The Inner Struggle

Christ … Antichrist … Cold & Winter Storms (part 1)

Mother of Sorrows”, Benedictines of Mary Queen of Apostles, from the album “Lent At Ephesus”, (2014)

Writing this on Friday morning … thinking about my life … of sin … and self indulgence, the places and times when self sacrifice was not in the ascendance. Lots of food for thought there, lots of decades of self. Lots of reasons for contrition and amendment. When and why did I start to diverge from the spirit of our times?

Outside my head, WOW! What a morning, quite in keeping with my state of mind! It’s cold here and snowing heavily, blowing also, about 6 inches down now and more coming, first snow since November 2017 and the first heavy snow of this winter.

Lots of shoveling now and probably all day, and making sure everything is cleared before folks start coming in, in an hour or so depending on how long it takes them to dig out and get their trucks running.

Finding crosses, suffering and sacrifice in the daily duties of our station in life, where God put us. Finding the will of God in the myriad minutia of the duties of my state in life.

Enough navel gazing for now, I have to start digging out, so I will stop writing for a while.

Wow, that day went fast, 12 hours later and it is still snowing, it’s about -10 degrees Celsius, that’s about 14 degrees Fahrenheit, but it is blowing harder and drifting now. I’m real glad there is no reason to be on the roads tonight or tomorrow. I bet there will be a lot of shoveling tomorrow. It’s a good thing we don’t open our doors until 10:00 AM on Saturdays.

Anyway, … the inner struggle … that’s what I was getting on about in this post. I have noticed that from time to time discussion arises and articles appear and the topic of the “Antichrist” comes up more or less frequently. “Antichrist” seems to be a favorite pejorative amongst certain groups, and it is at least as meaningful and helpful as “knuckledragger” and “Neanderthal” are amongst other groups.

I suppose the clique’s “group think” defines the pejorative favored, with one group seeing things in terms of good and evil and another group seeing things in terms of smart or stupid, the implication always being that “the other” is the bad one or the stupid one. At first blush, my reflexive reaction is “A pox on both your houses!” Upon further reflection I then find myself asking “What would Jesus do?” and then a bit further on “Does this bring me closer to God?”

Whenever the mudslinging starts, whichever gang starts slinging, it seems always to be in the context of some particularly egregious insanity or inanity, proposed or committed, by some other group or some powerful individual who is disagreed with, or some collection of individuals moving the narrative in a direction disruptive of the sacred views espoused by the narrator of the moment.

Alternatively, one specific public figure or another, George Soros, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Justin Trudeau,  Rachel Notley, Pope Francis, Cardinal Kaspar, Vlad Putin, Kim Jong-un, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,  even Barry Obama, … I mean … seriously … pick your favorite target to hate, you get my drift.

There are literally thousands, maybe even millions, of high profile people pontificating about their views, and what is wrong with the world, and what they are going to do about it.

Obama as Satan

Seriously folks … Obama as Satan … what Kool-Aid are you drinking?

When humanity starts to believe that there is no-one in charge, no one responsible for the “strategic” big picture things in life humans are very quick to turn to golden idols and self proclaimed messiahs.

And any self proclaimed messiah who is not our favorite choice receives a rising tide of speculative negative attention depending upon the day, or the tides, or the level of confusion, frequently along the lines of he/she/it must be the Antichrist.

Thomas Cranmer

Thomas Cranmer, 1489 – 1556

This is especially true if that individual is the target of vilification from many directions at once by many disenchanted narrators. These unhappy narrators, narrowly focused on preaching their own gospel, and defending their own position.

These vocal, “important”, narrators who have picked their chosen hill to die on, and are now understandably hungry, highly motivated to convince their followers, their power base, their meal ticket,  of the truth of their gospel.

They need someone to contribute, to “drop the offering in the collection plate”.  And the target demographic is comprised of some group or other or perhaps many groups, perhaps the equivalent of our modern notion of the “low information voter”.

These narrators do a dog pile on the chosen target, perhaps under the assumption that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. For example, along these lines for several centuries now, many Protestant writers and leaders have identified the Roman Catholic Pope as “The Antichrist”.

However that may be, over the centuries many folks have assigned the status of “Antichrist” to any number of other folks who were on their personal dirt list for any reason but mainly for political reasons. Claiming this seems to be nothing more than a desperate “Ad Hominum” attack when they have nothing factual or truthful, that is “substantive truth”, upon which to base their argument.

