Francis Out Of Time…


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

The time has come.

After the events of the recent couple of weeks and especially with the passing of one of the Dubia Fathers, Cardinal Joachim Meisner, it would appear to this humble blogger that the time has come for Jorge Bergoglio, a.k.a. the bishop of Rome Francis to decide whether he is in fact, as he presented himself to Cardinal Joachim Meisner (Requiescat in pace) at their meeting in the later part of 2013, ” a son of the church”. Here is that description that Francis offered Cardinal Meisner, which is widely know, but has never been either corrected or retracted: (see here)

And the pope responded quite bluntly that he’s a son of the church, and he doesn’t proclaim anything else than the teachings of the church. And mercy has to be identical with truth – if not, she doesn’t deserve that name.

I would also like to add my voice and the voice of the DEUS EX MACHINA blog to the words of Steve Skojec and his OnePeterFive blog. Here is the relevent passage: (emphasis added)

Relativism. All is now relativism within the Church. The intentional obliteration of absolute moral values and the notion of objective grave sin is a gateway to the justification of every kind of evil. The true “Francis effect” is nothing less than the near-total erosion of the Catholic Faith in pastoral practice. And yet this revolution — for it most certainly is a revolt —  is shrouded in cowardice. Its leaders are so accustomed to slinking around in darkness that they cannot bring themselves — even though they control the entire visible hierarchy of the Church — to make bold and unequivocal their heretical aims.

You want to unmake the Church? Say so. Stop conniving like snakes. Be men of action. Stake your claim. Make clear your purpose. See if you really can “be as gods,” triumphant and without the burden of consequence.

Cardinals and Bishops, Priests and Religious, laity of every kind who love Our Lord Jesus and His mystical bride, it is time to rise up together as a unified body and stand our ground. There is no more “wait and see”. There is no more benefit of the doubt, because there is no more doubt. No more trepidation about whether this, at last, is the hill to die on. There are no more hills.

Cardinal Burke, you — and by extension, those courageous prelates who joined you in issuing and supporting the dubia — promised us an act of formal correction in the event that Francis did not respond to the dubia as he should. We are awaiting the discharge of your sacred duty; we are anticipating the revelation to the Church of that which only the successors of the apostles can declare: whether the apparent material heresy of Jorge Mario Bergoglio — thus far accepted by the Universal Church as Pope Francis — is now manifest and obdurate, and whether the faithful have, therefore, a duty not to follow him.

Holy Father, time is running short, but you still have a chance to repent of what you have done. You could yet calm the storm with those five words: “No. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.” Our Blessed Lord made clear that no other answer will suffice. (Mt. 5:37)

Otherwise, it is only a matter of time before a full-blown schism is upon us — and it will not be one of our making.

Actually, I think it would be fair to say that “time has run out”.




Francis In Proper Character…


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


From the Rorate Caeli website (see here)

Over the life of this blog, your humble blogger has been chronicling the evidence that Francis, the bishop of Rome appears to be more of a politician and a religious leader.

Below is just the next piece of empirical evidence in what is a mounting pile…


For the Record: The Anti-American Pope: Two of Francis’ Closest Confidantes Attack US, American Conservatives in Pope’s own journal

The article was written in Civiltà Cattolica, the journal considered the official voice of the Vatican, and its diplomatic department (the Secretariat of State), and authored by two of the Pope’s own closest confidantes, Fr. Antonio Spadaro SJ (the editor) and Argentine Presbyterian Pastor Marcelo Figueroa (shockingly, the editor of the Spanish-language edition of the journal).

Due to its unprecedented nature, and the direct attack it makes on the United States, its current administration, American Evangelicals, Conservative Catholics in the United States (and Europe and Africa, concerned with the rise of Islamism), and even on a specific website and person (Church Militant and Michael Voris), its overreach is nothing if not breathtaking.

The Osservatore site is down at the moment, so before any item is changed, this is what was originally published:

Evangelical Fundamentalism and Catholic Integralism in the USA: A surprising ecumenism

Antonio Spadaro S.J., Editor-in-chief of La Civiltà Cattolica

Marcelo Figueroa, Presbyterian pastor, Editor-in-chief of the Argentinean edition of L’Osservatore Romano

In God We Trust. This phrase is printed on the banknotes of the United States of America and is the current national motto. It appeared for the first time on a coin in 1864 but did not become official until Congress passed a motion in 1956. A motto is important for a nation whose foundation was rooted in religious motivations. For many it is a simple declaration of faith. For others, it is the synthesis of a problematic fusion between religion and state, faith and politics, religious values and economy.

 Religion, political Manichaeism and a cult of the apocalypse

Religion has had a more incisive role in electoral processes and government decisions over recent decades, especially in some US governments. It offers a moral role for identifying what is good and what is bad.

At times this mingling of politics, morals and religion has taken on a Manichaean language that divides reality between absolute Good and absolute Evil. In fact, after President George W. Bush spoke in his day about challenging the “axis of evil” and stated it was the USA’s duty to “free the world from evil” following the events of September 11, 2001.  Today President Trump steers the fight against a wider, generic collective entity of the “bad” or even the “very bad.” Sometimes the tones used by his supporters in some campaigns take on meanings that we could define as “epic.”

These stances are based on Christian-Evangelical fundamentalist principles dating from the beginning of the 20th Century that have been gradually radicalized. These have moved on from a rejection of all that is mundane – as politics was considered – to bringing a strong and determined religious-moral influence to bear on democratic processes and their results.

The term “evangelical fundamentalist” can today be assimilated to the “evangelical right” or “theoconservatism” and has its origins in the years 1910-1915. In that period a South Californian millionaire, Lyman Stewart, published the 12-volume work The Fundamentals. The author wanted to respond to the threat of modernist ideas of the time. He summarized the thought of authors whose doctrinal support he appreciated. He exemplified the moral, social, collective and individual aspects of the evangelical faith. His admirers include many politicians and even two recent presidents: Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

The social-religious groups inspired by authors such as Stewart consider the United States to be a nation blessed by God. And they do not hesitate to base the economic growth of the country on a literal adherence to the Bible. Over more recent years this current of thought has been fed by the stigmatization of enemies who are often “demonized.”

The panorama of threats to their understanding of the American way of life have included modernist spirits, the black civil rights movement, the hippy movement, communism, feminist movements and so on. And now in our day there are the migrants and the Muslims. To maintain conflict levels, their biblical exegeses have evolved toward a decontextualized reading of the Old Testament texts about the conquering and defense of the “promised land,” rather than be guided by the incisive look, full of love, of Jesus in the Gospels.

Within this narrative, whatever pushes toward conflict is not off limits. It does not take into account the bond between capital and profits and arms sales. Quite the opposite, often war itself is assimilated to the heroic conquests of the “Lord of Hosts” of Gideon and David. In this Manichaean vision, belligerence can acquire a theological justification and there are pastors who seek a biblical foundation for it, using the scriptural texts out of context.

Another interesting aspect is the relationship with creation of these religious groups that are composed mainly of whites from the deep American South. There is a sort of “anesthetic” with regard to ecological disasters and problems generated by climate change. They profess “dominionism” and consider ecologists as people who are against the Christian faith. They place their own roots in a literalist understanding of the creation narratives of the book of Genesis that put humanity in a position of “dominion” over creation, while creation remains subject to human will in biblical submission.

In this theological vision, natural disasters, dramatic climate change and the global ecological crisis are not only not perceived as an alarm that should lead them to reconsider their dogmas, but they are seen as the complete opposite: signs that confirm their non-allegorical understanding of the final figures of the Book of Revelation and their apocalyptic hope in a “new heaven and a new earth.”

Theirs is a prophetic formula: fight the threats to American Christian values and prepare for the imminent justice of an Armageddon, a final showdown between Good and Evil, between God and Satan. In this sense, every process (be it of peace, dialogue, etc.) collapses before the needs of the end, the final battle against the enemy. And the community of believers (faith) becomes a community of combatants (fight). Such a unidirectional reading of the biblical texts can anesthetize consciences or actively support the most atrocious and dramatic portrayals of a world that is living beyond the frontiers of its own “promised land.”

Pastor Rousas John Rushdoony (1916-2001) is the father of so-called “Christian reconstructionism” (or “dominionist theology”) that had a great influence on the theopolitical vision of Christian fundamentalism. This is the doctrine that feeds political organizations and networks such as the Council for National Policy and the thoughts of their exponents such as Steve Bannon, currently chief strategist at the White House and supporter of an apocalyptic geopolitics.[1]

“The first thing we have to do is give a voice to our Churches,” some say. The real meaning of this type of expression is the desire for some influence in the political and parliamentary sphere and in the juridical and educational areas so that public norms can be subjected to religious morals.

