It’s all the doing of the GERMANS (and their money)!
Think about this the next time you are in the market to buy a car.
In the mean time, it might be a good idea to follow Steve Skojec (on Twitter) as he is working through his issues with Normalcy Bias:
The normalcy bias, or normality bias, is a belief people hold when there is a possibility of a disaster. It causes people to underestimate both the likelihood of a disaster and its possible effects, because people believe that things will always function the way things normally have functioned. This may result in situations where people fail to adequately prepare themselves for disasters, and on a larger scale, the failure of governments to include the populace in its disaster preparations. About 70% of people reportedly display normalcy bias in disasters.[1]
The normalcy bias can manifest itself in various disasters, ranging from car crashes to world-historical events. It is hypothesized that the normalcy bias may be caused by the way the brain processes new information. Stress slows information processing, and when the brain cannot find an acceptable response to a situation, it fixates on a single and sometimes default solution. This single resolution can result in unnecessary injury or death in disaster situations. The lack of preparation for disasters often leads to inadequate shelter, supplies, and evacuation plans. Thus, normalcy bias can cause people to drastically underestimate the effects of the disaster and assume that everything will be all right. The negative effects of normalcy bias can be combatted through the four stages of disaster response: preparation, warning, impact, and aftermath.
Normalcy bias has also been called analysis paralysis, the ostrich effect,[2] and by first responders, the negative panic.[3] The opposite of normalcy bias is overreaction, or worst-case scenario bias,[4][5] in which small deviations from normality are dealt with as signals of an impending catastrophe.
And here’s Steve…
It appears to be a “personal understanding” issue…
In the mean time, Ann Barnhardt has done the homework, is one step ahead and has it dead to right: (see HERE)
But the “discernment” continues…
As best I can tell, the sticking point in question is the validity of the 2013 Conclave issue.
So the caged grudge match between Steve and Austen Ivereigh is on!
The post below is written by the proprietor of one of our favorite blogs, namely the Catholic The Conservative Treehouse. What’s more important is that it appears on another favorite blog of ours, the catholic Zero Hedge.
Now in all honesty, this is not the first time that a Conservative Treehouse post appeared on the Zero Hedge website.
What makes this post SIGNIFICANT however, is the theme of this post. If one looks at this post from a metaphysical,… bah, spiritual level, what we have here is a post whose theme can be summarized by the words of Saints Peter and John from the Acts of the Apostles, namely: “For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.”
Non enim possumus quæ vidimus et audivimus non loqui.
Therefore, it is becoming clear that what we are seeing is a rebellion against the GLOBSALIST MONOLITH that is trying to gain control over not only the material aspects of the Visibiliium Omnium but also to gain control over the spiritual aspects of the et Invisibilium.
And the rebellion is spreading…
Wonder if our College of Cardinals is watching…
UPDATE: 7:30 4 October 2019
And then there is this ( MUST WATCH)
This development is SIGNFICANT.
For no other reason than the “distance” that Church Militant – supposedly an Opus Dei outfit – has traveled.
What we are seeing is nothing short of a full blown RECONCILIATIONEVENT with OBJECTIVE REALITY !
I would go so far as saying that the odds of an “INVALID” Conclave being determined by a competent body within the Catholic Church within our lifetimes has just exceeded 50%!
They’ve gone too far. “Donald Trump’s supporters are racist“, or “uneducated”, or “unenlightened”, or (fill_In_The_Blank). This hate-filled sentiment is clear within the latest corrupt and targeted impeachment attack against the office of the President.
Now the media narrative controllers are fully engaged, gleeful with impeachment blood-lust amid their broadcast brethren. The raw political corruption is now extreme.
Do not look away.
As we bear witness, anyone trying to convince us this entire assembly of our union is headed in the right direction, well, they might want to revisit their proximity to the 2020 election ballpark. Because they’re not just out of the city – they’re also out of the same state the election ballpark is located in….. Then again, the media know that.
David Mamet had a famous saying, essentially: …‘in order for democrats, liberals, progressives et al to continue their illogical belief systems they have to pretend not to know a lot of things’… By pretending ‘not to know’ there is no guilt, no actual connection to conscience. Denial of truth allows easier trespass.
This hate-filled Democrat ideology relies on our willingness to accept their lies, falsehoods, and scripted presentations; and then demands we grant benefit amid their seeds of doubt.
There’s a level of anger far deeper and more consequential than expressed rage or visible behavior, it’s called Cold Anger.
Cold Anger does not need to go to violence. For those who carry it, no conversation is needed when we meet. You cannot poll or measure it; specifically because most who carry it avoid discussion… And that decision has nothing whatsoever to do with any form of correctness.
We watched the passage of Obamacare at 1:38am on the day before Christmas Eve in 2009. We watched the Senate, then the House attempt passing Amnesty in 2014. We know exactly how it passed, and we know exactly why it passed. We don’t need to stand around talking about it….
We know what lies hidden behind “cloture” and the UniParty schemes.
We watched the 2009 $900+ billion Stimulus Bill being spent each year, every year, for seven consecutive years. Omnibus, Porkulous, QE1, QE2, Bailouts, Crony-Capitalism. We know exactly how this works, and we know exactly why this ruse is maintained. We don’t need to stand around talking about it…. We’re beyond talking.
We accept that the entire Senate voted to block President Trump’s ability to use recess appointments in 2017, and 2018, and 2019. Every.Single.Democrat.And.Republican.
Cold Anger absorbs betrayal silently, often prudently.
We’ve waited each year, every year, for ten years, to see a federal budget, only to be given another Omnibus spending bill by “CONservative” politicians.
We’ve watched the ridiculing of cops, the riots, and the lack of support for laws, or their enforcement. We’ve been absorbing all that. We’ve been exposed to violence upon us by paid operatives of the organized DNC machine. We know; the media trying to hide it doesn’t change our level of information.
Cold Anger is not hatred, it is far more purposeful.