"What would Jesus do?"

“What would Jesus do?”

It’s all pride and personal ambition. My razor when reading these diatribes is to ask the questions: “What would Jesus do?” and “Does this bring me closer to God?”

I don’t see the Antichrist as an individual, it just doesn’t line up with my current personal  understanding of reality. Yes, there are outliers of evil and standout perpetrators throughout history, and these persons, these figures in history, seem to be fairly evenly distributed amongst all cultures and religions all over the world.

It appears to me that this sort of behaviour, this sort of personal “character” is more attributable to their sheer humanness than to any particular system of beliefs.  But from my point of view, I just don’t see the idea of “Antichrist” as a specific, living, substantial being, that is to say, one individual encompassing all evil and directing the whole thing as an articulated individual with a master plan.

Yes, we believe in Jesus Christ as the Head, in the Christian understanding. Given the obvious vagaries of human free will apparent in the world over time, it seems reasonable that there must then be, necessarily, the “not Christ” … the absence of Christ … the Antichrist.  I think so anyway, the “Antichrist” is the “Not Christ”, the absence of Christ. I think that the “Antichrist” is in effect “the mystical body of Satan”, in a kind of analog of “the Mystical Body of Christ” in the Christian Tradition.

I guess that some explanation might be necessary in understanding of the concept of “The Mystical Body of Christ”, within the context of Roman Catholicism. As most of my readers probably are aware, I am a Roman Catholic. That is the filter through which I understand reality.

My understanding of the Mystical Body of Christ is one of the real existence of a mystical union of all Christians into a spiritual body with Jesus Christ as their head. This belief grows, in our Tradition, from the New Testament and Christianity’s roots in Judaism.

In Christian Scripture, St. Paul’s letters to the Corinthians and the Romans both use the image of a body, with a head that is Christ and many bodily members, with many abilities and talents, namely we Christian believers. The belief in the Mystical Body describes the relationship between Christ and Christians, namely the Head and the body of believers. Wow, it’s getting late … gotta go eat to keep body and soul together.

blizzard? by WizKids ...

When does a snow storm become a blizzard?

Well, now it’s tomorrow morning, Saturday, even colder now, still snowing, -21 degrees Celsius, that’s -5.8 Fahrenheit, and it’s blowing hard, driving the new snow into hard packed drifts.

When does a “Snowstorm” become a “Blizzard”? Maybe it’s when it is widespread, maybe the amount of snow, or the temperature, or the wind-speed, or perhaps even the dramatic license of the weather reporters? Who knows really what makes a snow storm into a blizzard.

Talking to customers yesterday and reports that an hour away in some directions they had no snow but three hours to the west everyone there and in between got lots of snow. Whatever … lots more shoveling today I guess, off and on, as circumstances permit and the demands of customers allow.

Well, another day just blew by in a twinkling of my eye. It’s Saturday night, time for bed, it’s -14 degrees Celsius, it’s still blowing and it’s still snowing lightly. Let’s see what tomorrow brings.

More to follow on Christ and Antichrist and the spirit of the times …

Cheers

Joe

Putting away the roaring worship of the “Self” in all it’s manifestations … is the first step back towards a sense of sin, remorse, contrition and repentance …

 

Standard
Uncategorized

Amoris Laetitia and Auschwitz …

Twilight And Shadow”, Howard Shore, from “Lord Of The Rings

A couple of posts ago I posted a long article on the moral controversy surrounding the subject apostolic exhortation by Pope Francis. This post is another where the writer has articulately pointed out the significant moral equivalencies between the Pope’s memo and the Nazi program of extermination – the final Solution.

Go there. or read it here, or if you roll that way, just ignore it, along with abortion and euthanasia and all the other nice progressive amoral planks of our modern progressive society. Your call.

*****

According to AL, a conscience may “recognize that a a given situation does not correspond objectively to the demands of the Gospel” but sees “with a certain moral security … what for now is the most generous response”.

Let us examine how this moral principle might apply in situations of organised and industrialised genocide. A man involved in the extermination of Jewry, for example … if he were to decline to collaborate in any more murders, not only might he be subjected to discriminatory responses, but his family also might suffer grievously. His marriage might suffer!