Rushdoony’s doctrine maintains a theocratic necessity: submit the state to the Bible with a logic that is no different from the one that inspires Islamic fundamentalism. At heart, the narrative of terror shapes the world-views of jihadists and the new crusaders and is imbibed from wells that are not too far apart. We must not forget that the theopolitics spread by Isis is based on the same cult of an apocalypse that needs to be brought about as soon as possible. So, it is not just accidental that George W. Bush was seen as a “great crusader” by Osama bin Laden.

Theology of prosperity and the rhetoric of religious liberty

Together with political Manichaeism, another relevant phenomenon is the passage from original puritan pietism, as expressed in Max Weber’s The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, to the “Theology of Prosperity” that is mainly proposed in the media and by millionaire pastors and missionary organizations with strong religious, social and political influence. They proclaim a “Prosperity Gospel” for they believe God desires his followers to be physically healthy, materially rich and personally happy.

It is easy to note how some messages of the electoral campaign and their semiotics are full of references to evangelical fundamentalism. For example, we see political leaders appearing triumphant with a Bible in their hands.

Pastor Norman Vincent Peale (1898-1993) is an important figure who inspired US Presidents such as Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump. He officiated at the first wedding of the current president and the funeral of his parents. He was a successful preacher. He sold millions of copies of his book The Power of Positive Thinking (1952) that is full of phrases such as “If you believe in something, you get it”, “Nothing will stop you if you keep repeating: God is with me, who is against me” or “Keep in mind your vision of success and success will come” and so on. Many prosperity prosperous televangelists mix marketing, strategic direction and preaching, concentrating more on personal success than on salvation or eternal life.

A third element, together with Manichaeism and the prosperity gospel, is a particular form of proclamation of the defense of “religious liberty.” The erosion of religious liberty is clearly a grave threat within a spreading secularism. But we must avoid its defense coming in the fundamentalist terms of a “religion in total freedom,” perceived as a direct virtual challenge to the secularity of the state.

Fundamentalist ecumenism

Appealing to the values of fundamentalism, a strange form of surprising ecumenism is developing between Evangelical fundamentalists and Catholic Integralists brought together by the same desire for religious influence in the political sphere.

Some who profess themselves to be Catholic express themselves in ways that until recently were unknown in their tradition and using tones much closer to Evangelicals. They are defined as value voters as far as attracting electoral mass support is concerned. There is a well-defined world of ecumenical convergence between sectors that are paradoxically competitors when it comes to confessional belonging. This meeting over shared objectives happens around such themes as abortion, same-sex marriage, religious education in schools and other matters generally considered moral or tied to values. Both Evangelical and Catholic Integralists condemn traditional ecumenism and yet promote an ecumenism of conflict that unites them in the nostalgic dream of a theocratic type of state.

However, the most dangerous prospect for this strange ecumenism is attributable to its xenophobic and Islamophobic vision that wants walls and purifying deportations. The word “ecumenism” transforms into a paradox, into an “ecumenism of hate.” Intolerance is a celestial mark of purism. Reductionism is the exegetical methodology. Ultra-literalism is its hermeneutical key.

Clearly there is an enormous difference between these concepts and the ecumenism employed by Pope Francis with various Christian bodies and other religious confessions. His is an ecumenism that moves under the urge of inclusion, peace, encounter and bridges. This presence of opposing ecumenisms – and their contrasting perceptions of the faith and visions of the world where religions have irreconcilable roles – is perhaps the least known and most dramatic aspect of the spread of Integralist fundamentalism. Here we can understand why the pontiff is so committed to working against “walls” and any kind of “war of religion.”

 The temptation of “spiritual war”

The religious element should never be confused with the political one. Confusing spiritual power with temporal power means subjecting one to the other. An evident aspect of Pope Francis’ geopolitics rests in not giving theological room to the power to impose oneself or to find an internal or external enemy to fight. There is a need to flee the temptation to project divinity on political power that then uses it for its own ends. Francis empties from within the narrative of sectarian millenarianism and dominionism that is preparing the apocalypse and the “final clash.”[2] Underlining mercy as a fundamental attribute of God expresses this radically Christian need.

Francis wants to break the organic link between culture, politics, institution and Church. Spirituality cannot tie itself to governments or military pacts for it is at the service of all men and women. Religions cannot consider some people as sworn enemies nor others as eternal friends. Religion should not become the guarantor of the dominant classes. Yet it is this very dynamic with a spurious theological flavor that tries to impose its own law and logic in the political sphere.

There is a shocking rhetoric used, for example, by the writers of Church Militant, a successful US-based digital platform that is openly in favor of a political ultraconservatism and uses Christian symbols to impose itself. This abuse is called “authentic Christianity.” And to show its own preferences, it has created a close analogy between Donald Trump and Emperor Constantine, and between Hilary Clinton and Diocletian. The American elections in this perspective were seen as a “spiritual war.”[3]

This warlike and militant approach seems most attractive and evocative to a certain public, especially given that the victory of Constantine – it was presumed impossible for him to beat Maxentius and the Roman establishment – had to be attributed to a divine intervention: in hoc signo vinces.

Church Militant asks if Trump’s victory can be attributed to the prayers of Americans. The response suggested is affirmative. The indirect missioning for President Trump is clear: he has to follow through on the consequences. This is a very direct message that then wants to condition the presidency by framing it as a divine election. In hoc signo vinces. Indeed.

Today, more than ever, power needs to be removed from its faded confessional dress, from its armor, its rusty breastplate. The fundamentalist theopolitical plan is to set up a kingdom of the divinity here and now. And that divinity is obviously the projection of the power that has been built. This vision generates the ideology of conquest.

The theopolitical plan that is truly Christian would be eschatological, that is it applies to the future and orients current history toward the Kingdom of God, a kingdom of justice and peace. This vision generates a process of integration that unfolds with a diplomacy that crowns no one as a “man of Providence.”

And this is why the diplomacy of the Holy See wants to establish direct and fluid relations with the superpowers, without entering into pre-constituted networks of alliances and influence. In this sphere, the pope does not want to say who is right or who is wrong for he knows that at the root of conflicts there is always a fight for power. So, there is no need to imagine a taking of sides for moral reasons, much worse for spiritual ones.

Francis radically rejects the idea of activating a Kingdom of God on earth as was at the basis of the Holy Roman Empire and similar political and institutional forms, including at the level of a “party.” Understood this way, the “elected people” would enter a complicated political and religious web that would make them forget they are at the service of the world, placing them in opposition to those who are different, those who do not belong, that is the “enemy.”

So, then the Christian roots of a people are never to be understood in an ethnic way. The notions of roots and identity do not have the same content for a Catholic as for a neo-Pagan. Triumphalist, arrogant and vindictive ethnicism is actually the opposite of Christianity. The pope on May 9 in an interview with the French dailyLa Croix, said: “Yes Europe has Christian roots. Christianity has the duty of watering them, but in a spirit of service as in the washing of feet. The duty of Christianity for Europe is that of service.” And again: “The contribution of Christianity to a culture is that of Christ washing the feet, or the service and the gift of life. There is no room for colonialism.”

 Against fear

Which feeling underlies the persuasive temptation for a spurious alliance between politics and religious fundamentalism? It is fear of the breakup of a constructed order and the fear of chaos. Indeed, it functions that way thanks to the chaos perceived. The political strategy for success becomes that of raising the tones of the conflictual, exaggerating disorder, agitating the souls of the people by painting worrying scenarios beyond any realism.

Religion at this point becomes a guarantor of order and a political part would incarnate its needs. The appeal to the apocalypse justifies the power desired by a god or colluded in with a god. And fundamentalism thereby shows itself not to be the product of a religious experience but a poor and abusive perversion of it.

This is why Francis is carrying forward a systematic counter-narration with respect to the narrative of fear. There is a need to fight against the manipulation of this season of anxiety and insecurity. Again, Francis is courageous here and gives no theological-political legitimacy to terrorists, avoiding any reduction of Islam to Islamic terrorism. Nor does he give it to those who postulate and want a “holy war” or to build barrier-fences crowned with barbed wire. The only crown that counts for the Christian is the one with thorns that Christ wore on high.[4]


[1] Bannon believes in the apocalyptic vision that William Strauss and Neil Howe theorized in their book The Fourth Turning: What Cycles of History Tell Us About America’s Next Rendezvous with Destiny. See also N. Howe, “Where did Steve Bannon get his worldview? From my book”, in The Washington Post, February 24, 2017.