We watched in 2012 as the Democrat party thrice denied God during their convention. The doors to evil enterprise opened by official proclamation and request.
Cold Anger takes notice of the liars, even from a great distance – seemingly invisible to the mob. Cold Anger will still hold open the door for the riot goer. Mannerly.
We’ve watched our borders being intentionally unsecured.
We’ve watched Islamic Terrorists slaughter Americans as our politicians proclaim their uncertainty of motive. We know exactly who they are, and why they are doing it. We do not need to stand around discussing it…. we’re clear eyed.
Cold Anger evidenced is more severe because it is more strategic, and more purposeful. Eric Cantor’s defeat, Matt Bevin’s victory, Brexit, Donald Trump’s highest vote tally in the history of presidential primaries or President Trump’s victory might aide your understanding.
Cold Anger does not gloat; it absorbs consistent vilification and ridicule as fuel. This sensibility does not want to exist, it is forced to exist in otherwise unwilling hosts – we also refuse to be destabilized by it.
Transgender bathrooms are more important than border security.
Illicit trade schemes, employment and the standard of living in Vietnam and Southeast Asia are more important to Wall Street and DC lobbyists, than the financial security of Youngstown Ohio.
We get it. We understand. We didn’t create that reality, we are simply responding to it.
The intelligence apparatus of our nation was weaponized against our candidate by those who controlled the levers of government. Now, with sanctimonious declarations they dismiss accountability.
Deliberate intent and prudence ensures we avoid failure. The course, is thoughtful vigilance; it is a strategy devoid of emotion. The media can call us anything they want, it really doesn’t matter…. we’re far beyond the place where labels matter.
Foolishness and betrayal of our nation have served to reveal dangers within our present condition. Misplaced corrective action, regardless of intent, is neither safe nor wise. We know exactly who Donald Trump is, and we also know what he is not. He is exactly what we need at this moment. He is a necessary glorious bastard.
He is our weapon.
Cold Anger is not driven to act in spite of itself; it drives a reckoning.
When the well attired leave the checkout line carrying steaks and shrimp using an EBT card, the door is still held open; yet notations necessarily embed.
When the U.S. flags lay gleefully undefended, they do not lay unnoticed. When the stars and stripes are controversial, yet a foreign flag is honored – we are paying attention.
When millionaire football players kneel down rather than honor our fallen soldiers and stand proud of our country, we see that. Check the NFL TV ratings – take note.
When a school community cannot openly pray, it does not mean the prayerful were absent.
When a liar seems to win, it is not without observation. Many – more than the minority would like to admit – know the difference between science, clocks and political agendas.
Cold Anger perceives deception the way the long-term battered absorb a blow in the hours prior to the pre-planned exit; with purpose.
A shield, or cry of micro-aggression will provide no benefit, nor quarter. Delicate sensibilities are dispatched like a feather in a hurricane.
We are patient, but also purposeful. Pushed far enough, decisions are reached.
[…] On the drive to and from the East Coast, I paid attention to the billboards and bumper-stickers. Folks, the people in “Fly over” country are PISSED, from the guy that guides hunters, to the mayors of towns and cities, to state senators congressmen and Governors who are voting to arrest and imprison federal law enforcement officials for enforcing federal gun laws that don’t agree with state law … The political pendulum has never, in the history of humanity, stayed on one side of a swing. The back lash from over reach has always been proportionate to how far off center it went before coming back … right now we’re staring at a whole hell of a lot of the country (about 80-90% of the land mass, as well as about 50+% of the population) that is FED UP. You really don’t want those guys to decide that the only way to fix it is to burn it down and start over… (more)
It’s too late…
This man has faced opposition that would overwhelm any other President. Our chosen President is constantly attacked by those holding a corrupt, conniving and Godless leftist ideology. It is our job now to stand with him, firm on his behalf.
To respond we must engage as an insurgency. We must modify our disposition to think like an insurgent. Insurgencies have nothing to lose. If insurgents are not victorious the system, which controls the dynamic, wins. However, if insurgents do nothing, the same system, which controls the dynamic, also wins.
Do nothing and we lose. Go to the mattresses, and we might win. The choice is ours.
Right now, through November 2020, every day is Saint Crispins day.
If we are mark’d to die, we are enow To do our country loss; and if to live, The fewer men, the greater share of honour. God’s will! I pray thee, wish not one man more. By Jove, I am not covetous for gold, Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost; It yearns me not if men my garments wear; Such outward things dwell not in my desires. But if it be a sin to covet honour, I am the most offending soul alive. No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England. God’s peace! I would not lose so great an honour As one man more methinks would share from me For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more! Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host, That he which hath no stomach to this fight, Let him depart; his passport shall be made, And crowns for convoy put into his purse; We would not die in that man’s company That fears his fellowship to die with us. This day is call’d the feast of Crispian. He that outlives this day, and comes safe home, Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam’d, And rouse him at the name of Crispian. He that shall live this day, and see old age, Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours, And say ‘To-morrow is Saint Crispian.’ Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars, And say ‘These wounds I had on Crispian’s day.’ Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot, But he’ll remember, with advantages, What feats he did that day. Then shall our names, Familiar in his mouth as household words- Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter, Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester- Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb’red. This story shall the good man teach his son; And Crispin Crispian shall ne’er go by, From this day to the ending of the world, But we in it shall be remembered- We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; For he to-day that sheds his blood with me Shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile, This day shall gentle his condition; And gentlemen in England now-a-bed Shall think themselves accurs’d they were not here, And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day.
The awakened American middle-class insurgency, led by Donald Trump, is an existential threat to the professional political class and every entity who lives in/around the professional political class. Their entire political apparatus is threatened by our insurgency. The political industry, all of corrupt governance, is threatened by our support through Donald Trump.
Decision time.
You know why the entire apparatus is united against President Trump. You know why the corrupt Wall Street financial apparatus is united against President Trump. You know why every institutional department, every lobbyist, every K-Street dweller, every career legislative member, staffer, and the various downstream economic benefactors, including the corporate media, all of it – all the above, are united against Donald Trump.
