Let Not The Perfect Be The Enemy Of The Good


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

Today I would like to draw your attention, dear reader to a series of comments that appeared in the comment box. These comments were responses to a post I did about the work that Dr. Curt Doolittle is doing at the Propertarian Institute.

Before I start, my intent is not to criticize anyone posting in my comment box. What is behind my intent is to make a wider point. That wider point is in essence that an individual, gifted with an average level of intelligent and a minimal amount of good will, can observe PROCESSES that are aligned, if not part and parcel of the same phenomenon.

Going into the specifics, yesterday the following comment appeared in my comment box:

~from dia- “across” (see dia-) + legein “speak” (see lecture (n.)).
Because that’s “dia-logic”. Right? – Peterson 2017.
What is this rubbish. It has NOTHING to do with logic.
1.of, relating to, or characterized by dialogue.
2.participating in dialogue.
“Dialogic learning is learning that takes place through dialogue.” -wiki

The Chruch does not ‘progress’ towards Truth, Holy Mother Church keeps it in Her Immaculate bossom and conquers to the four corners of the world.

This passage was in response to this that was written in the post titled Oh My! Real Dialogue Has Broken Out…:

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. 

So without going into the etymology behind the word “dia-logos” (Greek), nor the CONTEXT of Dr. Peterson’s point, i.e. that dialogue, just like the word logic, is a word derived partially from the term “logos”, i.e. captial “T” Truth, or as we say on this blog, the second person of the Most Holy Trinity, I would just like to make the point that these two observations are not mutually exclusive. Furthermore, Dr. Peterson’s definition is by no means “rubbish”.

The larger point that I would like to make here is that what we are observing in this particular comment is a case where the Perfect has become the enemy of the Good.

Once again, I would like to make the point that THIS BLOG attempts to “chronicle” the Restoration. By the term “chronicling”, your humble blogger means: a chronological record of events; a history.

It is only when one understands that this blog “chronicles” a “process”, that one can then understand the proper “context” of that which is written here.

Furthermore, what in fact this blog chronicles can be described as a continuum. The reason being that it is along this continuum that a person moves from agnosticism or apostasy to the ONE TRUE FAITH. Now, this is not to say that everyone will reach the end goal, but then again, Our Lord told us that He has come to save Multis, not Omnes.

Now on to the chronicling. Two events that I have come across that are of interest and fall under the purview of this blog’s mission. On the Propertarianism blog, the following entry appeared yesterday:

Sovereignty at Scale


—“I think that [Doolittle] wants to incentivize cooperation within the group so that the group will succeed in its environment and in competition with other groups. In these situations, it does not matter whether individuals cooperate in order to benefit themselves or in order to benefit the group, and their justifications do not matter; the cooperation which allows the group to succeed matters (to us). I feel like I have missed a few details, so maybe someone will help fill them in.”– Brandon Vaughn

The western group competitive (evolutionary) strategy is non-parasitism, truth, high trust, to produce normative commons, the returns upon which – whether genetic, normative, institutional or physical capital – are greater than groups that cannot produce such commons can compete with.

Commons are the west’s competitive advantage. And we alone other than the japanese seem able to produce them at any substantial scale.

The reason that I bring this to your attention is that this OBJECTIVELY CORRECT observation about the significance of what Dr. Doolittle calls “the normative commons” is in fact that which goes by the Catholic term “common good”. Here is how we defined the common good in a post titled  The “Common Good”:

common good, which may “be shared wholly by each individual in the family without its becoming a private good for any individual family member”.

So why am I bringing this matter to your attention you ask?

Well, the answer is that there is a competing definition of what constitutes the term “common good” in… let’s call it FrancisChurch. And what is this novel definition, you might ask? Here is the passage:

that which, “though possessed by all as a group, is not really participated in by the members of a group. It is actually divided up into several private goods when apportioned to the different individual members.

Well, the above definition is that of a “collective good”. And who is this “collective good’s” main proponent presently?

Why it’s none other than Cardinal Reinhard “Bling” Marx, the Archbishop of Swank.

And if you dear reader go back to the Common Good post linked to above, you will find that the definition of the Catholic Common Good has “de-volved” into a FrancisCommonGood, and by strange coincidence (?) the Marxist “collective good”, and the manner in which it has changed, your humble blogger described as follows:

Concluding we can clearly see the complete and utter corruption of both definitions and language. I will leave it up to you dear reader to judge assess the degree of intent as opposed to the degree of ignorance of the cardinal.

So what is the point of the above, you might ask?

Well, the point is that an individual who cannot be considered a theologian, i.e. Curt Doolittle, using logic and reason, has come to a definition of what constitutes the “common good” that is much, much more in line with Catholic social teaching than a high ranking member of the post-conciliar NUChurch hierarchy and a member of Francis’ kitchen cabinet, i.e. the C9.

Which brings me to the second observation, also along the same lines. In the video above, a short monologue by Stefan Molyneux can be viewed. Listening to the subject matter of Stefan Molyneux, one notices that he uses a philosophical construct to explain why the state of the Middle East and Europe is the way that it is at present.

Notice how Stefan defines some basic virtues and then goes on to explain how it is these competing virtues, if understood correctly and used as the foundation of the US and European economic and foreign policy, would resolve the current crisis engulfing this region of world.

I will stop here, but I highly recommend the short view (12:00 minutes).

And one final question: why can’t one of the Catholic Cardinals say something along these lines?

Concluding,  what is of importance is to observe that individuals who do not consider themselves Catholics and have no theological background, make statements that are big “C” Catholic by their very nature.

Now, I cannot stress enough that these individuals did not come to hold there positions from a theological education and/or background. One of these individuals has a philosophical background while the other’s appears more grounded in the area of economics. Yet they both arrive at positions that are Catholic by definition.

So what one can say is that the positions that these two individuals hold might not be “perfect” from a strictly Catholic doctrinal point of view, yet they are objectively correct, i.e. catholic positions none the less.

And a further sign that the Restoration is on track, whether NUChurch likes it or not…

Oh My! Real Dialogue Has Broken Out…


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


Hope all my readers had a peaceful and reflective Passion Week and Palm Sunday.

But if your week wasn’t peaceful and reflective, I will not blame you. A lot is going on, especially in the POLITICAL subset of the Visibilium Omnium. One aspect that I have picked up on, and note here is that among the rational, logic and evidence based electorate, dialogue has broken out.


Just as a quick reminder. The “dialogue” word has been dramatically devalued over the last 50 or so years. The ROOT CAUSE of the devaluation has been the post-modernist movement. Just as a quick reminder, post-modernism is anti-dialogue. Here is Dr. Jordan Peterson to explain (with emphasis):

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. 

And to connect the above observation to Francis, an example that we can all understand.

If Francis believed in dialogue, would he continuously berate and abuse the Faithful Catholics, bishops and cardinals?

The obvious answer is N.O.

So where can the Faithful Catholic find this real dialogue?

Well, it turns out that it has appeared on the media sites of the Trump electorate.

Just a primer to what you will read in the linked sites. Over the last week, there was an incident in Syria. It would appear that chemical gas was deployed by one of the side of the conflict. Needless to say, the Trump administration has found itself in the middle of this incident. The reaction of The POTUS has been quite unexpected. This unexpected nature of The President’s response has created a difference of opinions among the Trump electorate.

And voila, REAL DIALOGUE has broken out. So for your information dear readers, here are the two sites that best present the two sides of this dialogue. On the one side is the Conservative Tree House (see here). They are pro-airstrikes. Opposed to them is the group led by Mike Cernovich. He and his group are against the airstrikes (see here).

On an aside, I would highly recommend following Mr. Cernovich. Mr. Cernovich has obtained the “The Peirce/Ockham Pragmatic Methodology” Seal of Approval. (see here)

Ending this quick thread, I will not take a position presently in this debate. But all I will say is that one should go and read and/or listen to both sides of the argument.

Oh,and enjoy the dialogue.

And please, please pray for President Trump. He really needs you prayers right about now.

As to the main subject matter of this post, one that is more centered on the Francis bishopric of Rome, today I bring you two pieces of good news.