[2] See A. Aresu, “Pope Francis against the Apocalypse”, in Macrogeo(, June 9, 2017.

[3] See “Donald ‘Constantine’ Trump? Could Heaven be intervening directly in the election?”, in Church Militant (

[4] For further reflection see D. J. Fares, “L’antropologia politica di Papa Francesco», in Civ. Catt. 2014 I 345-360; A. Spadaro, “La diplomazia di Francesco. La misericordia come processo politico”, ib 2016 I 209-226; D. J. Fares, “Papa Francesco e la politica”, ib 2016 I 373-385; J. L. Narvaja, “La crisi di ogni politica cristiana. Erich Przywara e l’‘idea di Europa’”, ib 2016 I 437-448; Id., “Il significato della politica internazionale di Francesco”, ib 2017 III 8-15.

NUChurch Shocked… Shocked That Francis Lies…


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

Interesting development today.

But first, background…

A couple of days ago, a post appeared at the excellent OnePeterFive blog appeared titled Source: Before Dismissal of Cardinal Müller, Pope Asked Five Pointed Questions, written by Maika Hickson. Needless to say, it caused quite a stir.

The reason it caused quite a stir, as best I can tell, is that it used “unnamed sources”. Furthermore, and as best I can tell, the complaints are originating from the Leftist “catholic” circles, circles who have no problem with information appearing in FakeNews Media based on “unnamed sources” with respect to the “Russian collusion conspiracy”, for example.

Hypocrisy, yes?

But it gets better…

It would also appear that the key “crime” perpetrated by Maika Hickson pertained to question 3). Here is the pertinent quote from the followup post titled Getting Perspective: There’s Nothing New in the Five Questions Story and reads as follows:

3.) “Are you in favor of, or against, female priests?”

This is the sole standout question, the one point of discussion that has ruffled the most feathers. And this is understandable, because the pope has made clear — that is to say, as clear as he ever makes things — that he believes the door to this question was closed by John Paul II.

Now the reason that it is understandable is that it implies that Francis, the bishop of Rome is dishonest.

Let’s put this another way, it implies that Francis, the bishop of Rome is a LIAR.

Two things need to be mentioned at this point.

First, it is known that Francis, the bishop of Rome LIES. One good example of just this comes to mind, and it relates to Communion to serial adulterers and the Joy of Sex document that Francis promulgated after the bi-Synod of 2014 and 2015. Furthermore, it encompasses the recently deceased Cardinal Joachim Meisner.

Just as a reminder, in December of 2013 and in another “3rd answer”, when asked a question about the possibility that Francis, the bishop of Rome would agree to change Catholic doctrine and teaching on Natural Moral Law, here is what the good Cardinal stated: (see herehighlighted parts are Fr. Z’s, emphasis is your truly)

“At my last meeting with Pope Francis, I had the opportunity to talk very open to him about a lot of things. And I told him that some questions remain unanswered in his style of spreading the gospel through interviews and short speeches, questions which need some extended explanation for people who are not so involved. The pope looked at me “with big eyes” and asked me to give an example. And my response was : During the flight back from Rio you were asked about people who divorced and remarried. And the pope responded frankly: People who are divorced can receive communion, people who are remarried can’t. In the orthodox church you can marry twice. And then he talked about mercy, which, according to my view, is seen in this country only as a surrogate for all human faults. And the pope responded quite bluntly that he’s a son of the church, and he doesn’t proclaim anything else than the teachings of the church. And mercy has to be identical with truth – if not, she doesn’t deserve that name. Furthermore, when there are open theological questions, it’s up to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to give detailed responses“.

Once again, this post was from 24 of December, 2013, or two months before the notorious Kasper Conclave.

On an aside, is it any wonder that Cardinal Meisner could have died from a “broken heart”. The current occupant of the See of Peter… wait for it…

lied to him.

Moreover, this interview appeared in the German language Deutschlandrundfunk which is a widely disseminated periodical inside the “catholic” circles, so this information is NOT anything that should surprise any of these people.

Which brings us to an even more important issue, namely, what’s behind the feigning indignation that Francis, the bishop of Rome is.. shall we say… liberal (in the bad sense of that word) with the truth?

And as it just so happens, from the COMMUNICATIONS sub-set of the et Invisibilium, we get a post at the Zero Hedge website titled Americans Are Living Under “Intellectual Martial Law”. This post explains the PHENOMENON of what is known as the Overton Window. It uses examples from POLITICS, but analogous examples can be drawn from the ECCLESIASTICAL sub-set.

Here is the modified explanation about the underlying motivation:

Now, the question of motive. Why does the thinking class in America leftist NUChurch circles embrace ideas that are not necessarily, and surely not self-evidently, truthful, and even self-destructive? Because this class is dangerously insecure and perversely needs to insist on being right about its guiding dogmas and shibboleths at all costs.

And if that means the bishop of Rome LYING, so be it…

But what else does this tell us about that self-interest group? Here is that modified passage:

The thinking classes leftist NUChurch circles are also the leaders and foot-soldiers in American post-conciliar institutions. When they are unable or unwilling to think clearly, then you get a breakdown of authority, which leads to a breakdown of legitimacy. That’s exactly where we’re at today in our national politics ecclesiastical affairs— our their (in) ability to manage the NUChurch polity.


Below is the Zero Hedge post that can be seen here.


Americans Are Living Under “Intellectual Martial Law”

Authored by James Howard Kunstler via,

The disgrace of America’s putative intellectual class is nearly complete as it shoves the polity further into dysfunction and toward collapse. These are the people Nassim Taleb refers to as “intellectuals-yet-idiots.” Big questions loom over this dynamic: How did the thinking class of America sink into this slough of thoughtlessness? And why – what is motivating them?

One path to understanding it can be found in this sober essay by Neal Devers, The Overton Bubble, published two years ago on — a friend turned me on to it the other day (dunno how I missed it). The title is a reference to the phenomenon known as the Overton Window. Wikipedia summarizes it:

The Overton Window, also known as the window of discourse, is the range of ideas the public will accept…. The term is derived from its originator, Joseph P. Overton (1960–2003), a former vice president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy….

Devers refines the definition:

The Overton Window is a concept in political sociology referring to the range of acceptable opinions that can be held by respectable people. “Respectable” of course means that the subject can be integrated with polite society. Respectability is a strong precondition on the ability to have open influence in the mainstream.

This raises another question: who exactly is in this corps of “respectable people” who set the parameters of acceptable thought? Primarily, the mainstream media — The New York Times, The WashPo, CNN, etc. — plus the bureaucratic functionaries of the permanent government bureaucracy, a.k.a. the Deep State, who make and execute policy, along with the universities which educate the “respectable people” (the thinking class) into the prevailing dogmas and shibboleths of the day, and finally the think tanks and foundations that pay professional “experts” to retail their ideas.

The Overton Window can be viewed as a mechanism of political control, demonizing anyone who departs from the consensus of respectable thought, and especially if they express their heresies in public speech.

This has consequences.

Deavers explains:

The trouble with the Overton Window as a mechanism of political control, and with politicization of speech and thought in general, is that it causes significant collateral damage on the ability of your society to think clearly.

If some thoughts are unthinkable and unspeakable, and the truth happens in some case to fall outside of polite consensus, then your ruling elite and their society will run into situations they simply can’t handle….

An unwise political elite is one incapable of thinking clearly about their strategic situation, acting in concert, or sticking to a plan….

An insecure political elite is one which has either no sufficient mechanisms of political power short of the politicization of speech and thought, or is faced by such powerful but somehow never decisively powerful enemies that they need to permanently escalate to a state of vigorous politicization of speech and thought. We can compare this state to “intellectual martial law” for its structural similarity to the physical-security equivalent.

We’re now living under that condition of “intellectual martial law.” The consequent degradation of thinking means that the polity can’t construct a coherent consensus about what is happening to it (or devise a plan for what to do about it). This is exactly the point where the Overton Window turns into an Overton Bubble, as described by Devers. The bubble comprises ideas that are assumed to be self-evident (though they actually aren’t) and notions that are potentially destructive of society, even suicidally so.