Donald Trump is an existential threat to the existence of a corrupt DC system we have exposed to his disinfecting sunlight. Donald Trump is the existential threat to every entity who benefits from that corrupt and vile system.
Global elites now stand with jaw-agape in horror as they witness the result. The value of multi-billion dollar contracts dispatched at our leisure. Trillion dollar multi-national trade deals, full of scheme and graft, left nothing more than tenuous propositions smashed asunder from the mere sound of our approach.
The fundamental construct within decades of their united global efforts to tear at the very fabric of our U.S.A is being eliminated. They too have nothing to lose; their desperation becomes visible within their apoplexy; and they’re damn sure displaying it.
Do not look away.
Throw aside the sense of discomfort and bear witness to the evil we oppose. Do not turn your eyes from the hatred focused in our direction. Stand firm amid the solace of our number and resolve to the task at hand.
Those who oppose our efforts are merely vile parasites quivering as they stare into the Cold Anger furnace of righteousness.
APOSTOLIC JOURNEY OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI
TO MÜNCHEN, ALTÖTTING AND REGENSBURG
(SEPTEMBER 9-14, 2006)
MEETING WITH THE REPRESENTATIVES OF SCIENCE
LECTURE OF THE HOLY FATHER
Aula Magna of the University of Regensburg
Tuesday, 12 September 2006
Faith, Reason and the University
Memories and Reflections
Your Eminences, Your Magnificences, Your Excellencies,
Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is a moving experience for me to be back again in the university and to be able once again to give a lecture at this podium. I think back to those years when, after a pleasant period at the Freisinger Hochschule, I began teaching at the University of Bonn. That was in 1959, in the days of the old university made up of ordinary professors. The various chairs had neither assistants nor secretaries, but in recompense there was much direct contact with students and in particular among the professors themselves. We would meet before and after lessons in the rooms of the teaching staff. There was a lively exchange with historians, philosophers, philologists and, naturally, between the two theological faculties. Once a semester there was a dies academicus, when professors from every faculty appeared before the students of the entire university, making possible a genuine experience of universitas – something that you too, Magnificent Rector, just mentioned – the experience, in other words, of the fact that despite our specializations which at times make it difficult to communicate with each other, we made up a whole, working in everything on the basis of a single rationality with its various aspects and sharing responsibility for the right use of reason – this reality became a lived experience. The university was also very proud of its two theological faculties. It was clear that, by inquiring about the reasonableness of faith, they too carried out a work which is necessarily part of the “whole” of the universitas scientiarum, even if not everyone could share the faith which theologians seek to correlate with reason as a whole. This profound sense of coherence within the universe of reason was not troubled, even when it was once reported that a colleague had said there was something odd about our university: it had two faculties devoted to something that did not exist: God. That even in the face of such radical scepticism it is still necessary and reasonable to raise the question of God through the use of reason, and to do so in the context of the tradition of the Christian faith: this, within the university as a whole, was accepted without question.
I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on – perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara – by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both.[1] It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian interlocutor.[2] The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur’an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship between – as they were called – three “Laws” or “rules of life”: the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur’an. It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point – itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole – which, in the context of the issue of “faith and reason”, I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.
In the seventh conversation (διάλεξις – controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: “There is no compulsion in religion”. According to some of the experts, this is probablyone of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur’an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the “Book” and the “infidels”, he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness that we find unacceptable, on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”[3] The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. “God”, he says, “is not pleased by blood – and not acting reasonably (σὺν λόγω) is contrary to God’s nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats… To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death…”.[4]
The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature.[5] The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.[6] Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazm went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God’s will, we would even have to practise idolatry.[7]
At this point, as far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we are faced with an unavoidable dilemma. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God’s nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true? I believe that here we can see the profound harmony between what is Greek in the best sense of the word and the biblical understanding of faith in God. Modifying the first verse of the Book of Genesis, the first verse of the whole Bible, John began the prologue of his Gospel with the words: “In the beginning was the λόγος”. This is the very word used by the emperor: God acts, σὺν λόγω, with logos. Logos means both reason and word – a reason which is creative and capable of self-communication, precisely as reason. John thus spoke the final word on the biblical concept of God, and in this word all the often toilsome and tortuous threads of biblical faith find their culmination and synthesis. In the beginning was the logos, and the logos is God, says the Evangelist. The encounter between the Biblical message and Greek thought did not happen by chance. The vision of Saint Paul, who saw the roads to Asia barred and in a dream saw a Macedonian man plead with him: “Come over to Macedonia and help us!” (cf. Acts 16:6-10) – this vision can be interpreted as a “distillation” of the intrinsic necessity of a rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek inquiry.
In point of fact, this rapprochement had been going on for some time. The mysterious name of God, revealed from the burning bush, a name which separates this God from all other divinities with their many names and simply asserts being, “I am”, already presents a challenge to the notion of myth, to which Socrates’ attempt to vanquish and transcend myth stands in close analogy.[8] Within the Old Testament, the process which started at the burning bush came to new maturity at the time of the Exile, when the God of Israel, an Israel now deprived of its land and worship, was proclaimed as the God of heaven and earth and described in a simple formula which echoes the words uttered at the burning bush: “I am”. This new understanding of God is accompanied by a kind of enlightenment, which finds stark expression in the mockery of gods who are merely the work of human hands (cf. Ps 115). Thus, despite the bitter conflict with those Hellenistic rulers who sought to accommodate it forcibly to the customs and idolatrous cult of the Greeks, biblical faith, in the Hellenistic period, encountered the best of Greek thought at a deep level, resulting in a mutual enrichment evident especially in the later wisdom literature. Today we know that the Greek translation of the Old Testament produced at Alexandria – the Septuagint – is more than a simple (and in that sense really less than satisfactory) translation of the Hebrew text: it is an independent textual witness and a distinct and important step in the history of revelation, one which brought about this encounter in a way that was decisive for the birth and spread of Christianity.[9] A profound encounter of faith and reason is taking place here, an encounter between genuine enlightenment and religion. From the very heart of Christian faith and, at the same time, the heart of Greek thought now joined to faith, Manuel II was able to say: Not to act “with logos” is contrary to God’s nature.