As we know from multiple post on this humble effort that goes under the title of the Deus Ex Machina blog, the key to understanding Francis and the neo-Modernists post-Modernists is M.O.N.E.Y.

The M.O.N.E.Y. angle came to the forefront due to one primary consideration: post-conciliar NUChurch is going bankrupt.

So the theory of this humble blog is that Francis is looking at a new funding model. And that funding model is based on financial support from the United Nations and other governmental and internationalist organization. This is behind the Agenda 21 and ONE WORLD RELIGION machinations.

So naturally, the FrancisChurch will be a natural ally of the the internationalists, which brings Francis and TeamFrancis into conflict with the rational nationalists in the Trump administration.

Now on to the good news. One of the internationalist’s major projects is what is called the European Project (EU). The EU in turn is a major source of funds for FrancisChurch. Think German financial support via the Kirchensteuer. So any information about any “adverse financial event” that provides objective information about the viability of this major internationalist experiment, is of direct interest to us.

So on to the specifics. Over the weekend, a Party Summit was held by the 5-Star Movement. The 5-Star Movement is a political organization that presently leads in the Italian poll. On the negative side of the 5SM is that they are transrational in terms of social policy. Yet their main campaign party plank is to give the Italians a referendum on whether they should remain in the single currency, i.e. the Euro.

Furthermore, of the 4 Italian parties that have the largest support, 3 of them are for either Euro Referendum or outright leaving the Euro. These 3 parties presently represent 60+ % of the electorate. But I digress…

The relevance of this proposed referendum is that the Italians will most likely vote to leave the Euro currency. The primary reason why the Italians would want to leave is that in inflation adjusted terms, the Italian economy is smaller (worse off) then when it was on the day that the Italians joined the Euro on that fateful day in January of 1999.

The knock-on effect of a #Italeave vote would be for a breakup of the EU as a federalist experiment. In other words, Europe would be forced to return to a continent of nation states. And this means borders. And if the Europeans reinstate boarders, well…. FrancisChurch, the EU, the UN and the rest of the internationalists (I hate the term globalists) lose.

Now if the Italians decide to leave the Euro currency, and return to a new Italian Lira, that New Lira will be devalued immediately to bring it in line with the objective ECONOMIC reality between the two countries.

This new situation in turn will automatically translate into what is known as the Italian Target 2 Balances (payables), which will be re-nominated into New Lira. This in turn will mean that all the German institutions (and not only) who hold Italian debt (or receivables in the case of the banks), will have to revalue their Italian holdings. In other words, realize the losses on their balance sheets for the new situation.

In other words, the German banks, think Deutsche Bank go: B.O.O.M.

NB: To understand the Target2 Balances, one needs to think of a huge credit card. Think about Italy having a huge credit card that it uses to purchase German products. This credit card balance is the largest ever recorded at present. And one day, those balances that are denominated in Euro presently, will on that fateful Italeave Day be renominated into New Lira. An analogous situation would be for an American who has a credit card debt of say 100 US Dollars, to wake up and have that credit card balance of 100 Mexican Pesos. Yes?

To the creditor – Happy Days.

To the bank who issued the credit – not so!

So who else would lose?

See here!

And just to explain in more detail how the internationalists, especially those that are the German government, would lose, I provide a post above from our friends at Zero Hedge. We continuously monitor what is known as the Target 2 Balances and stock price of Deutsche Bank.

Notice how the dots all get connected.

So without going too much further into the long grass, I bring you a post from Breitbart. The significance of this post is that it shows that the Italian ruling elites are beginning to plan for a 5-Star led government. This should be of interest for us all.

And on an aside, for all my European readers, what I would suggest is that those not living in Germany, I strongly suggest you open a bank account with a German bank. Your deposits will be guaranteed (up to a certain level) and you will still have a very strong Euro (or Deutsche Mark) in your bank account after this all goes down. For those who will exceed the deposit guarantee, buy US Dollars, is my suggestion. Excuse the digression…

And now, on to the Breitbart post (see original here)…


Italy’s Populist 5-Star Party Prepares For Power, Holds Technology Summit

ROME (AP) — Italy’s anti-establishment 5-Star Movement is broadening its reach as it eyes national office, inviting some very establishment figures to a daylong summit Saturday on technology, science, jobs and the future.

The summit, which was intentionally low on political diatribe, marked a new phase for the grassroots protest movement that has upended the Italian political scene and now leads the polls as Italy prepares for a general election later this year or next.

And it provided strong evidence that the 5-Stars are attracting more than just the working-class backers typical of Europe’s anti-establishment parties. The head of Google Italy, university professors and prominent journalists took part, though there were notable absences, including among 5-Star lawmakers and Italy’s leading astronaut, who bailed at the last minute.

5-Star founder Beppe Grillo sat in the front row of the converted Olivetti typewriter factory in Ivrea, near Turin in northern Italy, watching as a next generation of 5-Star sympathizers outlined how Italy might emerge from years of economic stagnation and rising unemployment.

Recent polls have put the 5-Stars ahead of the ruling Democrats with some 32 percent of the vote. The movement blends an ideology-defying anti-bank, pro-green agenda with a social-media friendly “direct democracy” ethos, where members pick candidates and platforms online.

It has ruled out forming a coalition government and is hoping to reach the 40 percent of the vote threshold that would give it bonus seats in parliament. The party, though, has been divided of late by scandals engulfing its Rome mayor and Grillo himself, after he voided the candidate for mayor of Genoa who was chosen online and picked someone else instead.

Saturday’s summit was preceded by the debut of a key behind-the-scenes player of the 5-Star Movement, Davide Casaleggio. He is the son of Gianroberto Casaleggio, who co-founded the movement with Grillo and was its political guru until his death last year.

Davide Casaleggio made his first prime-time TV appearance this week and was the brainchild behind Saturday’s summit, which was billed as a memorial to his father on the anniversary of his death.

The Insuppressible Nature Of Truth…


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

Today we transition back to the POLITICAL area of the Visibilium Omnium and continue the thread that we left off in the post titled Trump Playing 4 Dimensional Chess: The Power of Truth…

Now there are many levels on which we can examine this OBAMAGATE scandal subject matter. The aspect of this OBAMAGATE scandal that we have been examining is how this story relates to TRUTH.

Now just as a reminder, there are currently ( to be perfectly honest – since the days of Plato and Aristotle) basically two competing definitions of what constitutes truth. The two competing definitions are first, bringing the mind into conformity with reality (‘adaequatio rei et intellectus’), i.e. the Aristotelian definition and the OBJECTIVELY TRUE one. This definition is competing with the Platonist one, i.e. bringing thought into line with life (‘adaequatio realis mentis et vitae’).

We also know that the latter is a FALSE definition. The proof is quite simple. If a tree stands in the forest, and a group of people decide that since they can’t see that tree, they don’t think (subjective judgement) that that tree is standing. Therefore, by the second definition, it is not. Regardless of the objective reality that in fact, this tree is standing.

Now if we use an example closer to what we are observing in the social discourse at present, we see the exact trans-logical analogy in such positions as “biological sex is a social construct” or that “race is a social construct”. Yet for the latter definition to hold sway, everyone must be suffering from the same delusion pretend that it is so.

NB: The instability inherent in any “structure” based on a ‘adaequatio realis mentis et vitae’ definition of truth, suffers from the same economic problem as that which undermines cartels. But I digress…

What creates problems for the above definition, as in the case of cartels, is when someone breaks away from the delusion prevailing mindset. Once the dissenting individual makes the claim that the intrinsically disordered behavior is wholesome, healthy and normal tree is still standing, the delusion is shattered. And it is the shattering of this delusion that is creating all the “noise” coming from the intrinsically delusional part of the political spectrum.

Now, when dealing with obvious issues like biological sex, race, human sexuality, et al., the delusional position is easy to identify. Yet when one descends into specialist areas of human activity, areas where the average person does not possess an inherently sufficient level of competence, it becomes easier to hide trans-logical assumptions… bah, behavior. Behavior that is by its nature unstable and in this case by definition, ILLEGAL.

For this information we are consigned to the use of “experts”. And when one deals with experts, one needs to be very, very, and once again very careful as to the source of this expertise. Which is why I have started this thread.