Here is a partial list of the current dogmas and shibboleths inside today’s Overton Bubble:

  • Russia hacked the election of 2016 (no evidence required).
  • Russia (Vladimir Putin in particular) is bent on destroying the USA.
  • All immigrants, legal or illegal, have equal status before the law.
  • National borders are inconvenient, cruel, and obsolete.
  • Western Civilization is a malign force in human history.
  • Islam is “the religion of peace,” no matter how many massacres of “infidels” are carried out in its name.
  • Men are a negative force in society.
  • White men are especially negative.
  • Brownie points given for behaviors under the rubric LBGTQ.
  • All discussion about race problems and conflicts is necessarily racist.
  • The hijab (head covering worn in public by some Muslim women) is a device of liberation for women.
  • There should be a law against using the wrong personal pronoun for people who consider themselves neither men nor women (recently passed by the Canadian parliament).
  • A unifying common culture is unnecessary in national life (anything goes).
  • Colonizing Mars is a great solution to problems on Earth.

That list defines the general preoccupations of the thinking classes today – to the exclusion of other issues.

Here is an alternative list of matters they are not generally concerned about or interested in:

  • The energy quandary at the heart of our economic malaise.
  • The enormous debt racked up to run society in the absence of affordable energy inputs.
  • The dangerous interventions and manipulation in markets by unelected officials of the Federal Reserve.
  • The extraordinary dysfunction of manipulated financial markets.
  • The fragility of a banking system based on accounting fraud.
  • The dysfunction and fragility of the American suburban living arrangement.
  • The consequences of a catastrophic breakdown in the economy due to the above.
  • The destruction of planetary ecology, threatening the continuation of the human race, and potentially all life.

Now, the question of motive. Why does the thinking class in America embrace ideas that are not necessarily, and surely not self-evidently, truthful, and even self-destructive? Because this class is dangerously insecure and perversely needs to insist on being right about its guiding dogmas and shibboleths at all costs. That is why so much of the behavior emanating from the thinking class amounts to virtue signaling — we are the good people on the side of what’s right, really we are! Of course, virtue signaling is just the new term for self-righteousness. There is also the issue of careerism. So many individuals are making a living at trafficking in, supporting, or executing policy based on these dogmas and shibboleths that they don’t dare depart from the Overton Bubble of permissible, received thought lest they sacrifice their status and incomes.

The thinking classes are also the leaders and foot-soldiers in American institutions. When they are unable or unwilling to think clearly, then you get a breakdown of authority, which leads to a breakdown of legitimacy. That’s exactly where we’re at today in our national politics — our ability to manage the polity.

Read Neal Devers’ excellent article, The Overton Bubble.

Perspective Is The Key…


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

Today I do a “feel good” post, one that should provide all my dear, loyal readers with a warm, fuzzy feeling inside. The reason I am writing this post is due to a very despondent mindset that I have been noticing, one which exists inside the Catholic community, or to be more precise, that part of the community that is active on social media.

Before I get to the linked publication and the “good news” however, I would first like to propose a THEORY for why I believe this is so.

From what I can gather, many of the Faithful Catholics who are doing this great work of chronicling and explaining the current situation that exists inside the Sacred Vatican Walls on social media and in the wider blogo-sphere, appear to be rather new to Tradition. In other words, they have “converted” recently from the post-conciliar NUChurch.

Therefore, the problem with this mindset is most likely one of PERSPECTIVE.

By coming from the NUChurch, still a rather large institution, over to the numerically small Remnant of Catholics who have been fighting the neo-Modernists and now the post-Modernists for over 50 years, it appears to these new “Traditionalists”, aka Catholics, that “nothing is happening”, or worse yet, that it’s all falling apart.

I also notice observations about how few of us there in fact are. Hey, welcome to the RESISTANCE. 

They also have this idea that since they have “seen” the light, it must follow that other Catholics, and especially the priests, bishops and cardinals in the wider church, especially those who are resisting the latest iteration of novelties, should have also “seen the light” to the same degree as they have, and therefore aren’t acting forcefully enough.

Could be true, but hard to say…

Now, my loyal readers know that I do not intend to be unduly critical, since it’s not in my nature. So if I offend anyone, I apologize in advance.

But I think that there are certain things now that need to be said.

So below, I will pen my counter argument to the above thought process, so as to provide a different persepective, and it is as follows:

The reference point of any new “Traditionalist” should be changed to that of the Remnant circa 1970, when overnight, as if by magic, there were NO (as in ZERO) TLM Masses offered to the general population publicly, anywhere. And if one was to be found, it was offered by what used to known back then as a “renegade” priest.

In 1970, the Society of St. Pius X had 7 priests, one bishop and a couple of buildings that they used for a seminary, in a Swiss university town.

For the general Catholic population, or rather that part that was lucky, the situation changed in 1984 when JPII “the great”, allowed for Indult Masses to be offered. But first permission needed to be secured from the local ordinary, and good luck finding a priest.

This situation was constant up until the later part of the 1980’s. If you were lucky enough to live in the US, and provided you lived in a big city, you could be one of the luck ones and actually found a TLM being offered “from time to time”, within 50 miles of where you lived.

That slowly started changing in the 1990’s, but the change was slow and limited. It was limited to usually one church in an inner city neighborhood, one that was completely abandoned due to “white flight”, and occupied by one priest who was still hanging on. In order to save the trouble of shutting down the parish, the local ordinary would allow that priest, one faithful to Tradition, to experiment and offer a Latin Mass. (I think the revitalization story of St. John Cantius in Chicago is a good representation of just this phenomenon.)

This slow process continued and started getting some legs only in the early 2000’s. The reason being, as best I can tell, due to the SSPX and the 1988 Consecrations. When Archbishop Lefebvre (Requescat in pace) consecrated the 4 SSPX bishops, a breakaway group formed and became the Fraternity of St. Peter. It came under the new church law, the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei (MPED), which was created in order to form a split within the SSPX and destroy that organization. On an aside, sound familiar? But I digress… The purpose behind the MPED and the FSSP was in essence to erect Latin Mass churchs (1962 Missale Romanum) next to any new SSPX chapel that was beginning to spring up, mostly across the US and France. This was done with the intent to drain off the Faithful from the SSPX into the FSSP. And it is also suspected that if this strategy would have been successful, the ED community(ies) would have slowly been wound down into the NUChurch. It is for this reason that the FSSP still doesn’t have their own bishop, after one was promised them in 1988.

Needless to say, the real “God of surprises” then took matters into His hands, and once the Ecclesia Dei Commission was set up and started to spread, many diocesan and religious communities started asking for the Indult Mass also. This created an atmosphere whereby some of the responsible yet disheartened and despondent ordinaries, and non-mathematically challenged, allowed for these Indult Masses of be offered just to save some of their crumbling, disintegrating diocesan infrastructure. Think Detroit, which now has one of the most active TLM environments anywhere!

And then came the election of Benedict XVI. I will never forget the moment when it was learned that Cardinal Ratzinger has ascended to the Throne of St. Peter. It is as if a NEW SPRINGTIME had appeared from what seemed to be a never ending winter of NUChurch discontent.

This really gave us all a powerful boost at that time, and the election of Benedict XVI did not disappoint, as far as your humble blogger is concerned.

And then two years later came the Motu Proprio Summarum Pontificum. For those who do not remember what the lay of the land looked like at that point in time, the Traditional community looked like Nagasaki after the bomb. The Faithful began asking about TLM’s at their local parishes, but nobody was prepared. And I would say that after an initial 6 months to 1 year of excitement, reality dawned on us all.

And it is that reality, i.e. the one that the Catholic Church has to be rebuilt,… to use a famous Michael Davies quote: BRICK BY BRICK, that overcame the Catholic Faithful. And it was that realization, one that was even more devastating than the one in 1970 when no more TLM could be found, that was even more cruel on the psyche.

The reason it was more cruel was that up to then, the Faithful just focused on “their church” or their TLM community. They were focused on rebuilding that Remnant of the Church that they were familiar with. But in 2005 and 2006, when the Faithful looked around inside the wider Church and saw how devastated it was, and the task before them, it dawned on us all of just how massive the Restoration in fact needed to be.

So most of us returned to focus on our local churches, chapels or TLM communities to continue the work of rebuilding.

Over these last 10 years, the rebuilding has been nothing short of spectacular, provided the starting point of reference is 1970, 1988 and 2007.

One example of this rebuilding effort is St. John Cantius and the Canons that arose under the leadership of Fr. Frank Phillips. The Canons are now being invited to take over churches in other diocese. Now the Canons are not strictly Traditional (they do NO masses), which makes them less “toxic” to any entrenched “hippie sects” that may still exist in the taken over church. But one thing is for sure, the proper Catholic faith will be found at these churches post takeover.