In all honesty, one must observe that in the late Middle Ages we find trends in theology which would sunder this synthesis between the Greek spirit and the Christian spirit. In contrast with the so-called intellectualism of Augustine and Thomas, there arose with Duns Scotus a voluntarism which, in its later developments, led to the claim that we can only know God’s voluntas ordinata. Beyond this is the realm of God’s freedom, in virtue of which he could have done the opposite of everything he has actually done. This gives rise to positions which clearly approach those of Ibn Hazm and might even lead to the image of a capricious God, who is not even bound to truth and goodness. God’s transcendence and otherness are so exalted that our reason, our sense of the true and good, are no longer an authentic mirror of God, whose deepest possibilities remain eternally unattainable and hidden behind his actual decisions. As opposed to this, the faith of the Church has always insisted that between God and us, between his eternal Creator Spirit and our created reason there exists a real analogy, in which – as the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 stated – unlikeness remains infinitely greater than likeness, yet not to the point of abolishing analogy and its language. God does not become more divine when we push him away from us in a sheer, impenetrable voluntarism; rather, the truly divine God is the God who has revealed himself as logos and, as logos, has acted and continues to act lovingly on our behalf. Certainly, love, as Saint Paul says, “transcends” knowledge and is thereby capable of perceiving more than thought alone (cf. Eph 3:19); nonetheless it continues to be love of the God who is Logos. Consequently, Christian worship is, again to quote Paul – “λογικη λατρεία”, worship in harmony with the eternal Word and with our reason (cf. Rom 12:1).[10]
This inner rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek philosophical inquiry was an event of decisive importance not only from the standpoint of the history of religions, but also from that of world history – it is an event which concerns us even today. Given this convergence, it is not surprising that Christianity, despite its origins and some significant developments in the East, finally took on its historically decisive character in Europe. We can also express this the other way around: this convergence, with the subsequent addition of the Roman heritage, created Europe and remains the foundation of what can rightly be called Europe.
The thesis that the critically purified Greek heritage forms an integral part of Christian faith has been countered by the call for a dehellenization of Christianity – a call which has more and more dominated theological discussions since the beginning of the modern age. Viewed more closely, three stages can be observed in the programme of dehellenization: although interconnected, they are clearly distinct from one another in their motivations and objectives.[11]
Dehellenization first emerges in connection with the postulates of the Reformation in the sixteenth century. Looking at the tradition of scholastic theology, the Reformers thought they were confronted with a faith system totally conditioned by philosophy, that is to say an articulation of the faith based on an alien system of thought. As a result, faith no longer appeared as a living historical Word but as one element of an overarching philosophical system. The principle of sola scriptura, on the other hand, sought faith in its pure, primordial form, as originally found in the biblical Word. Metaphysics appeared as a premise derived from another source, from which faith had to be liberated in order to become once more fully itself. When Kant stated that he needed to set thinking aside in order to make room for faith, he carried this programme forward with a radicalism that the Reformers could never have foreseen. He thus anchored faith exclusively in practical reason, denying it access to reality as a whole.
The liberal theology of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries ushered in a second stage in the process of dehellenization, with Adolf von Harnack as its outstanding representative. When I was a student, and in the early years of my teaching, this programme was highly influential in Catholic theology too. It took as its point of departure Pascal’s distinction between the God of the philosophers and the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. In my inaugural lecture at Bonn in 1959, I tried to address the issue,[12] and I do not intend to repeat here what I said on that occasion, but I would like to describe at least briefly what was new about this second stage of dehellenization. Harnack’s central idea was to return simply to the man Jesus and to his simple message, underneath the accretions of theology and indeed of hellenization: this simple message was seen as the culmination of the religious development of humanity. Jesus was said to have put an end to worship in favour of morality. In the end he was presented as the father of a humanitarian moral message. Fundamentally, Harnack’s goal was to bring Christianity back into harmony with modern reason, liberating it, that is to say, from seemingly philosophical and theological elements, such as faith in Christ’s divinity and the triune God. In this sense, historical-critical exegesis of the New Testament, as he saw it, restored to theology its place within the university: theology, for Harnack, is something essentially historical and therefore strictly scientific. What it is able to say critically about Jesus is, so to speak, an expression of practical reason and consequently it can take its rightful place within the university. Behind this thinking lies the modern self-limitation of reason, classically expressed in Kant’s “Critiques”, but in the meantime further radicalized by the impact of the natural sciences. This modern concept of reason is based, to put it briefly, on a synthesis between Platonism (Cartesianism) and empiricism, a synthesis confirmed by the success of technology. On the one hand it presupposes the mathematical structure of matter, its intrinsic rationality, which makes it possible to understand how matter works and use it efficiently: this basic premise is, so to speak, the Platonic element in the modern understanding of nature. On the other hand, there is nature’s capacity to be exploited for our purposes, and here only the possibility of verification or falsification through experimentation can yield decisive certainty. The weight between the two poles can, depending on the circumstances, shift from one side to the other. As strongly positivistic a thinker as J. Monod has declared himself a convinced Platonist/Cartesian.
This gives rise to two principles which are crucial for the issue we have raised. First, only the kind of certainty resulting from the interplay of mathematical and empirical elements can be considered scientific. Anything that would claim to be science must be measured against this criterion. Hence the human sciences, such as history, psychology, sociology and philosophy, attempt to conform themselves to this canon of scientificity. A second point, which is important for our reflections, is that by its very nature this method excludes the question of God, making it appear an unscientific or pre-scientific question. Consequently, we are faced with a reduction of the radius of science and reason, one which needs to be questioned.