But more important than identifying a reliable (objectively correct) source of information, what is of particular note in this thread is to observe how OBJECTIVE TRUTH is continuously reasserting itself and eventually coming to the fore. It is just this observation, that is the case in the below thread. And this is the reason why I am continuing it today.

Concluding, what is of importance is the understanding that the OBJECTIVE TRUTH (oxymoron – yet needs to be stated in this situation) will eventually come to the fore. It is by its very nature insuppressible. This lesson learned on the basis of this thread, can then be projected, through the LEX ARMATICUS onto our understanding of other areas of the Visibilium Omnium, et Invisibilium.

One seemingly unrelated area where we can use this above understanding of the insuppressible nature of OBJECTIVE TRUTH is in the area of discernment of Francis’ “personal teaching office”.


And on that note, I re-post the below, the original can be found here.


In Less Than 2 Minutes On MSNBC Susan Rice Exposed The Entire Obama “Russian” Motive…

Former National Security Adviser Susan Rice only needed to confirm one aspect of the intelligence unmasking story for all of the dots to connect.  She made that confirmation within two minutes of her interview with MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell.

From the MSNBC transcript, emphasis mine:

Susan Rice @00:51 – …”Let me explain how this works.  I was a National Security Adviser, my job is to protect the American people and the security of our country.  That’s the same as the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense and CIA Director.; and every morning, to enable us to do that, we receive – from the intelligence community – a compilation of intelligence reports that the IC, the intelligence community, has selected for uson a daily basis– to give us the best information as to what’s going on around the world.”

Note, right there.  STOP. No need to go any further.  There it is – Susan Rice is describing the Presidents’ Daily Briefing, aka the “PDB”.  She continues:

“I received those reports, as did other officials, and there were occasions when I would receive a report in which, uh, a ‘U.S Person’ was referred to.  Name, uh, not provided, just ‘U.S. Person’.

And sometimes in that context, in order to understand the importance in the report – and assess it’s significance, it was necessary to find out or request, who that U.S. official was.”

This is the important detail.  Susan Rice was requesting unmasking of U.S. person’s names, which she moments later describes as “U.S. official[s]”, to understand the context and importance for the intelligence being given within the Presidents’ Daily Brief.

Under President Obama’s communication and intelligence directives, the Presidential Daily Briefing was widely shared with dozens of administration persons in various agencies.

From a Washington Post story explaining the PDB and Obama’s use therein. (again, emphasis mine):

(Washington Post) […] It’s the president’s book. And indeed, it is tailored to each president’s individual needs. CIA officers in 1961 designed what was initially known as the President’s Intelligence Checklist specifically for John F. Kennedy’s tastes, using punchy words and phrases while avoiding clunky bureaucratic language and annoying classification markings. That checklist evolved into the President’s Daily Brief in late 1964 , as the agency reformatted and retitled the book of secrets to appeal to Lyndon Johnson’s preferences. While the name has stuck, the content and format have continued to evolve. President Obama receives his in digital form and reads it on a tablet .

But while through most of its history the document has been marked “For the President’s Eyes Only,” the PDB has never gone to the president alone. The most restricted dissemination was in the early 1970s, when the book went only to President Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger, who was dual-hatted as national security adviser and secretary of state.

In other administrations, the circle of readers has also included the vice president, the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, along with additional White House staffers. By 2013, Obama’s PDB was making its way to more than 30 recipients, including the president’s top strategic communications aide and speechwriter, and deputy secretaries of national security departments. (link)

The post article was written December 26th 2016, after the election – and was presumably written due to post-election media reports the intelligence community had concerns over sharing information with President-elect Trump; this was the preferred, and false, anti-Trump narrative for a few weeks.  I digress.

The important aspect two fold: #1) the PDB is electronic viewable by POTUS Obama on his iPad; and #2) how many people were getting the PDB information 30+, against the backdrop of Rice’s admitted unmasking of names within the raw intelligence for PDB user comprehension.

There you can see that “more than 30 recipients” would be privy to the unmasked information within the PDB as an outcome of the protocols instituted by the White House and President Obama’s National Security Advising team.

From Rice’s MSNBC interview the departments of “State (John Kerry et al) and Defense (Ash Carter et al)”, along with CIA (Director John Brennan), NSA (Director Mike Rogers) and ODNI James Clapper, all participated.

As such, and as outlined by the Washington Post on distribution, deputies within Defense and State, along with “other national security departments” would have access to the unmasked PDB information.

Here’s where you realize within those “more than 30 recipients” you find people like Secretary Hillary Clinton, Undersecretary Patrick Kennedy and various high level officials in the Office of the Secretary and its Executive Secretariat (S/ES) past and present.   This is also where the Deputy Secretaries of Defense like Dr. Evelyn Farkas come into play.  All of these officials would be accessing, or at least have access to, the President’s Daily Brief, and the unmasked intelligence within it.

When you recognize how widely the Obama administration disseminated the PDB you begin to realize how easy it was for any foreign entity, including the Russians, to have access to the EXACT SAME daily intelligence brief as President Obama and his National Security Adviser Susan Rice.

An additional character within this wide-dissemination construct would be John Podesta.  Remember, after Hillary Clinton stepped down from Secretary of State, she inserted, with Obama’s approval, John Podesta within the White House Senior Advisory staff to keep a communications line open with direct information.  (As pictured below)  Podesta remained in that position throughout 2013, 2014 and into 2015.

Having a known entity like John Podesta with access to the PDB and the unmasked intelligence therein, puts the appropriate highlight on the risk carried by Russian hacking into Podesta’s electronic communications, stored data and email correspondence.

Is it any surprise Russian, or any foreign intelligence group, would then be making attempts to enter the unsecured private email accounts of Secretary Hillary Clinton and her top level staff?

And John Podesta is only one of numerous people who would have access to this PDB information.  All of which would potentially be at risk of being read daily by enterprising hackers, or various spies, who would glean a gobsmacking level of information by actually reading the same unmasked intelligence as the President of the United States.

Oh, the angles are almost limitless.

Not only would President Obama and his entire NSC team be gathering operational political intelligence on their political adversaries to include President-Elect Donald Trump and his transition team, but they would also be gathering intelligence and unmasking it on other U.S. Officials…..

…..That same unmasked and widespread surveillance, under the auspices of intelligence gathering, was then shared with dozens of administration officials -beyond the likes of the National Security Council, Asst. Defense Secretary Farkas and politicos like John Podesta- which means it was more than likely reviewed, via hacking etc., by our most critical national enemies.

Follow that trail to where it leads and you’ll likely discover the real story that encompasses the motive to create the ‘vast Russian conspiracy‘.

It only took Susan Rice two minutes on MSNBC to highlight the entire motive.

if they found out HOW we knew … that they would try to compromise those sources and methods; meaning we no longer have access to that intelligence “,

Indeed they would Dr. Farkas. Indeed they would.

Tête-à-tête With Curt Doolittle…


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

Hope all my loyal readers had a pleasant and restful Passion Sunday weekend.

Today we continue the thread that we started in our post titled Scholastic Rationalism- Secularists See It As The Way Forward….

After this post was published, one of this blog’s good friends, namely Cold Standing passed the link over to Dr. Curt Doolittle, whose text I used in the body of the post. Dr. Doolittle was kind enough to respond, which in turn got the conversation started in the comment box of this blog. But before I get to the subject at hand, I would highly recommend that my readers go to the comment section under the above linked post and read the entire thread.

Today I would like to reproduce one of these comments in the below post, a comment which is very insightful, especially since it comes from outside the ecclesiastical circles of the Visibilium Omnium. I in turn will add my proverbial two cents.

But first some background on Curt Doolittle that he provided in one of the comments:

1) I was raised a catholic, and identify with the pre-vatican ii church. I consider vatican ii a disaster. I consider the chair of st peter empty. I consider the current pope a false pope.

So we are off to a good start. (see here)

Now to the comment that I would like to draw your attention to. It starts as follows:

The Cardinals chose John Paul – a smart Pope, of profound character, profound wisdom, and of balanced judgment. People loved him but it did not reform the future of the church. The Cardinals chose Benedict, a conservative intellectual pope. But it did not reform the future of the church. The Cardinals have chosen Francis – a non-intellectual, anti-intellectual, leftist Pope. And I suspect that he will also fail to reform the future of the church.