The next and last milestone that I will mention here is that as of this year, there is a Traditional Latin Mass offered in ALL of the diocese in Poland. This is by far nothing short of a miracle, given that Poland is a country that is the heart of the JPII “sect”, a “sect” that was “personally offended” by the 1988 consecrations by Archbishop Lefebvre. Next, the Polish church transitioned into a “nationalist” oriented church after Vatican II, using the native language masses as a big “selling point”. On the other hand, it is a church where 40+% of the people still regularly go to mass, and 95% of the population has contact with the Catholic Faith at one point in their lives. Furthermore, it is the Polish church that is the most threatened by FrancisChurch just across the Oder River. The Polish hierarchy don’t want to go the way of the German Church and are realizing slowly that a return to Tradition is the ONLY OPTION. And it is the Polish Church that should be viewed as the bellweather for progress of the Restoration.

And speaking of Polish and churches, here is some eye candy from Fr. Z…

Ok, so that’s that…

Now to the linked post. It comes by way of Zero Hedge. (see here)

In that post, we can read about a PHENOMENON that has went through the cycle of 1) random observance, 2) consistent pattern and is now in the definable PROCESS phase of its existence in the wider population.

This PHENOMENON has to do with the latest generation, i.e. GENERATION Z becoming quite conservative. It works nicely with and helps explain to a large degree, the popularity of internet PHENOMENA like Jordan Peterson, Sterfan Molyneux, et al, which I have been regularly featuring on this blog.

I will leave off here for today, but please read the linked post. It dovetails very nicely with the parallel PHENOMENON of young Catholics being attracted to Tradition.

And I will return to this subject in a follow-up post…


More Fog Lifting – FrancisPlan Becoming Clearer And Clearer…


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

Over the last couple of months, several of my readers have asked me to comment on the current “recognition” situation between Francis, the bishop of Rome and the SSPX, yet I have held off.

Held off til now that is.

Recently, new information has come to light which give us a really good idea of “the FrancisPlan” going forward.

To begin, I draw your attention of a post that your humble blogger wrote in on the 1st of August 2016 titled Desperately Seeking Reconciliation. In that post, the following summary of the “reconciliation” situation, at that time, appears as follows:

Therefore, what is becoming quite clear for all observers of this situation is:

  • the SSPX will not budge.
  • Francis desperately needs a reconciliation.
  • The reason Francis desperately needs reconciliation is in order to gain some sort of control over the SSPX and ring-fence the NORMALIZATION PROCESS™ inside the Ecclesia Dei Commission. Hence Diocesan bishops must consult with the Vatican before establishing a diocesan religious order, Pope Francis ruled.
  • Francis needs to gain control over the SSPX so as to block off any escape route for the Catholics stuck in NUChurch. Hence clampdown on contemplative orders.
  • Francis is planning a repression of the larger Western Church and understands that it will not go as easily as with the suppression of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate. Hence Come una madre amorevole in case of rebellion.
  • But most importantly, Francis needs to do something IMMEDIATELY since the Restoration is spreading in the Catholic Church, especially in the wealthy Western countries.
  • The neo-modernist’s who support Francis are freaking out since they see that with their demise, so will end their Novus Ordo NUChurch.
  • This will end their IDEOLOGICAL life’s work and consign them to not only the trash-heap of history, but will earn them the hatred of future generations of the Faithful.

Therefore they are leaning on the hapless Francis.

And Francis has backed himself into a corner and has only one option left, and that is the “UNILATERAL RECOGNITION” of the SSPX.

But regardless of what Francis does, he has lost already.

Just like Our Lord promised!

Today, we have more info…

What should be apparent to any reader from the above passage, is how well it fits into the most recent information that has come out of the Team Francis and FrancisChurch.

First, it would now appear that the reason Francis, the bishop of Rome was so desperately seeking “reconciliation” is that he plans to quarantine Tradition in the future SSPX Personal Prelature, as opposed to in the Ecclesia Dei Commission.

All actions up to now have been consistent with that “ring fencing” HYPOTHESIS presented in that post. This appears to be the scenario playing itself out.

Furthermore, it now appears that Francis, the bishop of Rome knows that what he is doing, will split the Church, i.e. create a schism. In a moment of weakness, he admitted as much.

Next, the changes he intends to bring about in the church, the ones that he knows will create the schism, are such, and so radical, that the Catholics cannot accept them. It is as if he is goading them to leave… (see here and here)

It also might be the case that Francis is already responsible for one casualty.

As to the FrancisSchismAgenda going forward, today we learn that this agenda has to do with introducing “wymen priestesses” and introducing the FrancisTheology of Death into the Francis”magisterium”.

First, the wymen priestesses will be done through the new committee to study the issue. Schism through feminism will also be OPTICALLY pleasing to the FakeNewsMedia. His last bastion of support…

The FrancisTheology of Death is being introduced by “Monsignor” Paglia at the Pontifical Academy for LifeDeath. We got a clue as to the intent accidentally through the situation with the infant Charlie Gard (#CharlieGard). For those unaware, little Charlie, who suffers a genetic defect that threatens his life, was sentenced to death by the European courts. In defense of the death sentence, “Monsegior” Paglia threw in his weight. (see here) After a clumsy attempt to walk back the support for the death sentence by Francis, the Pontifical Academy of Death is back to its initial position. (see here)

Aside, where is Helen Prejean when you need her?

And finally, the last piece of the puzzle to understanding the FrancisPlan is to understand the recent developments within the “Sovereign” Order of Malta. It would appear that Francis, the bishop of Rome intends to transform the Catholic Church into a secular NGO.

We now have a confirmation of just this that we can easily derive from the last meeting of the new “Sovereign” Order of Malta. Notice that all the leadership showed up in mufti. Here is that photo.

What is of importance to understand is that this is most likely a massive SIGNALING EFFECT to the international aid agencies and their donors that the NewVatican is open for business.

As to the source of the donatio…?

In the new FrancisVatican, there is no need bother about the origin and/or end use of those funds…

“Monsignor” Paglia will take care of that… (see here)

Quickly summarizing what is most likely the lay of the land on this 11th day of July Anno Domini 2017, is that we have Francis, the bishop of Rome trying to engineer a schism in the Catholic Church.

  • Actually, he is trying to formalize the already existing schism.
  • He is creating a situation within the post-conciliar church that no Faithful Catholic or cleric can accept.
  • This is intended to drive the Catholics out of the post-conciliar church, thereby leaving all the physical assets and cash for the FrancisChurch and at the FrancisChurch’s disposal.
  • As for the future funding needs, FrancisChurch will now rely on donations from international foundations and the Non Governmental Organizations. Lot of money to be had, and you don’t have to bother with the pesky “Catholic fanatics”.
  • And finally, this is how Jorge Bergoglio, the bishop of Rome intends on having his changes  make “a deep impact”. Just like his ghostwriter, one Victor “heel me with you lips” Fernandez explained a couple of years ago. (see here)

I will leave you off with this pertinent passage: (see full interview here)

No doubt, and in a deep and clear way, especially at the beginning. And yet, more recently, there’s a certain anxiety. Thing is proceeding more slowly. The reform of the curia seems to be stalled.

“The pope goes slow because he wants to be sure that the changes have a deep impact. The slow pace is necessary to ensure the effectiveness of the changes. He knows there are those hoping that the next pope will be turn everything back around. If you go slowly it’s more difficult to turn things back. He makes this clear when he says ‘time is greater than space.’”

Artificial Intelligence – Why The Days Of The Neo-Modernists Are Numbered…


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

Today we start with a general theme. That general theme could be titled Gramsci’s long march through Christendom. Naturally, the original phrase is “the long march through the institutions” and was coined long after Gramsci’s passing.

Before we start, I would just like to mention that I prefer making the positive case for the Catholic Faith, since it is the one OBJECTIVELY TRUE “belief system” that He provided to His creation. On a rational intellectual level, the Catholic Faith can defend itself, thank you very much.

Yet in a situation like we find ourselves in presently, the complete environment needs to be brought into the wider discussion. So this creates the need for making the negative case about the opposition. This need arises from the fact that the Faithful Catholic needs to understand what he is up against and how to combat it.

So today we do a post about the Frankfurt School, Antonio Gramsci and the long march through the institutions”. We start with this very good video below:

The actual “march” phrase comes from a German radical from the 1960’s named Rudi Dutschke. Here is the Wikipedia entry:

The long march through the institutions (German: der lange Marsch durch die Institutionen) is a slogan coined by student activist Rudi Dutschke to describe his strategy for establishing the conditions for revolution: subverting society by infiltrating institutions such as the professions. The phrase “long march” is a reference to the prolonged struggle of the Chinese communists, which included a physical Long March of their army across China.