I will return to this problem later. In the meantime, it must be observed that from this standpoint any attempt to maintain theology’s claim to be “scientific” would end up reducing Christianity to a mere fragment of its former self. But we must say more: if science as a whole is this and this alone, then it is man himself who ends up being reduced, for the specifically human questions about our origin and destiny, the questions raised by religion and ethics, then have no place within the purview of collective reason as defined by “science”, so understood, and must thus be relegated to the realm of the subjective. The subject then decides, on the basis of his experiences, what he considers tenable in matters of religion, and the subjective “conscience” becomes the sole arbiter of what is ethical. In this way, though, ethics and religion lose their power to create a community and become a completely personal matter. This is a dangerous state of affairs for humanity, as we see from the disturbing pathologies of religion and reason which necessarily erupt when reason is so reduced that questions of religion and ethics no longer concern it. Attempts to construct an ethic from the rules of evolution or from psychology and sociology, end up being simply inadequate.
Before I draw the conclusions to which all this has been leading, I must briefly refer to the third stage of dehellenization, which is now in progress. In the light of our experience with cultural pluralism, it is often said nowadays that the synthesis with Hellenism achieved in the early Church was an initial inculturation which ought not to be binding on other cultures. The latter are said to have the right to return to the simple message of the New Testament prior to that inculturation, in order to inculturate it anew in their own particular milieux. This thesis is not simply false, but it is coarse and lacking in precision. The New Testament was written in Greek and bears the imprint of the Greek spirit, which had already come to maturity as the Old Testament developed. True, there are elements in the evolution of the early Church which do not have to be integrated into all cultures. Nonetheless, the fundamental decisions made about the relationship between faith and the use of human reason are part of the faith itself; they are developments consonant with the nature of faith itself.
And so I come to my conclusion. This attempt, painted with broad strokes, at a critique of modern reason from within has nothing to do with putting the clock back to the time before the Enlightenment and rejecting the insights of the modern age. The positive aspects of modernity are to be acknowledged unreservedly: we are all grateful for the marvellous possibilities that it has opened up for mankind and for the progress in humanity that has been granted to us. The scientific ethos, moreover, is – as you yourself mentioned, Magnificent Rector – the will to be obedient to the truth, and, as such, it embodies an attitude which belongs to the essential decisions of the Christian spirit. The intention here is not one of retrenchment or negative criticism, but of broadening our concept of reason and its application. While we rejoice in the new possibilities open to humanity, we also see the dangers arising from these possibilities and we must ask ourselves how we can overcome them. We will succeed in doing so only if reason and faith come together in a new way, if we overcome the self-imposed limitation of reason to the empirically falsifiable, and if we once more disclose its vast horizons. In this sense theology rightly belongs in the university and within the wide-ranging dialogue of sciences, not merely as a historical discipline and one of the human sciences, but precisely as theology, as inquiry into the rationality of faith.
Only thus do we become capable of that genuine dialogue of cultures and religions so urgently needed today. In the Western world it is widely held that only positivistic reason and the forms of philosophy based on it are universally valid. Yet the world’s profoundly religious cultures see this exclusion of the divine from the universality of reason as an attack on their most profound convictions. A reason which is deaf to the divine and which relegates religion into the realm of subcultures is incapable of entering into the dialogue of cultures. At the same time, as I have attempted to show, modern scientific reason with its intrinsically Platonic element bears within itself a question which points beyond itself and beyond the possibilities of its methodology. Modern scientific reason quite simply has to accept the rational structure of matter and the correspondence between our spirit and the prevailing rational structures of nature as a given, on which its methodology has to be based. Yet the question why this has to be so is a real question, and one which has to be remanded by the natural sciences to other modes and planes of thought – to philosophy and theology. For philosophy and, albeit in a different way, for theology, listening to the great experiences and insights of the religious traditions of humanity, and those of the Christian faith in particular, is a source of knowledge, and to ignore it would be an unacceptable restriction of our listening and responding. Here I am reminded of something Socrates said to Phaedo. In their earlier conversations, many false philosophical opinions had been raised, and so Socrates says: “It would be easily understandable if someone became so annoyed at all these false notions that for the rest of his life he despised and mocked all talk about being – but in this way he would be deprived of the truth of existence and would suffer a great loss”.[13] The West has long been endangered by this aversion to the questions which underlie its rationality, and can only suffer great harm thereby. The courage to engage the whole breadth of reason, and not the denial of its grandeur – this is the programme with which a theology grounded in Biblical faith enters into the debates of our time. “Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos, is contrary to the nature of God”, said Manuel II, according to his Christian understanding of God, in response to his Persian interlocutor. It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures. To rediscover it constantly is the great task of the university.
[1] Of the total number of 26 conversations (διάλεξις – Khoury translates this as “controversy”) in the dialogue (“Entretien”), T. Khoury published the 7th “controversy” with footnotes and an extensive introduction on the origin of the text, on the manuscript tradition and on the structure of the dialogue, together with brief summaries of the “controversies” not included in the edition; the Greek text is accompanied by a French translation: “Manuel II Paléologue, Entretiens avec un Musulman. 7e Controverse”, Sources Chrétiennes n. 115, Paris 1966. In the meantime, Karl Förstel published in Corpus Islamico-Christianum (Series Graeca ed. A. T. Khoury and R. Glei) an edition of the text in Greek and German with commentary: “Manuel II. Palaiologus, Dialoge mit einem Muslim”, 3 vols., Würzburg-Altenberge 1993-1996. As early as 1966, E. Trapp had published the Greek text with an introduction as vol. II of Wiener byzantinische Studien. I shall be quoting from Khoury’s edition.
[2] On the origin and redaction of the dialogue, cf. Khoury, pp. 22-29; extensive comments in this regard can also be found in the editions of Förstel and Trapp.