The issue that I think is of key importance to  understand is the concept of “reform”. The problem here, as I and most of you dear readers recognize, whether consciously or not, is that the Church did not need to be “reformed” in the 1960s. The Church was doing quite well before Vatican II, thank you.

Actually, one can say that in Her infinite wisdom, the Church already had… and has for that matter, an integral “reformative” element built into its doctrinal DNA. This “reformative” element is what is known as “organic growth”. This product of the work performed by the Scholastic rationalists we have defined as follows:

Organic Growth: reconciliation of reason with revelation, of science with faith and of philosophy with theology, SUBJECT TO: that source of our Faith that comes from divine Revelation.

Now we know that the Church has always given primacy to that part of our Faith that comes from the “natural light of human reason from the things that are made”. (see here) This knowledge obtained from objective reality was then used to understand that part of our Faith that comes from divine Revelation.

And as per definition above, that part of our Faith that comes from “divine Revelation” was always treated as a mechanism for establishing limits (absolutes in philosophical jargon) to our human behavior. Think “Thou shall not commit adultery”. This “negative moral law” has been provided by Our Lord to His creation not only for “working out ones salvation in fear and trembling”, but simultaneously serves as a guide for “not doing those things” that would endanger our survival in this vale of tears as a community, dare I say as a Civilization.

One can even go as far as inferring that Our Lord prefers the K selection reproductive strategy over the r selection strategy (see here), but He gave His Creation the freedom to chose. (see here)

So when one speaks of the law originating from divine Revelation, (Holy Scripture), one is speaking essentially about that which Dr. Doolittle calls the “Via Negativa”. It’s just that Dr. Doolittle extracts this “natural negative law” from a scientific process (trial and error) while the Faithful have it handed to them on a “silver platter”.

And just to add support to the above premise originating presently in discussion between secular authorities, in the discussion here, both Stefan Molyneux and Duke Pesta are in agreement that Holy Scripture is a purely “rational” document.  Therefore, the contents of Holy Scripture and any objectively true knowledge contained in the Via Negativa definition must be compatible.

Next paragraph:

I had expected that the church, like the monarchies, was just trying to endure the 20th century so that this era of ‘fashion’ would exhaust itself, and we could return to business as usual, with the church, the burghers, and the aristocracy dividing the job of governing, the masses, the economy/judicial and legislative/military classes.

What is in fact the case is that the Church provides the optimal “arch-typical” structure to all these different sub-sets of what we call the Visibilium Omnium. We have seen that since the supposed “separation” of church and state, a separation dating back to the French Revolution, the competition between these special interest groups comprised of fallen men, has become quite brutal and bloody. The “tête-à-tête” between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie alone, cost the lives of at least 150 million people in the last century alone.


But my belief is that the church failed to reform with Vatican ii by expanding the liturgy beyond even what the protestants and universalists had offered, and merely tried to make a softer church. The academy broke from the church, because the church could not reform enough to accommodate science. The economy broke with the church because it could not accommodate competition. The aristocracy broke from the church because it could not accommodate war. And the state, the academy, and the financial sector defeated the church without firing a single shot – just letting the church commit voluntary suicide was enough.

Yes, the above is all true. What is missing is an explanation for why it happened. And using the methodology developed by our favorite 14th Century Franciscan, William of Ockham, we can easily identify the culprit as post-Modernist’s suppression of the definition of Aristotelian “Truth”.

If in the post-Modernist post-conciliar church, truth is defined as bringing thought into line with life (‘adaequatio realis mentis et vitae’), then the moorings between truth and objective reality have been completely severed.

And if the post-Modernists severed the linkage between truth and reality in the ecclesiastical sub-set of human activity, is any wonder that they subsequently severed this linkage in other areas of human activity? Just think about the concept of “biological sex as a social construct”.

As to the issue of “competition” I think the incorporation of “monetarist theory” into Catholic thought is just a question of time. If one understands that the basis for monetarist theory is the subjective theory of value developed by the Scholastic rationalists in the 14th Century, than “Chicago School” monetarism becomes just an issue of connecting the dots.


The church could have reformed, and integrated the academy, the law, and the military. But it found itself left outside, and with no means of funding, and no property and no production.

Yes, the Church’s funding model worked very well for almost 2 millennia. But when the Church abandoned its moorings in reality, it stopped providing a useful function within society itself. And once an institution, any institution, loses its “competitive advantage”, bah… raison d’État, then it either undergoes a rational reform process, or it ceases to be.

But in the mean time, it is of no use to either the academy, the law or the military. Or anything else for that matter.

And finally:

So the church is left with a few traditionalists, and a vast legion of third world underclasses.

Myth and Soul, History and Tradition, economy and polity, politics and war.

A church that once practiced all, has ended up practicing none.

I think this conclusion is much, much too disheartening. What the Church is left with, is its doctrine, firmly grounded in NATURAL LAW and DIVINE REVELATION, i.e. a comprehensive and exhaustive explanation of objective reality.  And that remnant of the Faithful who conform to this time tested methodology, i.e. Holy Tradition, that was given to us by Our Lord and handed down through the generations, will survive this period of madness.

And patiently wait for that remnant of humanity which will be left, to come back to its senses. Think Putin and post-Soviet Russia…

And this is exactly what your humble blogger has been picking up in the work of individuals such as Molyneux, Pesta, Peterson, et al.

And if that doesn’t convince you dear reader, always remember that Our Lord promised that the gates of hell shall not prevail…

Trump Playing 4 Dimensional Chess: The Power of Truth…


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

Today’s post jumps over to the POLITICAL sub-set of the Visibilium Omnium, et Invisibilium. Your humble blogger has been following the story about those “dastardly Russians” and their purported influence on the recent Presidential election.

The aspect of this story that is of interest to us, is how vital a role the TRUTH plays in these sorts of situations.

To set up the post, there is a “game” afoot in Washington D.C. to delegitimize the Presidency of President Trump. This mass media effort, funded at its core by George Soros among others (see here) has tried to make the claim that President Trump won the election because of the Russians.

And as it happens with Dunning-Kruger types (see here), the players behind this de-legitimization operation have ensnared themselves and high level Obama administration operatives in the process.

The present state of play is as follows:

  1. The powers behind “Operation Delegitimize” created a controlled opposition.
  2. The first element of the controlled opposition was the House Intelligence Committee. Yet the head of this Committee didn’t play the role assigned him and actually found evidence of Obama administration spying on the Trump campaign and the Trump transition post election.
  3.  The real problem arose when the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee went over to the White House and cross check his documentation with that of the White House, documentation that included documentation left by the previous administration.
  4. This documentation that is now at a level of “confirmed OBJECTIVE evidence” can also be viewed by what is called the Gang of 8, who have oversight of this area of intelligence gathering activities.
  5. The problem for the other Gang of 8 Members, post defection of the House Intelligence Committee Chairman (Devin Nunes) is that they cannot go and view it for themselves, because if they did, they can no longer claim that the Obama White House DID NOT spy on President Trump.

And that is where this situation stands at this time.

Below I will repost the last post in a series of 5 posts that goes into the detail of where we are and how we got here. (see here)

What is of interest is, as I said above, the role that the TRUTH plays in these sorts of situations. The key passage can be identified as this one and reads as follows:

Chairman Devin Nunes and the White House are holding the higher hand because they have the truth on their side and they are welcoming transparency and openness regarding the facts.  So long as Devin Nunes stands firm and also doesn’t flinch in the face of his political opponents, he will win.   Nunes will win because the truth is on his side, he only needs assistance in letting it out.

So concluding, please keep this anecdote in mind the next time you hear Francis, the bishop of Rome let loose one of his unconscious streams of gibberish that masquerades as a “papal teaching office”.


Rep. Adam Schiff Responds To White House Challenge To Review Obama Surveillance

If you’ve been following along you’ll note ranking member of the intelligence committee  Adam Schiff (pictured above) didn’t want to see the ‘Gang-of-Eight’ level intelligence previously reviewed by Intel Chairman Devin Nunes.