The man responsible for the ideology behind the “long march” is named Antonio Gramsci, an Italian Marxist who lived in the first half of the 20th Century. What differentiated Gramsci from the other Marxists is that he seen another avenue to overthrow Western Civilization, since by the 1920’s, the violent revolution just wasn’t panning out. Here is how Wikipedia describes Gramsci and his proposed approach:

Gramsci is best known for his theory of cultural hegemony, which describes how the state and ruling capitalist class – the bourgeoisie – use cultural institutions to maintain power in capitalist societies. The bourgeoisie in Gramsci’s view develops a hegemonic culture using ideology rather than violence, economic force, or coercion. Hegemonic culture propagates its own values and norms so that they become the “common sense” values of all and thus maintain the status quo. Hegemonic power is therefore used to maintain consent to the capitalist order, rather than coercive power using force to maintain order. This cultural hegemony is produced and reproduced by the dominant class through the institutions that form the superstructure.

The reason why Gramsci should be of interest to us as heirs of Western Civilization and also to us as Catholics, is that Gramsci did not limit the “long march through the institutions” just to the cultural, political or governmental institutions. The Gramscian march included all aspects of society, and that included the seminaries and the institutional church likewise. One can also infer that without the Gramscian march, Vatican II would not have had the impact that it eventually had.

Case in point. Notice how enigmatic language introduced into Vatican II documents, with a claim that the changes weren’t really changes, and if they were, were in fact benign, turned out to be the gateways through which the overthrow of the entire order of the Catholic Faith took place. Here is one example of changes, that no rational faithful Catholic, and giving the VII neo-Modernists the benefit of the doubt, could have foreseen at to time of the promulgation of the various Vatican II texts.

So today, I have embedded a good overview video of this Marxist movement that later became known as the Frankfurt School, and that preceded and laid the groundwork for the rise of post-Modernism in the 1960’s. What needs to be understood is that without the groundwork of corrupting the Western institutions done by first Gramsci and then the Frankfurt School, the post-Modernists would have been laughed out of any serious institution of higher learning when they first proposed their mad theories.

And just to provide CONTEXT as to how this “long march through the institutional church” is progressing presently, here is how it looks in real time.

But so as not to leave you dear reader despondent and with a bad taste in your mouth, I have embedded another video at the top of this post, this time from Dr. Jordan Peterson. The reason why I am presenting this video is that in it, Dr. Peterson provides some insights into how this TRANSRATIONAL disease of post-Modernism can be fought at the level of Academia.

Without going too far into the long grass, the part that is of most interest is where Dr. Peterson describes how Artificial Intelligence technology can be used to test texts and determine whether their content is post-Modernist or rational.

This new technology will no doubt lend itself in the future, to test which texts have been infected with Modernism, neo-Modernism and post-Modernism, and separate those from the true Catholic ones.

So the future is looking rather bright, folks!

And naturally, your humble blogger will be keeping a close eye on these developments and relaying them as they happen to my dear loyal readers.

And in real-time to boot!

So leaving off, I would like to leave you with one thought, and a happy one at that:

… the post-Modernst’s days are numbered.

POTUS In Warsaw – The Treachery Of The Elites…


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

Given the historic nature of yesterday’s speech, intoned by the President of the United States, The Honorable Mr. Donald J. Trump, in Warsaw Poland, today I will provide my take on its significance and the wider CONTEXT.

One clear and dominant theme running through yesterday’s speech was the civilizational aspect of the current situation in the lands occupied by what constitutes Western Civilization. I will not go through the speech, since you dear reader can go and watch it for yourselves. (watch here)

What I will do below is provide some insights into the SETTING, and the resulting OPTICS, in which it was given.

We begin with Breitbart News which observes that the POTUS was seated in front of a portrait of the Polish King, Jan III Sobieski. (see here) Naturally, King Sobieski is one of the heroes of Western Civilization who led the Catholic forces at the Gates of Vienna against the Ottoman invasion in 1683, so a signalling effect is definitely present.

Hats off to Breitbart for the good catch.

Further, Breitbert asks the right question, namely:  Coincidence? Polish Government Seats Trump Beside Painting of Polish King Famed For Routing Islam from Europe.”

So today we try to answer this question and drill even deeper…

The eagle eye of your humble blogger has picked up another, and an even more significant OPTICLLY symbolic image. This one cuts through the contemporary disinformation and propaganda and gets to the ESSENCE of the ROOT CAUSE of the current existential crisis that threatens the lands of Western Civilization.

The image that I am referring to is the one at the top of this post.

The painting which the two Presidents are viewing was painted by Jan Matejko. It is titled Rejtan’s Protest and depicts the first partition of Poland that took place in 1772, or 89 years after Sobieski’s victory.

What is of critical importance to understand is what the historian would call the provenance of the scene. The scene in the painting depicts the moments before the abdication of the then Polish King, one Stanisław August Poniatowski.

The abdication was brought about at the behest of a number of Polish magnates, i.e. wealthy aristocrats. This is what passed for the ELITES of that time. These magnates and their families wielded vast power in Poland due to their land holdings. The key aspect to understand about these magnates is that they maintained large standing armies, larger than the army of the Polish Crown. In fact, the magnates were so powerful that they imported “kings”, so as not to give any one family a dominant say in the internal affairs of the Polish state. It was the Polish equivalent of a system of checks and balances.

The equivalent class of ELITES who fit this description in modern-day America would be the Globalist Oligarchs from say Wall Street and from Silicone Valley. These modern-day magnates might not possess standing armies, but they maintain standing infrastructure through which they control lesser mortals and the affairs of states. What they have in fact done is that they have socialized their costs (the state via taxpayers now pay for the armies) while privatizing the profits that they earn from being able to operate globally.

But back to 18th Century Poland…

The situation that arose in Poland’s First Republic after the ascension of August Poniatowski was that he actually tried to implement a series of limited political and land reforms that benefited the smaller landed gentry, and would have given more power to the lesser aristocratic classes.

How prophetic?

King Poniatowski is standing in the middle of the painting looking at the watch held in his left hand. That the individuals around him can be considered the Polish DEEP STATE of the day. But I digress…

And naturally, when we are speaking about POWER, we are dealing with a zero-sum game. So if the lesser aristocrats would have attained more POWER, it would have come at the expense of the magnetic families, i.e. the ELITES.

So naturally, the magnates who had found themselves with this  rather delicate predicament, created by a King that they could not control, decided upon a rather novel, not well thought out, and dare I say risqué solution.

What they did was that they approached Queen Katherine II of Russia, and asked a foreign power to intervene in their internal squabble, guaranteeing them their rights and prerogatives.

Needless to say, not a good idea.

The analogous contemporary situation would be if a US President, say Barrack Hussein Obama would start seceding US sovereignty to an exterior power, say the UNITED NATIONS in order to create a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT. The underlying rationale would be that the US cannot be trusted to rule themselves, so an external force is needed to maintain order among the natives.

Far fetched?


But anyways…

Naturally, as you dear reader will no doubt imagine, the Polish magnate’s plan did not go that well. What ended up happening was that after the invitation of the Russian Imperial forces, it was decided that the deplorables Poles were so “unruly” that the country could not… should not be allowed to trouble the arc of history existing power structures. So it was partitioned into three pieces, and the lands were distributed amongst the Russians, the Prussians and the Austrians.

I don’t think I need to elaborate too much further on this point…

NB: What is important to note though, is what is known as the effect of the LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. The US-based ELITES, just like the 18th Century Polish ELITES, can transfer the SOVEREIGNTY of the UNITES STATES to international organizations, like the UNITED NATIONS, but what they can’t do is that they can’t guarantee an OUTCOME.

Aside, some might even be catching on. A modern-day Rejtan in the making?


Looking ahead dear reader, please consider how a new emerging power, think homogenous Middle Kingdom with a society based on a stable Confucian social construct, could easily pick up the pieces of a disintegrating ancien regime, stuck in a Hobbesian war of special interest groups fighting amongst themselves to the death?

Could be a threat…

And it is this MESSAGE, whether it was delivered subconsciously or subconsciously, is the most significant MESSAGE that should be derived from yesterday’s speech and visit of President Trump to the Republic of Poland.

But there’s more and it gets better…

To reinforce this above MESSAGE, once again whether it was delivered subconsciously or subconsciously, the venue of the speech must also be noted. The speech was delivered on the Plac Krasinskich, in front of the Warsaw Uprising Monument.