[3] Controversy VII, 2 c: Khoury, pp. 142-143; Förstel, vol. I, VII. Dialog 1.5, pp. 240-241. In the Muslim world, this quotation has unfortunately been taken as an expression of my personal position, thus arousing understandable indignation. I hope that the reader of my text can see immediately that this sentence does not express my personal view of the Qur’an, for which I have the respect due to the holy book of a great religion. In quoting the text of the Emperor Manuel II, I intended solely to draw out the essential relationship between faith and reason. On this point I am in agreement with Manuel II, but without endorsing his polemic.
[4] Controversy VII, 3 b–c: Khoury, pp. 144-145; Förstel vol. I, VII. Dialog 1.6, pp. 240-243.
[5] It was purely for the sake of this statement that I quoted the dialogue between Manuel and his Persian interlocutor. In this statement the theme of my subsequent reflections emerges.
[7] R. Arnaldez, Grammaire et théologie chez Ibn Hazm de Cordoue, Paris 1956, p. 13; cf. Khoury, p. 144. The fact that comparable positions exist in the theology of the late Middle Ages will appear later in my discourse.
[8] Regarding the widely discussed interpretation of the episode of the burning bush, I refer to my book Introduction to Christianity, London 1969, pp. 77-93 (originally published in German as Einführung in das Christentum, Munich 1968; N.B. the pages quoted refer to the entire chapter entitled “The Biblical Belief in God”). I think that my statements in that book, despite later developments in the discussion, remain valid today.
[9] Cf. A. Schenker, “L’Écriture sainte subsiste en plusieurs formes canoniques simultanées”, in L’Interpretazione della Bibbia nella Chiesa. Atti del Simposio promosso dalla Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede, Vatican City 2001, pp. 178-186.
[10] On this matter I expressed myself in greater detail in my book The Spirit of the Liturgy, San Francisco 2000, pp. 44-50.
[11] Of the vast literature on the theme of dehellenization, I would like to mention above all: A. Grillmeier, “Hellenisierung-Judaisierung des Christentums als Deuteprinzipien der Geschichte des kirchlichen Dogmas”, in idem, Mit ihm und in ihm. Christologische Forschungen und Perspektiven, Freiburg 1975, pp. 423-488.
[12] Newly published with commentary by Heino Sonnemans (ed.): Joseph Ratzinger-Benedikt XVI, Der Gott des Glaubens und der Gott der Philosophen. Ein Beitrag zum Problem der theologia naturalis, Johannes-Verlag Leutesdorf, 2nd revised edition, 2005.
[13] Cf. 90 c-d. For this text, cf. also R. Guardini, Der Tod des Sokrates, 5th edition, Mainz-Paderborn 1987, pp. 218-221
Journalism has taken quite a beating since the turn of the century. This is true on the business side of the equation and regarding its reputation as a non-biased source of information. The adversarial relationship between the president and the Fourth Estate has not dissipated since Donald J. Trump was sworn in on Jan. 20, 2017. And a good argument could be made that it’s gotten even more ugly in the public square. This war of words has turned into an all-out frontal assault on those the legacy press perceives as its enemy: the political right. So, it’s worth checking in on the state of the battle. Who’s winning? Who’s losing? And perhaps more significantly: How effectively is the war being waged?
The Bloody Inkwell
It’s not difficult to determine who is being targeted. The legacy press has set its sights on the right, but within that category the Illuminati are gunning for three types of adversaries: well-known conservative individuals, large and small organizations, and public citizens. As for the how, the big-city scribes have chosen the sniper attack as their primary operational-tactical strategy. That is, establish a cover position, lie in wait, and pick off the enemy one by one.
Historically, the chief business of newspapers and television networks has been the peddling of information. Now that the media elites are locked in a battle for their very existence, their raison d’être has morphed into political advocacy. Trafficking in defamation, innuendo, half-truths, and more, the Fourth Estate has been working overtime to slay those it perceives to be the lurking conservative beasts. This poison-pen approach has resulted in nothing less than a toxic political atmosphere where all bets are off. And frankly, it’s getting bloody out there.
Here are but a few illustrations:
Number 1. The Well-known Individual
The recent New York Times allegations against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh are a prime example. Guns ablaze, the Old Grey Lady published an article regarding an allegation of sexual misconduct that is not new. It’s been reported the FBI may have known about it, but with a victim who was not prepared to go on the record, nothing came of it. And why should it? The “victim” says she doesn’t even remember the “sexual advance” by Kavanaugh involving his male anatomy. A fact omitted, incredibly, by The Times.
Brett Kavanaugh
But that didn’t stop the NYT from igniting a media frenzy with innuendo and scurrilous defamatory accusations. “This is just one more nail in the coffin of The Grey Lady’s credibility,” wrote Liberty Nation’s chief political correspondent Graham Noble. “It also exposes this new assault on Kavanaugh for what it is: a politically motivated smear, the ultimate aim of which is to prevent the Supreme Court issuing opinions influenced by conservative or originalist thought – particularly on the subject of abortion.”
Kavanaugh is merely one of many well-known individuals who have been targeted by the Fourth Estate. Advocacy journalism was responsible for Stephen Moore stepping down from a nomination to the Federal Reserve Board. Moore went on Liberty Nation Radio and said his wife and family couldn’t take the barrage of negative stories about him day after day for things he posted on social media in jest.
Then there’s former Secretary of Labor Alexander Acosta, who was chased off after the media transferred responsibility for the Jeffrey Epstein affair to him. And although it went unsaid, one must figure that a big part of former Press Secretary Sarah Sanders’ resignation — following media hounding of her family in public places — was prompted by incessant political attacks from a vicious and rancorous media. And there are oh so many more.
Lois Lerner
Number 2. Small Groups
Is there anyone out there who remembers the IRS scandal under the venomous talons of Lois Lerner? The scheme targeted the 501(c)3 tax-exempt status of small groups. As reported previously by Liberty Nation, “These fledgling organizations were essentially put through a bureaucratic wringer that included ‘long delays in getting approvals, and some faced the same kinds of intrusive questions about donors, personal beliefs and even their activities at their unrelated jobs.’” Initially ignored by the media elites, this scandal succeeded in shutting down hundreds of conservative voices – includingLN’s parent organization – until the revolting practice bubbled to the surface in a class-action suit filed – and ultimately won – by the persecuted. What was the legacy media’s role in all this? It was two-pronged: disregard and deny.