However, as a result of President Trump publicly sending a letter to Adam Schiff and Senator Mark Warner, ranking member Schiff no longer has an option to keep looking away.  If he refused to look at the surveillance intelligence Schiff would be exposing his political motivations – an entrenched ideology attempting to protect President Obama.

Trump smartly positions Schiff where his only play is to accept the invitation from the White House.   Thus the press conference below and his answers to the questions.  You only need to watch the first 10:00 minutes to get a sense of Shiff’s understanding of where he is:

However, that said, the moment at 08:08 is very revealing in that Adam Schiff states he wants to conduct an additional intelligence hearing with three specific people:  Former CIA Director John Brennan, former DNI James Clapper, and former interim Asst. Attorney General Sally Yates.

We already know that Clapper, Brennan and Yates are the three biggest black hats, within the Obama administration, who conspired to create and manufacture the “Muh Russian” controversy centered around General Mike Flynn.

Notice in that section of the presser Adam Schiff doesn’t mention the type of testimony, open or closed.  Obviously Schiff would prefer to have a public and well orchestrated political spectacle for a Clapper, Brennan and Yates hearing.

The problem for Adam Schiff is the need to control (try to hide) the content that confirms surveillance of President-Elect Trump and his transition team.  Simultaneous to that objective he needs to create/maintain a false narrative in a Russian Conspiracy.

In order for Schiff to maintain his public protestations, entirely based on politics, he must mislead about the rules and laws surrounding the intelligence product.  Schiff must also keep the committee from seeing the full executive intelligence report that is concerning to Devin Nunes.  The intelligence product is “Go8” level, but has the support of the NSA to share with the full committee.

Chairman Devin Nunes and the White House are holding the higher hand because they have the truth on their side and they are welcoming transparency and openness regarding the facts.  So long as Devin Nunes stands firm and also doesn’t flinch in the face of his political opponents, he will win.   Nunes will win because the truth is on his side, he only needs assistance in letting it out.

Scholastic Rationalism- Secularists See It As The Way Forward…


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

Quick post today. The subject matter is the LEX ARMATICUS.

A secondary consideration today is to introduce my loyal readers to Curt Doolittle (h/t Cold Standing). Curt describes himself as a philosopher of Natural Law, in the Western Aristocratic tradition”. He works at the Propertarian Institute and the link to his website I have placed in the right hand margin and can be found at propertarianism.com (see here).

Before we go on, a word to my readers. Over the last 6 months, I have introduced a wide range of secular personalities on this blog. The reason behind this is due to the work that they are producing, runs parallel to the mission of this blog. As my loyal readers know, the mission of this blog is chronicling the “Restoration of all thing in Christ”. And as we know, the Restoration can not be limited to just the Ecclesiastical sphere of our human existence. The reason being: God created the UNIVERSE, so when we say “the Restoration of all things…”, we literally have to mean “the Restoration of A.L.L. things…”.


To help understand this quite obvious if not always apparent aspect of our daily existence, your humble blogger has defined a general principle, namely the LEX ARMATICUS. The foundational principle of the LEX ARMATICUS is defined as:

Those individuals and institutions that comply to the et Invisibilium, will remain a part of the Visibisium Omnium. Those that do not, will be consigned to the trash heap of history.

Where the following definitions hold:

Visibisium Omnium – all the material “things” that we can identify with our senses (touch, sight, feel, smell, taste)

et Invisibilium – all the non-material laws and processes that regulate the visibilium omnium (e.g. the laws of physics – classical mechanics and quantum mechanics, laws of mathematics, rules of logic, etc.)

Or to put is another way, the LEX ARMATICUS is nothing more than a restatement of NATRUAL LAW.

And now we have come full circle, since Curt Doolittle is a “philosopher of Natural Law, in the Western Aristocratic tradition”. 

Below is a post that appeared on the Propertarianism website that provides a quite elegant and concise definition thread and history of Natural Law and its place in Western thought.

I have also inserted text explaining the overlooked school of the Scholastic rationalists (see here) after ‘The Christians — A Utopian Supernatural Law’ entry. Unfortunately Curt did not provide this information, information which would have provided a more accurate picture of Catholic “rationalists”, an often ignored if not misunderstood school of philosophical thought. It was in fact the Catholic rationalists of this period that are responsible for the development of such things as higher learning (the university), the scientific method, the subjective theory of value, etc. and are the forerunners to the secular rationalists of the post Enlightenment era.

In the Catholic Church, the influence of the Scholastic rationalists was brought to an end with the the neo-Modernist revolution at Vatican II. This is explained in the seminal essay written by Dr. John Lamont (see here) which I am continuously referencing on this blog.

And as I have explained in a previous post (see here), it is not the neo-Modernists that brought about the suppression of “rationalism” not only in the Catholic Church, but in society in general, as much as the post-Modernists.

This diagnosis of the general state of Western Civilization is now being observed, identified and understood by not only the Catholics (A.K.A. Traditionalists), such as the Society of St. Pius X and the SSPX breakaway communities in the Ecclesia Dei Commission, but by the secular thinkers as well.

And to tie this all together, this is the reason why I am continuously referencing people like Stefan Molyneux, Dr. Jordan Peterson, Dr. Duke Pesta and others, who exhibit this understanding and are speaking out about it.

So when you, dear reader are reading or watching the products of the work done by these individuals, please notice the general themes and underlying concepts and ideas, while overlooking the occasional anti-Catholic or anti-religious slights. To understand what these people are saying provides us with an insight into a large swath of what the general Western population is listening to and thinking. Coincidentally, the large swath is the same people that voted for Brexit and got Mr. Donald J. Trump elected as the 45th President of the United States of America.

PS Now after you reading the below, go back and watch the Molyneux video that I have embedded at the top of this post.

And after watching it, tell me that he is not a neo-Scholastic rationalist?

And now to the Natural Law post… (see here)


What Do We Meany by Natural Law?

A Little History of Natural Law – From The Good, to the Moral, to the Rational, to the Scientific.

What is Law?

Law, in its generic sense, is a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by controlling authority, and having binding legal force. That which must be obeyed and followed by citizens subject to sanctions or legal consequences is a law (Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 884).  Jurisprudence is the philosophy of law and how the law developed.

Natural Law is a broad and often misapplied term tossed around various schools of philosophy, science, history, theology, and law. Immanuel Kant reminded us, ‘What is law?’ may be said to be about as embarrassing to the jurist as the well-know question ‘What is Truth?’ is to the logician.

Natural Law – A Moral Theory of Jurisprudence
Natural Law evolved as a moral theory of jurisprudence, which maintains that law should be based on morality and ethics. Natural Law holds that the law is based on what’s “correct.” Natural Law is “discovered” by humans through the use of reason and choosing between good and evil. Therefore, Natural Law finds its power in discovering certain universal standards in morality and ethics.

The Greeks – Living In Correspondence with The Natural World
The Greeks — Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle emphasized the distinction between “nature” (physis, φúσις) and “law,” “custom,” or “convention” (nomos, νóμος). What the law commanded varied from place to place, but what was “by nature” should be the same everywhere. Aristotle (BC 384—322) is considered by many to be the father of “natural law.” In Rhetoric, he argues that aside from “particular” laws that each people has set up for itself, there is a “common law” or “higher law” that is according to nature (Rhetoric 1373b2–8).

The StoicsA Rational and Purposeful Law
The development of natural law theory continued in the Hellenistic school of philosophy, particularly with the Stoics. The Stoics pointed to the existence of a rational and purposeful order to the universe. The means by which a rational being lived in accordance with this cosmic order was considered natural law. Unlike Aristotle’s “higher law,” Stoic natural law was indifferent to the divine or natural source of that law. Stoic philosophy was very influential with Roman jurists such as Cicero, thus playing a significant role in the development of Roman legal theory.