The said Monument depicts the sacrifices that the population of Warsaw made in August, September and October of 1944, as the German front was retreating and the Russian Front was advancing through Warsaw. The Uprising resulted in anywhere between 150,000 and 200,000 Warsaw civilian casualties and razed a staggering 85% of city of Warsaw. Here is a picture of the center of Warsaw in April of 1945.

What makes the venue significant on a metaphysical level is that the death and destruction caused by this historical event, was brought about by the ELITES representing two irrational, nihilistic ideologies, both premised on the concept that they would remake man in their own image.

Yes, this is the result of the struggle between the Übermensch and the Homo-Sovieticus.

And we can see from the picture of how that worked out…

Concluding, the OPTICS are important. They are important because behind the OPTICS stand historical events. These historical events are set in motion by the decisions of the ruling ELITES. It is those decisions and actions of the ELITES that then carry consequences for the populations over which those ELITES have POWER.

And your humble blogger does not have the least bit of doubt, that during the course of yesterdays EVENTS, both rhetorical and symbolic, the Presidents of the United States and Poland tried to SIGNAL to the ELITES in Berlin and Brussels, that their actions will have consequences.

And the consequences of treachery by those ELITES, can have dire results.



The UNIVERSALISM of Archbishop Lefebvre…


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

Now that the talks between TeamFrancis, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the SSPX have been returned to a rational, logically coherent and sustainable position, i.e. square one, a timely post appeared on the SSPX’s US District website. (see below)

What I think is of significance in this post is that it is beginning to dawn on everyone concerned and all Catholics of good will, that the approach to resolve the situation of the post Vatican II crisis in the Catholic Church will be very similar to the one Archbishop Lefebvre provided 40 years earlier.

The further significance of this OBSERVATION is that it is becoming clear that the Lefebvre Solution appears to be a UNIVERSAL solution. In other words, it is the solution that will bring the most optimal outcome EVERYWHERE, ALWAYS and for EVERYONE. 

Aside from the above, a video that I have embedded at the top of this post does a very good job of explaining the problem that a theology (a real theology and there can be but one) will experience if it detaches itself from a rational philosophical understanding of the nature of OBJECTIVE REALITY.

Naturally, the presenter does not mention Catholicism by name, but rather makes a general case for Christianity. In reality however, the observations apply exclusively to the ONE TRUE FAITH. The reason being is that only Catholicism has a comprehensive understanding of the nature of His creation, drawing its belief system from not only “divine revelation”, but also from the “natural light of human reason from the things that are made”. 

Summa summarum, sole scriptura is just not enough.

PS Hat tip to Armitage Smyth for providing the link to the video above.


When Others Follow the Society‘s Example

In a recent interview with National Catholic Register, former consulter to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Monsignor Nicola Bux unexpectedly echoed the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX)’s position on the widespread crisis of the faith within the Church.

The interview was composed of just three questions all centered on what the Register describes as the “doctrinal anarchy” in the Church and its consequences for the Mystical Body of Christ.

Bux sees the spirit of division that affects the Church at her highest level as a consequence of the present doctrinal confusion: “When cardinals are silent or accuse their confreres; when bishops who had thought, spoken and written in a Catholic way, but then say the opposite for whatever reason; when priests contest the liturgical tradition of the Church, then apostasy is established, the detachment from Catholic thought.”

According to the former consulter on the liturgy, only strongly recalling the principal dogmatic truths can bring peace back to the Church: “This is the role of the Magisterium, founded on the truth of Christ: to bring everyone back to Catholic unity.”

Secondly, Bux was asked about the consequences of this “doctrinal anarchy” for the faithful. The liturgy professor from Bari recalled the danger of adopting the false values of the world: “when one is applauded by the world, it means one belongs to it. May the Catholic Church always remember that she is made up of only those who have converted to Christ under the guidance of the Holy Spirit; all human beings are ordained to her, but they are not part of her until they are converted.”

In the third and last question, the Register asked about the ways to help remedy this confusion. Bux believes the pope needs to act without delay and make a distinction between his pontifical function whose goal is to confirm the faith of the faithful, and his private person: “To be clear: the Pope can express his ideas as a private learned person on disputable matters which are not defined by the Church, but he cannot make heretical claims, even privately. Otherwise it would be equally heretical”

Cardinal Sarah’s former collaborator explained that in the Church there exists a sensus fidei, a sort of supernatural common sense that makes every believer capable of sensing “what the faith of the Church is”; and in this sense, “even one believer can hold [the sovereign pontiff] to account.”

This remark led Bux to broach the question of legitimate doubts on a matter related to the deposit of the Faith that can be submitted to the supreme authority in the Church: “So whoever thinks that presenting doubts (dubia) to the Pope is not a sign of obedience, hasn’t understood, 50 years after Vatican II, the relationship between [the Pope] and the whole Church.” A sort of response to those who reproach the four cardinals for asking the Holy Father to clarify the more controversial parts of the post-synodal exhortation Amoris Laetitia.

Just as the SSPX keeps repeating through the voice of its Superior General, the prelate concluded that “obedience to the Pope depends solely on the fact that he is bound by Catholic doctrine, to the faith that he must continually profess before the Church.” Which is why Mgr. Bux voiced his desire for “the Pope — like Paul VI (June 30, 1968 Ed. Note) — to make a Declaration or Profession of Faith, affirming what is Catholic, and correcting those ambiguous and erroneous words and acts — his own and those of bishops — that are interpreted in a non-Catholic manner.”

These remarks from a specialist on the liturgy are along the same lines as the positions defended by the Society, and sound like an echo of what Bishop Fellay declared in his Letter to Friends and Benefactors in November 2010: “Archbishop Lefebvre’s path is still of the present moment. What he said thirty, forty years ago is still perfectly pertinent today. This demands of us a great gratitude to God for having given us – and to the whole Church – such a bishop. There is no doubt that, if in the Church his precious indications were followed, the whole Mystical Body would be better off and would soon come out of this crisis.”

“Red Pilling” And The Road To Damascus…


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

Today your humble blogger will stay on the “definition” theme. As a quick refresher, in the last couple of post, we have been introduced to such terms as “platforming”, “normalization”, “tone policing” and “privileged rage”.

Today we add two more. One comes by way of Ann Barnhardt’s excellent blog. The term is “Ghira”. Ghira is defined as: Rage In the Face of Logic. Please venture over to Ann’s website and get the load down on this quite prescient observation. Last word, it is a very post-Modernist thing.

Our term for today is “Red Pilling”. Red Pilling is a situation where a person, upon coming into contact with an objective truth that resonates with that person (pscyche), is so overpowered by the objective truth, that it forces that person to substantively change their approach to the decisions that that person subsequently makes.

Here is how the Urban Dictionary defines the term:

‘Red pill’ has become a popular phrase among cyberculture and signifies a free-thinking attitude, and a waking up from a “normallife of sloth and ignorance. Red pills prefer the truth, no matter how gritty and painful it may be.

Before we go on, one word about the “red pilling” PROCESS itself. This PROCESS is an “individualistic” PROCESS. Actually, it is very similar to what we call conversion in the Catholic Church. One can say that “red pilling” can be seen as either a first step toward conversion or maybe a “transitional” PROCESS along the individual’s very own “road to Damascus”.

Now this doesn’t mean that the “red pilled” individual will actually travel the entire road, but it is a first step and a rather large one at that. I would also go as far as to say that this is the end point of the second source of the Catholic Faith, i.e. that is known through “natural light of human reason from the things that are made”. 

Everything past this point requires the intervention of a really good priest. 

So that’s the theory.

Now to reinforce the above HYPOTHESIS about what constitutes a “red pilling” EFFECT, I bring you one link and three video.

I will start with a post that appeared at Fr. Z’s website. In the post titled: Wherein another reader does indeed “throw in the towel”. The following passage can be read:

Last weekend, I traveled home to Milwaukee for a wedding. I attended Mass at St. Stanislaus, which I am sure you have visited.[Indeed I have.]In a way, I felt like I was attending Mass itself for the first time ever. This was my first Latin Mass outside of my new small Latin Mass parish.

Again, I don’t understand the Latin Mass. But I feel dedicated and energized by my experience to understand it the way so many in my generation understand it.

If we want to fix the world, we have to [with reliance on the grace of God] fix ourselves. I have known for a long time that this is something I needed to do. And I am going to figure it out.

So what we can observe in the above passage is that an individual, upon coming into contact with an objective Truth that resonated with his psyche, is forced to substantively change his approach to the decisions that this person subsequently makes, i.e. attend the proper Catholic Mass in this case.