Is he, perhaps, required by the Bergoglian moral principle of “what is for now the most generous response” to try, gradually so as not to be noticed, to reduce the number of Jews whom he kills each day? Or might Bergoglianism mean that he should do his very best to see that they die less painfully? Or should he attempt, again without drawing too much attention to himself, so to work the system that in three months time he gets transferred to duties which involve him less directly in extermination … like, for example, harmlessly organising the train schedules?

I am aware that my questions lay me wide open to an accusation that I am either an unbalanced crank in making an equivalence between well-mannered habitual adultery among the nice, if rather gleefully rutting, German middle-classes, and genocide; or ‘antisemitic’ for illustrating a moral priple by talking so calmly about something as vile as what Nazi Germany did to the Jews.

It is my view that such an accusation by such an interlocutor would in fact amount to an admission that Adultery is not really sinful … that it is, well, perhaps not technically in accordance, quite, with the book of rules, but it is not really wrong. Cardinal Coccopalmerio has in fact said something rather like this.

It is also my view that a mortal sin is a mortal sin is a mortal sin is a mortal sin. And Mortal Sin is the area into which, like several fair-sized and unstable bulls in a very tiny china shop, Bergoglio and his cronies have strayed. And by sanctioning what Fr Aidan Nichols has neatly called “tolerated concubinage”, I do not think they will bring a single murdered Jew back to life or even save a single victim in future genocides. In fact, quite the contrary. Do we save lives … or marriages … by chipping away at the Decalogue, or by shoring it up when it comes under threat?

A person, you tell me, may well know a rule yet be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently. So …. if this does not also apply within genocidal situations, where can it apply?

A person’s long involvement, you tell me, in sinful actions may well so habituate him to those actions that the subjective sinfulness, as AL claims, is radically diminished … yes; I happen to agree with you there, and, like all confessors, I am mindful of this when I sit with my ear against the grill. But you won’t forget, will you, that somebody who has been killing Jews for a couple of years might also well be in such a condition. And the tribunals which judged War Criminals after 1945 don’t seem to have taken this laudable casuistic principle into their jurisprudence.

Bergoglio’s ‘jesuitical’ campaign to circumvent Veritatis splendor paragraph 80, as well as Familiaris consortio, is both a moral and an ecclesial disaster. If Bergoglian ‘moral principles’ prevail, then, as Fr Aidan Nichols has accurately put it, “no area of Christian morality can remain unscathed“.

*****

Cheers

Joe

Now don’t you dare step out of line my precious … we will get to you in good time. And while you are waiting please visit https://bccla.org/our-work/blog/lamb/

There is ALWAYS a way to rationalize evil in our progressive nation.

Standard
Pen as Sword - Social Commentary, The Inner Struggle

Amoris Laetitia and the spread of a moral heresy …

“Crux Fidelis”, Benedictines of Mary, Queen of Apostles, from the album “Lent at Ephesus”, (2014)

So, it is Sunday morning again, and as usual on Sunday mornings my thoughts turn to our one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. Like all organizations or institutions involving human beings, our church has not been without it’s share of serious controversies and problems over the last two thousand years.

It is noteworthy, however, that it is the ONLY institution in existence today which has actually survived ALL of these controversies and problems over the course of the last two millennia and continues to this day – and so do the problems and controversies. It’s as if this unique institution enjoys Divine protection because it is not actually a human institution.

Anyway …

This is a “Catholic” post. This article references or is lifted mostly from Fr. Z’s blog. It is something of interest to Catholics especially but also to non-Catholics who may be interested in the shenanigans  currently eventuating in the Roman Catholic curia and the senior reaches of the Catholic Church administration. I post the whole thing here in its entirety because of the importance of the information and one can visit the original at Fr. Z’s Blog.

For those with a taste for history it should be noted that this modern “Liberal Progressive” vs “Conservative Traditionalist” civil war within the Roman Catholic Church has been ongoing at least since Vatican II in the 60’s and was most evidenced in Canada by the notorious “Winnipeg Declaration” or the “Winnipeg Statement of the Canadian Council of Catholic Bishops.