The Christians — A Utopian Supernatural Law
Augustine (AD 354—430) equates natural law with man’s Pre-Fall state. Therefore, life according to nature is no longer possible and mankind must instead seek salvation through the divine law and Christ’s grace. Gratian (12th century) reconnected the concept of natural law and divine law. “The Human Race is ruled by two things: namely, natural law and usages (mos, moris, mores). Natural law is what is contained in the law and the Gospel. By it, each person is commanded to do to others what he wants done to himself and is prohibited from inflicting on others what he does not want done to himself.” (Decretum, D.1 d.a.c.1; ca. 1140 AD)

Scholastic rationalism – (The revolt against abject mysticism)

Scholasticism sprang from the study of dialectic in the schools. The most decisive battle of Scholasticism was that which it waged in the twelfth century against the mystics who condemned the use of dialectic. The distinguishing mark of Scholasticism in the age of its highest development is its use of the dialectical method. It is, therefore, a matter, once more, for surprise, to find Scholasticism accused of undue subservience to authority and of the neglect of reason. Rationalism is a word which has various meanings. It is sometimes used to designate a system which, refusing to acknowledge the authority of revelation, tests all truth by the standard of reason. (Ed note: what is known as ‘scientism” presently) In this sense, the Scholastics were not Rationalists. The Rationalism of Scholasticism consists in the conviction that reason is to be used in the elucidation of spiritual truth and in defense of the dogmas of Faith. It is opposed to mysticism, which distrusted reason and placed emphasis on intuition and contemplation. In this milder meaning of the term, all the Scholastics were convinced Rationalists, the only difference being that some, like Abelard and Roscelin, were too ardent in their advocacy of the use of reason, and went so far as to maintain that reason can prove even the supernatural mysteries of Faith, while others, like St. Thomas, moderated the claims of reason, set limits to its power of proving spiritual truth, and maintained that the mysteries of faith could not be discovered and cannot be proved by unaided reason.

The whole Scholastic movement, therefore, is a Rationalistic movement in the second sense of the term Rationalism. The Scholastics used their reason; they applied dialectic to the study of nature, of human nature and of supernatural truth. Far from depreciating reason, they went as far as man can go — some modern critics think they went too far — in the application of reason to the discussion of the dogmas of Faith. They acknowledged the authority of revelation, as all Christian philosophers are obliged to do. They admitted the force of human authority when the conditions of its valid application were verified. But in theology, the authority of revelation did not coerce their reason and in philosophy and in natural science they taught very emphatically that the argument from authority is the weakest of all arguments. They did not subordinate reason to authority in any unworthy sense of that phrase. It was an opponent of the Scholastic movement who styled philosophy “the handmaid of theology”, a designation which, however, some of the Schoolmen accepted to mean that to philosophy belongs the honourable task of carrying the light which is to guide the footsteps of theology. One need not go so far as to say, with Barthélemy Saint Hilaire, that “Scholasticism, in its general result, is the first revolt of the modern spirit against authority.” Nevertheless, one is compelled by the facts of history to admit that there is more truth in that description than in the superficial judgment of the historians who describe Scholasticism as the subordination of reason to authority.

The Enlightenment Thinkers (AD 1600 – 2016) – A Rational Natural Law – From Property
(Bacon/English, Locke/British, Jefferson/Anglo-German,

The 20th Century Thinkers – The Reduction of Social Science to Property Rights
(Hayek/Austrian, Rothbard/Jewish, Hoppe/German)

21st Century Thinkers – The Science of Cooperation (In Markets)
The attempt to mature Stoic, Roman, Germanic, and British empirical law into a formal logic wherein all rights are reduced to property rights,  and where such law is strictly constructed from the prohibition on the imposition of costs – costs that would cause retaliation and increase the costs, risk, and likelihood of cooperation.  Impediments to cooperation. Where cooperation creates prosperity in a division of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor, and advocacy.

In other words, natural law, evolved from empirical common law, as the formal category(property), logic (construction), empiricism(from observation), and science (continuous improvement) of human cooperation.

In this view, ethics, morality, economics, law, politics constitute the science of cooperation: social science. Everything else is justification, advocacy, literature, and propaganda.

The Greying Of Europe…


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

From the Gatestone Institute via the Zero Hedge website (see here).


Giulio Meotti: Islam, Not Christianity, Is Saturating Europe

Authored by Giulio Meotti via The Gatestone Institute,

  • Jihadists seem to be leading an assault against freedom and against secular democracies.
  • Sunni Islam’s most prominent preacher, Yusuf al Qaradawi, declared that the day will come when, like Constantinople, Rome will be Islamized.
  • It is Islam, not Christianity, that now saturates Europe’s landscape and imagination.

According to US President Trump’s strategic advisor Steve Bannon, the “Judeo-Christian West is collapsing, it is imploding. And it’s imploding on our watch. And the blowback of that is going to be tremendous”.

The impotence and the fragility of our civilization is haunting many Europeans as well.

Europe, according to the historian David Engels will face the fate of the ancient Roman Republic: a civil war. Everywhere, Europeans see signs of fracture. Jihadists seem to be leading an assault against freedom and against secular democracies. Fears occupy the collective imagination of Europeans. A survey of more than 10,000 people from ten different European countries has revealed increasing public opposition to Muslim immigration. The Chatham House Royal Institute of International Affairs carried out a survey, asking online respondents their views on the statement that “all further migration from mainly Muslim countries should be stopped”. In the 10 European countries surveyed, an average of 55% agreed with the statement.

Mainstream media are now questioning if “Europe fears Muslims more than the United States”. The photograph used in the article was a recent Muslim mass prayer in front of Italy’s monument, the Coliseum. In echoes of the capture of the great Christian civilization of Byzantium in Constantinople, Sunni Islam’s most prominent preacher, Yusuf al Qaradawi, declared that the day will come when Rome will be Islamized.

Do civilizations die from outside or inside? Is their disappearance the result of external aggression (war, natural disasters, epidemics) or of an internal erosion (decay, incompetence, disastrous choices)? Arnold Toynbee, in the last century, was adamant: “Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder”.

“The contemporary historian of ancient Greece and ancient Rome saw their civilisations begin their decline and fall, both the Greeks and the Romans attributed it to falling birth rates because nobody wanted the responsibilities of bringing up children,” said Britain’s former chief rabbi, Lord Sacks.

Everywhere in Europe there are signs of a takeover.

Muslim students now outnumber Christian students in more than 30 British church schools. One Anglican primary school has a “100 percent Muslim population”. The Church of England estimated that about 20 of its schools have more Muslim students than Christian ones, and 15 Roman Catholic schools have majority Muslim students. In Germany as well, there are fears of a massive Muslim influx into the school system, and German teachers are openly denouncing the threat of a “ghettoization”.

France saw 34,000 fewer babies born last year than in 2014, a new report just found. The number of French women having children has reached its lowest level in 40 years. A low fertility rate has become a plague all over Europe: “In 1995 only one country, Italy, had more people over 65 than under 15; today there are 30 and by 2020 that number will hit 35.” Welcome to the “Greying of Europe“.

Additionally, if it were not for Muslim women, France would have an even lower birth rate: “With a fertility rate of 3.5 children per woman, the Algerians contribute significantly to the growth of the population in France”, wrote the well-known demographer Gérard-François Dumont.

Thanks to Muslim migrants, Sweden’s maternity wards are busy these days.

In Milan, Italy’s financial center, Mohammed is the top name among newborn babies. The same is true in London, in the four biggest Dutch cities and elsewhere in Europe, from Brussels to Marseille. It is Islam, not Christianity, that now saturates Europe’s landscape and imagination.

Meanwhile, Europe’s leaders are almost all childless. In Germany, Angela Merkel has no children, as British prime minister Theresa May and one of France’s leading presidential candidates, Emmanuel Macron. As Europe’s leaders have no children and no reason to worry about the future (everything ends with them), they are now opening Europe’s borders to keep the continent in a demographic equilibrium. “I believe Europeans should understand that we need migration for our economies and for our welfare systems, with the current demographic trend we have to be sustainable”, said Federica Mogherini, the European Union representative for foreign affairs.

The Battle of Tours in 732 was the high-water point of the Muslim tide in Western Europe. If Christians had not won, “perhaps,” wrote Edward Gibbon, “the interpretation of the Koran would now be taught in the schools of Oxford, and her pulpits might demonstrate to a circumcised people the sanctity and truth of the revelation of Mahomet”. Does that sound familiar these days?