Not giving this scandal the requisite ink such an atrocity deserved wasn’t enough. Next came the effort to deny the existence of the targeting altogether. Newsweek, for instance, republished an article titled “Remember the IRS Scandal? It Was Fake News All Along.” While the big publishers and networks weren’t behind this misconduct by Lerner and her henchmen, they certainly didn’t bring their power and influence to bear in helping correct it. In the words of the brilliant legal mind of Alan Shore from Boston Legal, “All it takes for evil to succeed is for good people to say, ‘It’s a business.’” Circulation, ratings, numbers are the name of the game.
Number 3. We, the People
A popular meme shows President Trump pointing his finger like Uncle Sam and saying, “In reality, they’re not after me. They’re after you. I’m just in the way.” Perhaps the reason for its popularity is that there is some truth to it.
All those deplorable hillbillies out there in fly-over country are fair game for the big-city news outlets. Some may remember an article published by a member of the well-dressed elite media. Vogue printed an article attacking white women who voted for Trump. “As sure as black women have proven themselves to be the often-underappreciated backbone of the Democratic party, white women voters are establishing themselves as maddeningly, confusingly … unsisterly.” Without a doubt, those white female Trump voters took a nasty public beating for quite a while.
Much like in the IRS scandal, the advocacy media used tactics attacking those with whom they politically disagreed and then denied the existence of the underlying story altogether. In October 2018, Time magazine published an article titled “Donald Trump Didn’t Really Win 52% of White Women in 2016.”
Whatever.
A Venomous Revolution
An information revolution is without a doubt underway, and those in the press who were the sovereign lords for so long see their influence slipping away like sand through an hourglass. In their desperation, they use every unscrupulous means possible to take down their conservative adversaries. Left in the wake of this conflict are conservative individuals, organizations, and average citizens, the casualties left to lie in a pool of disparagement, insinuation, implication, allegation, and innuendo.
How much longer will this last? That, dear readers, may depend upon whether the American people buy what the legacy media sell. Perhaps the American elite press is putting all its money on the words of one of its most illustrious scribes. It was H.L. Mencken who said, “Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.” Or just maybe the final act in this war room will be the words of Anonymous: “Sometimes, it’s best to sit back, let someone underestimate your intelligence, and watch them hang themselves.”
“I am altering the deal, pray I don’t alter it any further.”
– Darth Vader, “The Empire Strikes Back”
You know I think there are no coincidences in politics. Everything happens on a particular schedule. So when I see a day as crazy as today I have to ask the question, “Why this, why now?”
Look at the headlines and you’ll see what I’m talking about. All of these things happened since I woke up at 7:30am Monday morning in Florida:
The British Supreme Court just arrogated unprecedented power to itself by inserting itself into any dispute between the Government and Parliament. This upends more than 300 years of constitutional process.
The Democrats have announced they will pursue impeachment charges against President Trump because an unverified, hearsay whistleblower made a complaint about a phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenski. Impeachment odds soared overnight as someone was tipped off about the Democrats’ plan.
Bitcoin’s hashrate mysteriously flash-crashed more than 40% presaging a massive $1500 drop in price.
Donald Trump delivered a blistering critique of socialism at the United Nations General Assembly. Too bad he’s nearly as bad as the ones he’s fighting on the far left.
Europe’s Trio of Faded Glory — The UK, France and Germany — joined in the chorus of unverified condemnation of Iran in the attack on the Saudi oil field on the 14th.
The Federal Reserve continues to bail out banks to the tune of $65 to $75 billion per day through overnight repo operations that no one can give us an explanation as to why they’re needed.
This feels to me like a multi-level coup against those that dare stand athwart the global power structure. Both British and American leadership institutions are under sincere attack with these moves.
The not-so-subtle message is, “We own you. We are in control and always will be.” Your champions will be harassed until they are completely neutered and bereft of any ability to implement the changes you want.
Meanwhile, the edifices of control that have been erected for your benefit are crashing and require even more support. So, it’s time to attack the validity of anything you might be considering to protect yourself from the chaos we’ve created.
Democratic referenda are ignored. Bitcoin mysteriously has its network attacked. Unpopular parliaments ignore the people and remain in power. Centuries of tradition and convention thrown out the window to serve the next big thing.
The world is going to end in eight years, according to an 16 year-old Swedish girl with PTSD and anxiety disorders but we’re supposed to trust in the inevitability and permanence of transnational super-governments to forestall the apocalypse?
When you lose control of the narrative, when you spin a story out of whole cloth all you can do is double down. This is what the Democrats are doing in the case of Ukraine.
They have to stay on the offensive against Trump because if they don’t their lead candidate (yeah, right!) for President is disgraced. So, the natural thing to do is, Alinsky-like, accuse Trump of the very thing that Joe Biden did and was caught on tape braying about like the jackass he is.
It is over this that Trump is to be impeached?
Daring to reveal the truth about an issue of real corruption in a country deeply implicated in the fake collusion story originally intended to remove him from the Oval Office? This somehow hits the standard of High Crimes and Misdemeanors?
It does when we live in a world ruled by men, not laws.
Trump was, for all intents, acquitted already in any obstruction of justice charges over RussiaGate. So how is his exhorting a foreign counterpart to look into real corruption committed by someone highly-connected to a former U.S. Vice President anything other than him doing his job?
It is his job to prosecute malfeasance of government officials is it not?
Trump’s move to release the un-redacted transcripts of the phone call was the right move. And the Democrats’ continued pursuing of this will likely make them look like morons.
But here’s the rub. Take a lesson from the British fiasco. The whole process through the courts was a sham. The conclusion was foregone the moment the challenge was filed to Johnson’s proroguing of Parliament.