The Winnipeg Statement was the Canadian Bishops statement on the encyclical Humanae vitae from a Plenary Assembly held at Saint Boniface in Winnipeg, Manitoba. Published on September 27, 1968, it is the Canadian Bishop’s controversial document about Pope Paul VI‘s July 1968 encyclical on human life and the regulation of birth.[1]

A case might be made that subsequently the Canadian Catholic Church was in de-facto schism from Rome to the extent that even things as basically Catholic as the Canadian Liturgy and the Canadian Missal was not approved by Rome, that is, they had no imprimatur and that the Canadian Bishops basically thumbed their noses at Rome at that time and for several decades thereafter.

A very interesting take on this period can be found at Mark Mallett’s blog site “https://www.markmallett.com/blog/2016/01/29/a-tale-of-five-popes-and-a-great-ship/

Anyway, on with Fr. Aidan Nichols …

Aidan Nichols

Picture taken in Cambridge at Palmsunday 2014, GFDL, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=40226603

Fr Aidan Nichols, OP, (OP – Order of Preachers – Dominicans – Their identification as Dominicans gave rise to the pun that they were the “Domini canes”, or “Hounds of the Lord”) is without doubt the most considerable living theologian of the English-speaking Catholic World.

And he is as prolific a theological writer as Joseph Ratzinger (on whose theology he wrote a still normative guide, long before the election of Benedict XVI).

Now Fr Aidan has delivered a characteristic lecture on the crisis which has been precipitated by Amoris laetitia.

I can’t find the full text on the internet (yet), but the Catholic Herald gives a report. And Fr Zed reproduces the Catholic Herald report. I urge everybody (Catholics at least) to read it; and to take it very seriously.

*****

When Fr. Aidan Nichols, OP, has an opinion, it’s a good idea to pay attention.

Fr. Nichols is concerned about what is happening because of Amoris laetitia.

From the Catholic Herald:

Leading theologian: change canon law to correct papal errors

Fr Aidan Nichols, a prolific author who has lectured at Oxford and Cambridge as well as the Angelicum in Rome, said that Pope Francis’s exhortation Amoris Laetitia had led to an “extremely grave” situation.

Fr Nichols proposed that, given the Pope’s statements on issues including marriage and the moral law, the Church may need “a procedure for calling to order a pope who teaches error”.

The Dominican theologian said that this procedure might be less “conflictual” if it took place during a future pontificate, rather as Pope Honorius was only condemned for error after he had ceased to occupy the chair of Peter.

[Honoris (+638), desiring to avoid the notion that Christ had two wills in conflict with each other, strayed towards the heresy of Monothelitism, the error that Christ has but one will. Constantinople III condemned him in 680. That said, later it has been concluded that the Pope didn’t formally teach error.]

Fr Nichols was speaking at the annual conference in Cuddesdon of an ecumenical society, the Fellowship of St Alban and St Sergius, to a largely non-Catholic audience.  [Oh dear.]

He said the judicial process would “dissuade popes from any tendency to doctrinal waywardness or simple negligence”, and would answer some “ecumenical anxieties” of Anglicans, Orthodox and others who fear that the pope has carte blanche to impose any teaching.

“Indeed, it may be that the present crisis of the Roman magisterium is providentially intended to call attention to the limits of primacy in this regard.”[…]He has not publicly commented on Amoris Laetitia until now, but was a signatory to a leaked letter from 45 priests and theologians to the College of Cardinals. The letter asked the cardinals to request a clarification from the Pope to rule out heretical and erroneous interpretations of the exhortation.

In his paper Fr Nichols mentioned some of the same concerns as the letter: he noted, for instance, that Amoris Laetitia could seem to imply that the monastic life was not a higher state than marriage – a view condemned as heretical by the Council of Trent.

Pope Benedict XVI

Pope Benedict XVI

The exhortation has also been interpreted as arguing that the divorced and remarried can receive Communion without endeavouring to live “as brother and sister”.

This contradicts the perennial teaching of the Church, reaffirmed by Popes St John Paul II and Benedict XVI.  [Yes, it does.  AL is objectively ambiguous on this point, open to bad interpretation.]

Fr Nichols said that this interpretation, which Pope Francis has reportedly approved, would introduce into the Church “a previously unheard-of state of life. Put bluntly, this state of life is one of tolerated concubinage.” [Did you get that?  “TOLERATED CONCUBINAGE”.   Card. Kasper referred to “tolerated, but not accepted”.]