Islamists take culture and history more seriously than the Westerners do. Recently, in Paris, an Egyptian terrorist tried to strike the great museum, the Louvre. He planned to deface the museum’s artwork, he said, because “it is a powerful symbol of French culture”. Think about an Islamic extremist shouting “Allahu Akbar” while slashing the Mona Lisa. This is the trend we need to start reversing.

All Roads Lead To Catholicism – The Functional Thomist!


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

Today we will talk about epistemology and “fake news”.

As my loyal reader know, your humble blogger has written much about “fake news”, especially leading up to the 2016 US Presidential Election. (see here and here). To properly understand “fake news” is to understand the context in which it is produced and in which it appears. As has been explained in the post titled, The Soap Bubble Papacy™ : The Battle Is In Your Mind – Francis’ Gaslighting, fake news is any news that does not support the pre-defined transrational narrative.

As for epistemology, it is defined as the branch of philosophy concerned with the theory of knowledge. More to the point: (see here)

Epistemology studies the nature of knowledge, justification, and the rationality of belief. Much of the debate in epistemology centers on four areas: (1) the philosophical analysis of the nature of knowledge and how it relates to such concepts as truth, belief, and justification,[2][3] (2) various problems of skepticism, (3) the sources and scope of knowledge and justified belief, and (4) the criteria for knowledge and justification.

To further reduce the above definition for our purposes here, epistemology can be seen as the study for how one determines WHAT IS TRUE.

And as we are all aware, there are two manners in which what is TRUE has been historically defined. For this explanation, we go over to Dr. John Lamont and his seminal work titled Attacks on Thomism: (see here)

The traditional understanding of truth is that of Aristotle, who described truth as saying of what is, that it is. The neomodernists, due to their historical perspectivism, did not think that the theology and dogma of previous epochs could satisfy this understanding, but they did not want to dismiss them as false. They accordingly held that dogma was true, but that its truth could not be understood in Aristotle’s sense. Garrigou-Lagrange saw them as reviving the philosopher Maurice Blondel’s rejection of the traditional definition of truth as bringing the mind into conformity with reality (‘adaequatio rei et intellectus’) in favour of an account of truth as bringing thought into line with life (‘adaequatio realis mentis et vitae’). 

To provide even more historical context, and by brining Aristotle into this discussion, we have opened the door for “philosophers” to enter this fray. And one of the most visible philosophers plying his trade these days is one Stefan Molyneux. I have provided a video above of his latest material pertaining to the US “fake media’s” 60 Minutes television program about… wait for it… “fake news”.

In that broadcast, the host, one Scott Pelley interviewed Mike Cernovich, an internet media personality in his own right. The broadcast dealt with the issue of “fake news” and the following exchange ensued regarding Sick Hillary’s health: (see here)

Michael Cernovich: She had a seizure and froze up walking into her motorcade that day.

Scott Pelley: Well, she had pneumonia. I mean–

Michael Cernovich: How do you know? Who told you that?

Scott Pelley: Well, the campaign told us that.

Michael Cernovich: Why would you trust the campaign?

Scott Pelley: The point is you didn’t talk to anybody who’d ever examined Hillary Clinton.

Michael Cernovich: I don’t take anything Hillary Clinton is gonna say at all as true. I’m not gonna take her on her word. The media says we’re not gonna take Donald Trump on his word. And that’s why we are in these different universes.

So what we see in the above is nothing more than the epistemological definition of what constitutes TRUTH coming to the fore.

Enter Stefan Molyneux. In the video at the top of this page, Stefan makes the following points about the above exchange, points that transcend all the various subsets of the Visibilium Omnium, et Invisibilium, and which I will emphasize and emphasize   in the below transcripts: (starts at about the 24:00 minute mark)

(…) So then, we get to the meat of the matter. And maybe I’ve had a bit of an influence on my friend or  maybe he came to this by his own speed and motor, but …it comes down to the fundamental question. And I am so happy that this fundamental question is being asked in such a widely disseminated platform as 60 Minutes, cause it’s really the meat of the matter.

So Scott Pelley asks, ‘Mike, how do you decide something is true?

And Mike says: ‘How does anyone decide? That is an epistemological question. (Stefan kisses his fingers as he utters the sound “Mwwwa”).

Beautiful. Beautiful. The first time that word had reared its head in the mainstream media since … I don’t know… the trial of Socrates. No, actually Socrates would not have used the word epistemological either. But anyway…

That is an epistemological question, says Mike. What is the nature of truth. How does anyone ascertain what is true or is false. It’s a big question. Billions of man hours have been burned up over thousands of years to try and corner that question. It’s a moving target, it’s a challenging target and we need the RIGID discipline of reason , evidence, philosophy and so… empiricism to hang onto the truth which is a soap-slippery son of a b*tch, frankly.

So, what is the nature of truth? How do you know what is true and what is false?  What is epistemologically valid, great question. And Scott… and it’s a trap. Because if Scott says ‘It’s really hard to figure out what is true and what is false’, then that’s honest. But then, the whole segment on “fake news” collapses.

So Scott has to say, has to say that it’s easy. Scott says ‘Why you ask questions, you verify the information, it’s not that hard’. Asking questions is (…). You ask questions. You verify the information. How do you verify the information? How do you even chose which segments to run. It’s a big question. How do you chose when and how you’re going to do a story on “fake news”? What’s your agenda? What’s your purpose? What’s your goal? What can you talk about in terms of your gender, your purpose, your goal? What do you have to hide? How are you going to organize things? How are you going to present things? What are the questions you’re going to ask? How are you going to edit the interview? How are you going to boil it down to the essential issues? It’s a very big question.

He says, ‘Well, you ask questions, you verify the information. Of course, epistemology asks the question: How do you verify the information? How do you verify the information? Scott’s answer is not even a tautology. ‘You verify the information’. How do you verify the information? ‘You verify the information.’  Yea, I’m going to some investors , and I say “I’m gonna cure cancer, give me a billion dollars.” And they say ‘Well, how are you going to cure cancer?’ And I say “I’m going to cure cancer”. And they has ‘How are you going to cure cancer, how is it proven?’ And I say,” I’m going to cure cancer, what do you not understand, give me the billion dollars”. You understand?

Well, how do you know what is true?  ‘Well, you verify.’ But that’s just the synonym for true. (…)

So Mike, incredulous, incredulous. A beautiful moment. “Finding the truth is not that hard?” Scott: ‘ I do it all the time’.  Sorry, that was prejudicial mocking, but its true. ‘I do it all the time.’ ‘I find the truth all the time.’

The fact that the mainstream media may have set in motion events that are taking down Western Civilization, you would think that it would give them some pause, about how they process truth, what they write. So they media was cheerleading the invasion of Iraq. ‘There are weapons of mass destruction.’ How do you know? ‘The government told us.’ ‘Because you ask question, you verify information. If the government tell you stuff that it’s true… [grimaced face]. Creepy, creepy…(…) rip out your heart and mind from the chilled spinelessness form the jellyfish leftist indoctrination.  So Good Lord… Start the war in Iraq. War in Iraq leads to massive destruction, and destruction in the region. Leads to terrorism. Arguably leads to Syria, the destruction of Syria. Leads to the destruction of Libya. Founding of ISIS. Floods of migrants into Europe. I mean, come on, is there no humility, no sense of “what the hell did we do wrong”, no guilt, no shame, no horror. How do these people get out of bed in the morning?

And Mike rightly points out that there are two worlds, which is around what the definition of truth are. [Ed note: In essence, there are only two, i.e. ‘adaequatio rei et intellectus’ vs ‘adaequatio realis mentis et vitae’] What the definitions of truth are. That is fantastic. The fact that different definitions of truth lead to different world views that are utterly irreconcilable is exactly right. I’ve been saying it for years and years. (…)

That is an excellent question.  Once people understand the essence of the definitions of civilization, what do you define as moral, as right, as true, as good, as civilized, definitions are all that we have to deal with each other in a peaceful way. When the definitions crack, society cracks. When the definitions become oppositional , society becomes oppositional. And we better get this stuff sorted out and damned quickly. Because opposing definitions have never, ever in history been as well armed as they are today.

