets selling) strategy.

Now I have wondered why, by the Lindy effect, there was no mention of what is called virtue signaling in the texts. How could it be new?

Well, it is not new, but was not seen as particularly prevalent in the past. Indeed, let’s check Matthew 5 and 6.

“Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.

“So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.”

Unpopular Virtue

Virtue without courage is an aberration: in fact you see cowards endorsing a public face of “virtue” as defined by the mainstream media, because they are afraid of doing otherwise. Their cowardice leads them to avoid association with, say anti-Al Qaeda in Syria because some Saudi shill (or some AlQaeda promoter like Charles Lister) will accuse them of Putinism, racism, anti-democracy, or some accusation that will cause ostracism.

The best virtue requires courage; accordingly it needs to be unpopular. If I were to describe the perfect virtuous acts, it would be to take currently frowned upon positions, those penalized by the common discourse (particularly when funded by lobbyists). Like fighting the Monsanto claims, and promotion through shills that they are “saving the children” with their poisonous products, so anyone opposing them becomes easily described as a baby killer.

The more costly, the more virtuous the act?—?particularly if it costs you your reputation. When integrity conflicts with reputation, go with integrity.

Other Virtues

True virtue lies in being nice to those who are neglected by others, the less obvious cases, those people the grand charity business tends to miss, those causes that are not (yet) promotional.