Cardinal Kasper

Cardinal Kasper

But Fr Nichols said the way in which Amoris Laetitia argued for “tolerated concubinage” (without using the phrase) was potentially even more harmful.

He quoted the exhortation’s description of a conscience which “recognizes that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the demands of the Gospel” but sees “with a certain moral security…what for now is the most generous response.”

Fr Nichols said this seemed to say “that actions condemned by the law of Christ can sometimes be morally right or even, indeed, requested by God.”  [Which undermines everything we believe about Christ.]

This would contradict the Church’s teaching that some acts are always morally wrong, Fr Nichols said. He also drew attention to the statement – presumably referring to attempts to live continently – that someone “may know full well the rule yet…be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin”.

Fr Nichols noted that the Council of Trent had solemnly condemned the idea that “the commandments of God are impossible to observe even for a man who is justified and established in grace.” Amoris Laetitia seemed to say that it is not always possible or even advisable to follow the moral law. [AL is open to bad interpretations.  And those who wanted their heterodoxy and heteropraxis confirmed have indeed chosen the bad interpretation.]

If such general statements about moral acts were correct, Fr Nichols said, “then no area of Christian morality can remain unscathed.” He said that it would be preferable to think that the Pope had been merely “negligent” in his language, rather than actively teaching error. But this seemed doubtful, given the reports that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had suggested corrections to Amoris Laetitia, and was ignored.  [Nichols seems to have built a case.]

4 Cardinals

His Eminence Walter Brandmüller, President emeritus of the Pontifical Commission of Historical Sciences, His Eminence Raymond Leo Burke, Patron of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, His Eminence Carlo Caffarra, Archbishop emeritus of Bologna (Italy), and His Eminence Joachim Meisner, Archbishop emeritus of Cologne (Germany)

Cardinal Raymond Burke has publicly discussed making a formal correction of the Pope. However, Fr Nichols said that neither the Western nor Eastern Codes of Canon Law contain a procedure “for enquiry into the case of a pope believed to have taught doctrinal error, much less is there provision for a trial.”

Fr Nichols observed that the tradition of canon law is that “the first see is judged by no-one.” But he said that the First Vatican Council had restricted the doctrine of papal infallibility, so that “it is not the position of the Roman Catholic Church that a pope is incapable of leading people astray by false teaching as a public doctor.  [Yes, Pope’s can teach error.  The Holy Spirit doesn’t guarantee the veracity of everything they teach.]

“He may be the supreme appeal judge of Christendom… but that does not make him immune to perpetrating doctrinal howlers. Surprisingly, or perhaps not so surprisingly given the piety that has surrounded the figures of the popes since the pontificate of Pius IX, this fact appears to be unknown to many who ought to know better.” [Like certain gnostic papalatrous writers at CRUX, whom I shall not name]

Given the limits on papal infallibility, canon law might be able to accommodate a formal procedure for inquiring into whether a pope had taught error. Fr Nichols said that bishops’ conferences had been slow to support Pope Francis, probably because they were divided among themselves; but he said that the Pope’s “programme would not have got as far as it has were it not the case that theological liberals, generally of the closet variety, have in the fairly recent past been appointed to high positions both in the world episcopate and in the ranks of the Roman Curia.[To our horror.]

Fr Nichols said that there was “a danger of possible schism”, but that it was unlikely and not as immediate a danger as “the spread of a moral heresy”.  The view which Amoris Laetitia apparently contains would, if it passed without correction, “increasingly be regarded as at the very least an acceptable theological opinion, and that will do more damage than can easily be repaired.

He concluded that the law of the Church will live on, because of those who “give the law life by faithfulness in love”. Yes, friends, there is now a danger of the spread of moral heresy.  You hear it and read it more and more often now. We need saints to rise up in our day.

We also need lay people, the rank and file, to put their noses collectively into books like the Catechism of the Catholic Church and get informed. Friends, get together with your friends and form “Base Communities of Resistance” against the “danger of moral heresy”.

*****

The more vigorously the primacy was displayed, the more the question came up about the extent and and limits of [papal] authority, which of course, as such, had never been considered.

After the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the pope really could do anything in liturgical matters, especially if he were acting on the mandate of an ecumenical council.

Eventually, the idea of the givenness of the liturgy, the fact that one cannot do with it what one will, faded from the public consciousness of the West.