And finally, that last paragraph is a gem!

All I will add here is that as opposed to Francis, the bishop of Rome who is a cryptic post-Modernist, with Sterfan Molyneus, we are dealing with a genuine functional Thomist.

PS Oh and by the way, sounds like this would be something with which the Dominicans could help…

PPS Post 60 Minutes Victory interview:

Sic transit gloria mundi!

PPPS The reviews are coming in here

By Their Fruits You Shall Know… “Controlled Opposition”


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

Before I start, I hope all my readers had a pleasant weekend. Here where I am, at a location that I cannot disclose… for obvious reasons, the first signs of spring are in the air. Nuff said…

As for today’s post, you dear readers are in for a treat. The reason I mention this is that rarely can one so visibly see two identical processes, in two different sub-set of the Visibilium Omnium, et Invisibilium, transpiring at the same time.

This is worth noting, if for no other reason then to see the power and elegance for explaining such phenonmena, through our defined LEX ARMATICUS. But back to the matter at hand…

Today we will talk about what is known as “controlled opposition”. Here is how the Urban Dictionary defines this phenomenon:

A controlled opposition is a protest movement that is actually being led by government agents. Nearly all governments in history have employed this technique to trick and subdue their adversaries. Notably Vladimir Lenin who said ””The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.”

And now to the subject of this post.

In our first instance, we seen just this mechanism in the defeat of the RyanCare legislation. What we seen is a situation where a fraction from within the Republican Party declaring to vote against legislation that is being proposed by its own party and by its own president. This is something that rarely happens, but when it does, it happens for a reason.

Here is how our favorite political blog describes this process:

In 2009 The U.S. Chamber of Commerce (Donohue), the AFL-CIO (Trumka), SEIU (Stern), AFSCME together with Wall Street, Big Pharma and Big Healthcare entered into negotiations with a massive White House team to create ObamaCare.   [see the collage above]  Everything after that successfully executed ’09/’10 deal was each organization ensuring the construct remained in place.


Republicans do not want ObamaCare repealed.  Whenever you see people talking about a republican ‘this‘, or a republican ‘that‘ wanting to repeal ObamaCare – It’s false.

This reality underwrites the reason why Ryan refused to have an actual vote on the record today.  The UniParty scheme can only exist so long as you remain blind to their affiliation and purposes.


Those who say there are politicians within DC that want to repeal ObamaCare are absolute liars. It is a 100% false assertion.  This is a narrative of fakery created by specific and intentional design, being utilized as countermeasures to throw you off the trail.  The narrative is intended to keep you from identifying the reality of the DC UniParty and the trillion dollar legislative agenda.

Repeat.  The Republican Party does not want to repeal ObamaCare.  (Neither does the Democrat party.)

Both sides of the Uniparty have fought to retain ObamaCare’s existence.  The House GOP fully funded it in every year since 2010.  All efforts made to give the illusion of ‘other‘ are exactly that, an illusion.   That illusion is called “controlled opposition“.  An example of that “controlled opposition” is the House Freedom Caucus.  The HFC voted for Paul Ryan as House Speaker.

You dear reader can read the rest of the post here.

So just to quickly sum up what the above means. The Republican Party, and especially its “conservative” wing, has a HIDDEN AGENDA. That hidden agenda has to do with the structure of ObamaCare itself. This structure allows entities, who are financial backers of said Party, to derive benefits from the existence of ObamaCare.

So what the Conservative Tree blog calls the UniParty, has been forced out into the open by the very clever maneuver of President Trump, by backing one (and unexpectedly) of the sides in this interparty “fight”. And the manner in which the legislation path ended, was no doubt shocking, but only to those who are not “initiated”, shall we say.

This is a basic, one can call “linear” analysis of what transpired over the last week in Washington D.C.

In the second instance, we also saw “controlled opposition” being employed by Francis, the bishop of Rome. In Francis’ case, what caused a “stir” and some “unbelief” within the “catholic” and “neo-catholic” ranks was the relations of the Chilean Bishops as to what was said in their meeting with Francis.

For this passage, we go to the 1Peter5 blog here.

As we can see in this passage, Francis sounded normal. Here is how the post starts:

A number of people have sent me some version or another of the story on Pope Francis’ meeting with the Chilean bishops last month and asked me to comment on it. According to the bishops of Chile, Francis told them what appear to be some very self-contradictory things. I didn’t have time to commission a human translation of the Spanish, nor do I particularly want to waste any of our translators’ time on it.

Why? Because it’s essentially meaningless. Like listening to static and hoping to find guidance. One of our readers from Latin America graciously provided us with a translation on condition of anonymity*:

And here is how Steven Skojec explains the “meaninglessness” of FrancisGibberish:

So why do I say it’s meaningless?

First, because — as our papal positivist friends like to say whenever we report a second-hand account of the pope’s words — this is hearsay. Only in this instance, it’s actually out of character for him to say it. It goes against the conduct of the Synods, Amoris Laetitia, the pope’s letter to the Argentinian Bishops, his praise for the German bishops’ guidelines, the policy enforced by the Cardinal Vicar of Rome, the Vatican’s promotion of the Maltese bishops’ guidelines, Archbishop Coccopalmerio’s book (and it’s associated Vatican press conference), and so on. The evidence is piled high and deep that Communion for the divorced and remarried is exactly what he wanted. One little anecdote from a Latin American bishop does not a reversal make.

Yes, contradictory SIGNALLING indeed!

A genuine post-Modernist, one can say…

Yet quickly Steven finds the correct path. In an Addendum to the original post, Steven writes this: (see here)

My contentions that this is a) hearsay and b) ultimately meaningless insofar as it represents a consistent pattern of inconsistency in his positions remain. But a third point, which I failed to make, is this:

If people believe that Francis has aligned himself with the orthodox position on Chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia, it will undercut any effort of the Four Cardinals to issue a public, formal correction. 

This is incredibly important. Don’t lose sight of it. You’re likely to see this very argument — that Francis is not in fact a supporter of Communion for the “remarried” and thus cannot and should not be corrected — advanced by the papal positivists when it suits them to make use of it.

Exactly and yes indeed!

Concluding, what we see happening with both Francis in Rome and the UniParty in Washington D.C. is that they have created “controlled opposition”. The intent of both is the create a “controlled opposition” that will subvert the real opposition. The intent behind their actions is to break opposition to their respective HIDDEN AGENDAS.

Yet, combating this “controlled opposition” is not an easy matter to combat. What we are dealing with is the judging of “intent”.

And where have we heard this term used in the not to recent past?

Oh yes, here.

And this is why I wrote this here.

So we know why judging intent is  road wrought with all sorts of hazards.

Yet there is an answer, and an easy one at that. And it is an answer given us by Our Lord himself. So the moral of the story is as follows:

…by their fruit you shall know them.


Just as Fr. Stehlin explained here:

In order that the Holy Catholic Tradition will be now, really recognized by Rome and that the people understand that this total confusion must finish and who will finish this confusion, and this is my second point now, it is nobody else but Our Lady. We think, and many of the superiors think, I talked to them, that these horrible times, of such a confusion, which has, even since Vatican II never been inside the Church, because really, it’s such a mess. The people in the Vatican, they fight with one another. They almost, they would like to kill one another. There are so many, many… not only differences, but it’s getting outside and you see very well that one is getting… really very bad because the other say that. And this cardinal against cardinal, bishops against the pope and so on. Especially the last official document Amoris Laetitia is so scandalous. I don’t want to explain it now, it’s not the place here, at this moment, but you can see that here, you must really see that, amongst … we see about 30 cardinals and archbishops at the moment, and that’s .. 5 years ago, that had never existed in the Church, are full of resolution and determined not to allow such a false teaching, which comes even from the pope. So you see things happening in Rome that never existed since the last 50 years. A true new situation.

And in this new situation, what we need first is clarity of mind. 


And finally, the thing that I would like to explain this is the gospel of the day, which is nothing but a very, very beautiful understanding of what we just said. When Jesus Christ say, he says beware of false prophets who come to you in the clothing of sheep but inwardly they are ravening wolves . By their fruits you shall know them.