What we see in the above example can be considered a “supernatural” red pilling EVENT.

And now for an example of a “natural” red pilling EVENT. On the You Tube channel, I found a new “personality” who is producing video about her own individual “conversion”. Now this conversion is strictly limited to the that part of our Faith that is known through “natural light of human reason from the things that are made”. 

The individual goes by the name of Robyn (hope I spell it correct) and her channel is called CRITICAL CONDITION. The background of this limited conversion is that this young lady, upon moving to Ireland, was unhappy because the types of people she was meeting were of what we call the TRANSRATIONAL variety. In other words, they were what is commonly called Social Justice Warriors or leftists. So Robyn adopted their “belief system”, but deep down inside, she was not happy about it.

Robyn was in this unhappy state for the better part of four years. What changed her life, i.e. the red pilling EVENT, was  due to coming across a video produced by Dr. Jordan Peterson.

I will stop with the story here and will embed three of Robyn’s videos. They are approximately 18:00 long and worth the watch. I will start with her first video, where she explains here conversion. I will include the follow-up video of the relief she had that the first video really resonated with others on You Tube. And the third video is her application of one of Dr. Peterson’s metaphor in her own relationship with her father.

NB: What I have come to understand is that the “Rescuing the Father” metaphor can be viewed as a sort of half way house into the full Catholic Faith. The “Rescuing the Father” metaphor comes from the literary work Pinocchio. The father figure, as explained by Jordan Peterson, appears to be nothing more than the First Person of the Most Holy Trinity, and it is not the individual who saves the father, but rather it is the individual who becomes “re-aquainted” with the Father. But more on that in a follow-up post.

So for your viewing pleasure, I bring you Robyn of the CRITICAL CONDITION You Tube Channel:



3. Application of rational thought

Concluding, what I think is important to understand, and is quite evident in the above three videos, is the state of mind of your typical individual from the age demographic commonly referred to as MILLENNIALS. We can observe that these children have been completely destroyed by the educational establishment. Furthermore, as in the case of Robyn, she came from a broken home, which only exacerbated her fragile emotional condition.

However, what is also apparent from the above videos is that, that part of our Faith that comes from that which is known through “natural light of human reason from the things that are made” is so powerful, that it can breach any ideological filters or blockades that the eduction establishment has been able to put up over the span of that child’s formative years.

What is also striking about these videos is that an intellectually honest person, when coming into contact with basically one video (Dr. Jordan Peterson) and being introduced to a number of definitions (how Thomist?) contained in that video, was able to reason out a quite rational understanding of OBJECTIVE REALITY and their predicament in that REALITY.

Now this above conclusion by no means implies, that this is the end of the road for Robyn. She has found some good advice that will put some MEANING back into her life. To be more precise, the Peterson advice will provide her with a better, more natural, rational and individualistic definition of MEANING than that which she had before. If she had any at all, that is to say.

But she still needs the help of a good priest to fill in the rest of the missing blanks in order to give her life true MEANING, not to mention set her on the road to working out her “salvation in fear and trembling”.

But this is a personal decision, and as we know from the Catholic Canon, Our Lord came to save pro multis…

So the takeaway from the above is that “red pilling” could just describe the first step toward salvation…

American Thinker – Why Germany Is Once Again a Threat to the West


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

Why Germany Is Once Again a Threat to the West

In the mainstream media, the policies of the German prime minister, Angela Merkel, are often portrayed as a form of atonement for Germany’s past sins of imperialism and genocide. Letting in a million refugees is supposedly the absolute negation of the Holocaust, and pressing for further European cooperation is seen as the opposite of Germany’s old attempts to violently bring the rest of Europe under its control. And for these very reasons, progressive politicians and intellectuals around the world are now looking up to Merkel as the defender of pluralistic Western values.

At first sight, this praise for Merkel doesn’t seem so far-fetched, even for conservatives who fundamentally oppose her policies. After all, she is acting out of genuine goodwill and charity towards the downtrodden of the Middle East, isn’t she? And we may disagree about the feasibility and consequences of further European integration, but given Europe’s bloody past it seems perfectly understandable that Germany’s prime minister is calling for more harmony among European nations.

Nonetheless, it is important to point out that the popular image both of Angela Merkel and of modern Germany is deeply flawed. Because far from representing a negation — or a misguided attempt at negation — of past German policies and attitudes, the modern German mentality is in many ways a mutation or an update of the same mentality that has guided Germany since the eighteenth century, and especially since the unification of the country in 1870.

Let us begin with the more obvious parallel: German support for further European integration. Despite all the German talk about subordinating narrow national interests to the European project, careful observers must have noticed the coincidence that the Germans always see themselves as the leaders of this disinterested project, and that the measures deemed to be necessary for further European cooperation always seem to be German-made.

Are the Germans really such idealistic supporters of the European project? It is more probable that in reality they see the European Union as an ideal instrument to control the rest of Europe. Indeed, in 1997 the British author John Laughland wrote a book about this subject, The Tainted Source: the Undemocratic Origins of the European Idea, which is still worth reading for anyone who wants understand what kind of organization the EU actually is. According to Laughland, the Germans are such big supporters of the European ideal because they know that all important decisions in a confederation of states can ultimately only be taken by or with the approval of the most important state — in this case, Germany.

Thus, on closer scrutiny, there is a strong continuity between the foreign policy of Wilhelm II, Hitler, and Merkel. And this continuity can easily be explained by looking at Germany’s position within Europe. On the one hand, Germany is the strongest and largest country in Europe, but on the other hand it is not strong or large enough to dominate the rest of Europe automatically. In consequence, ever since German unification in 1870, the country has been presented with the choice either to subordinate its wishes to those of the rest of Europe — which has always appeared rather humiliating — or to attempt the conquest of Europe, in order to ensure that Germany’s wishes would always prevail. Unsurprisingly, the Germans have consistently chosen the second course, and both World Wars were attempts to permanently bring the rest of Europe under German control.

The most prominent foreign policy decisions of Merkel can also be interpreted as attempts to expand German dominance in Europe. For instance, during the refugee crisis Germany tried to force Eastern European countries to take in refugees, not only because Merkel wanted to ease the burden upon her own country, but also because it was an ideal way to find out to what extent Germany could impose its will upon the new and independent-minded Eastern European members of the EU. Another example of the new German attempt to dictate policies to the rest of Europe is the Greek banking crisis. Whatever the considerable economic blunders successive Greek governments have committed over the years, it is undeniable that the ultimate goal behind Germany’s harsh demands towards the Greeks was the extension of German economic influence over other EU members.

However, the most frightening thing is that the parallels between Merkel’s mentality and that of her authoritarian predecessors go deeper than mere geopolitics. Because the philosophical premises underlying modern German policies are also at least partly similar to those that motivated Germany in both World Wars.

First of all, Merkel’s ideas about both immigration and European integration have a decidedly utopian character, an echo of the old obsession with the construction of a New World Order, which motivated both Hitler and the German leaders in the First World War. Merkel dreams of a society where immigrants and natives will together build some kind of ideal new world, opposed to the selfishness and materialism that has characterized Western societies until now. Also, Merkel’s attitude has a strong emotionalist undertone, which has been a characteristic of German philosophy since Immanuel Kant. Germans often derided the cold rationalism of the French and the money-grubbing of the Americans and British, as opposed to their own emphasis on the inner workings of the soul, love of the fatherland, and so on. Now, the Germans are reprimanding the governments of other countries, especially America, because they do not seem to share the German optimism about mass immigration, and only seem to care about hard facts.

Another parallel with the old German ideology is the collectivist strain in Merkel’s multicultural project. The German government seems to assume that the rights of German citizens must always be subordinated to those of Third World immigrants, which ultimately simply means that individual rights are subordinated to whatever the state wants. Besides emotionalism, collectivism has also been a prominent characteristic of the German ideology since the eighteenth century, once again in opposition to the “atomic” individualism of classical liberalism that prevailed in the United States, England, and France. When Germans talked about freedom, they did not mean individual freedom in the conventional sense, but rather the good fortune of citizens to live in a country that is efficiently governed by an all-powerful state. This is also what Merkel, and presumably her American and European supporters, mean when they are talking about freedom.

To conclude: far from being the defender of Western values like individual liberty and individual rights, the modern Germany is acting in a very German way indeed. After an adjustment period of some decades following the Second World War, during which the country had to atone for its past misdeeds and keep quiet, Germany is once again trying to impose its rule and a new form of its vicious ideology on Europe and the West. It is of crucial importance that we all recognize Merkel’s policies for what they are, and take decisive action to stop her.