The rest was theater because the Supreme Court was always going to decide this way.
So guess what? The Democrats would not be pushing for this if they ddin’t think they have the votes in the House and the Senate to get this done. Ignore the conventional wisdom on this. They were wrong in the UK.
They will be wrong here, unless Trump has something else up his sleeve.
His removing John Bolton and refusal to attack Iran is driving the neoconservatives to apoplexy. They want their holy war against the apostate Shi’ites and they will get it. Mike Pence will be their avatar until such time as he can be removed through a sham election in 2020.
If this wasn’t the case they wouldn’t be risking what’s left of their political future defending a senile old man, Joe Biden, who they don’t actually want to be the candidate anyway.
It’s a coup folks.
And the full court press is on in this coup for your sanity and to radicalize you into violence. They are daring us to strike back here so then they can be justified in going on full lockdown and cancel future elections.
They have to do this. Their financial markets are in the early stages of collapse. The dollar liquidity crisis has started which will drain Europe of its life blood.
This has the feel of those months leading up to Bear Stearns’ dissolution which culminated in Lehman Bros. in 2008, which broke the engine of the world.
The elite reacting this way is predictable. They were always going here. But the problem is that while you can make something awful legal, it doesn’t make it right. And people know what’s right and what is fair. Breaking the compact between rulers and the ruled sets a dangerous precedent for reciprocal violence.
Because overthrowing a President for doing his job and destroying government to nullify a democratic referendum are points of no return.
Brits and Americans alike are learning the terrible lesson that it is time to put away childish things like representative government and that elections matter. They don’t. You will be presented with nothing but Hobson’s Choices from here forward.
The image you hold in your head of your country is not the reality of the one you live in.
The dystopia is real.
* * *
Join My Patreon if you support teaching oppressors the lesson. Install Brave if you want to continue talking about how to go about it.
As a commentary on Michael Matt’s “Unite the Clans” video, I repost the below from The Propertarian Institute, authored by Dr. Curt Doolittle.
Interesting aspect is that independant and unrealted OCCURENCES of a “unite the conservatives” themes are appearing in various sub-sets of the Visibilium Omnium. This humble blogger sees this as a very positive development…
Aside, the below post has been modified with changes made in the spelling of certain words to bring it into line with the Lex Armaticus.
*******
Uniting Conservatives with Understanding of One Another
Let’s put this in scientific prose:
Conservatism is a genetic disposition evidenced in cognition, emotion, and action, of higher disgust response, higher preference for hierarchy (division of responsibility and labor), higher loyalty response.
The fact that churcy Christians use religion, moral Christians use moralizing, educated moral Christians use history, and educated moral, scientific Christians use science and law is just a function of whether one is more dependent upon intuition, social interaction, or abstract reason.
In other words, we are unified in our disgust response, we differ in our means of information processing, and because we differ in our means of information processing, we differ in our means of expression, advocacy ad argument.
And because we are resistant to adaptation without overwhelming evidence, hypersensitive to loyalty, and hypersensitive to hierarchy, we want everyone to adopt our means of information processing and means of expression, advocacy and argument.
But despite our differences in expression, what remains consistent across the faithful, the moral, the rational, and the scientific spectrum of conservatives is the natural law and the natural law’s intolerance for disgusting behavior whether intellectual, emotional, or physical, and whether in private, or the commons.
If you cannot accept our cognitive tribes of conservatives as all unified under the natural law regardless of means of expressing that natural law as divine law, as moral utility, as rational practicality, and as scientific necessity, then YOU ARE THE REASON THE RIGHT FAILS.
The faithful are the largest problem because they cannot tolerate their dogma as consisting only of wisdom literature (analogy and advice) rather than truth (description and decidability). Yet to win together we must deliver unto God what is God’s (faith we cannot testify to) and deliver unto Caesar what is his (truth we can testify to).
We cannot unite behind one paradigm of thinking, advocating, and arguing. We can only understand that we share the same instincts, wants, desires, goals for the same biological reasons regardless of their origin, and that we are right to save ourselves, our people, and humanity from disgusting thoughts, feelings and actions whether public or private.
Because disgusting thoughts, feelings, and actions are imitated and spread like any disease, and man is more vulnerable to diseases of the mind than he is to those of emotions and body.
We argue, and I argue, the faithful are the weakness in our civilization. It was evangelical women who brought about the chain of events that led to our current condition. It was “c”atholic voters that brought about the leftist politicians. It was Christians who gave passage to the ‘others’ who are the enemy. It is Christians who idolize the enemy and its history instead of themselves and their history.
So we must not argue excuses, because each conservative tribe argues with excuses within its paradigm. The only paradigm we need share is that we must eradicate what is disgusting from ourselves, our families, our polities, our nations, and the world.
And whether your god is Jehovah, Sky Father, Odin, Aristotle, the Constitution of natural law or the laws of the universe, none of them will tolerate disgust, and we will not survive without cleansing the world of it, and the universe of it afterward.
We all know evil and it is disgusting and we share our disgust of thought, feeling, word, and deed.
They are the disease. We are the cure.
If that is not a God’s purpose for us then I know no other.
On our way to a post on the wider implications of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, your humble blogger stumbled upon the above video.
Since it will no doubt provide a very important component of our understanding of what constitutes OBJECTIVE REALITY and how best to recognize it, it’s only fitting that we side track to this material and present it here and now.
What is of the utmost of importance to take away from this video, is the understanding of the difference between materialism and dualism. Here are two good working definitions:
Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions. … Materialism is closely related to physicalism—the view that all that exists is ultimately physical.
Dualism in Metaphysics is the belief that there are two kinds of reality: material (physical) and immaterial (spiritual). In Philosophy of Mind, Dualism is the position that mind and body are in some categorical way separate from each other, and that mental phenomena are, in some respects, non-physical in nature.
Understanding the difference between these two… let’s call them approaches… allow us to now watch the video.
Of specific importance to note is the predictive accuracy of the medieval dualists…