In fact, the First Vatican Council had in no way defined the pope as an absolute monarch. On the contrary, it presented him as the guarantor of obedience to the revealed Word. The pope’s authority is bound to the Tradition of faith. … The authority of the pope is not unlimited; it is at the service of Sacred Tradition.”

Joseph Ratzinger
in The Spirit of the Liturgy

AND …

Raymond Card. Burke

Raymond Card. Burke

We as Catholics have not properly combated (the culture) because we have not been taught our Catholic Faith, especially in the depth needed to address these grave evils of our time. This is a failure of catechesis both of children and young people that has been going on for fifty years. It is being addressed, but it needs much more radical attention…

What has also contributed greatly to the situation is an exaltation of the virtue of tolerance which is falsely seen as the virtue which governs all other virtues. In other words, we should tolerate other people in their immoral actions to the extent that we seem also to accept the moral wrong. Tolerance is a virtue, but it is certainly not the principal virtue; the principal virtue is charity…

Charity means speaking the truth. I have encountered it (not speaking the truth) many times myself as a priest and bishop. It is something we simply need to address. There is far too much silence — people do not want to talk about it because the topic is not ‘politically correct.’ But we cannot be silent any longer.” 

Raymond Card. Burke

 

As always Catholics, Pray, Pray, Pray …

Cheers

Joe

As just another weary foot soldier in the battle of eternity, we are not promised victory in this life. This is the Long Defeat. This life is Boot Camp. We are simply called to remain faithful. Never give up, never give up, never give up.

Semper Fidelis

Standard
Pen as Sword - Social Commentary

Truth – and consequences …

“Over The Hills And Far Away”,  Jon Boden,  from the album “A Folk Song a Day”, 2011. The song is  also the Theme from “Sharp’s Rifles” a series about the Napoleonic Wars in Spain.

London

Photo by Matthew Lloyd/Getty Images. London is Europe’s de facto financial capital.

Well!  Never, never, never ignore or underestimate  the British Common Man. Napoleon learned the hard way when the “common scum” kicked his Sicilian derriere most thoroughly.

The British voter just blew all the pundits and professionals out of the water. Monte Python could not have done better. I imagine the Knights that go “NEE!” in the bureaucracy and academia are all in a mad scrambling dither about the sky falling. All the talking heads have even less meaningful things to say than usual.

Blather, blather, blather, blather, from “Triumph of Democracy” all around the circle to “Right Wing Haters” until perhaps there is so much hot air blowing ’round that they will all physically follow their vaporous thoughts into zero G. Should be interesting and amusing as well.

Contesting the “Triumph of Democracy” crowd, we have the predictable Liberal Progressive freak-out on the triumph of “far right parties,” , the “low information Trump voters” which is just SO Lame-Stream. Fifty-two percent of the British electorate cannot possibly be “Far Right Haters”, or if they were as described they might have accomplished something by now. But the left always calls everyone else “haters” when in fact they have been historically the “Greatest Haters” (ever hear of NAZIs and Communists? Lefties every one of them).

torches_and_pitchforksIn our current culture such terms are meaningless. There is always populist discontent with opposite things — with too much taxes, and not enough welfare – ever has it been so – and the worst are the Progressives blaming every one else for being “racists” while continuously thumping their own extreme version of racism upon which they depend for their voter support

But wait!  This isn’t over.  It is probably going to take at least a couple of years to untangle this little divorce and it will not be a pleasant experience for anyone, least of all for those who voted to leave. This will make the dark days pre-Thatcher look like an Anglican Church picnic. I just can’t wait for the trainloads of inked and electroned, scribery (Huh?) about it all being caused by the racism and hate springing full blown and unprovoked from the breast of the nasty proles, the common unwashed working man, incited by the evil right wing haters, It must be Bush’s fault!  Everything is Bush’s fault. Except for what is the fault of the evil Koch Brothers. Riiiight …  The Brights just couldn’t possibly have had anything to do with it! Everything they did was for our own good, right?

“Fanfare For The Common Man”, Aaron Copland & The London Symphony Orchestra, from the album “Copland Super Hits”, 1994.

So, what we are seeing happen here is the impact of Truth on the fantasies of the Intellectuals and Brights, the Progressive managers currently running our economic and political world, who sincerely believe their own BS. Unfortunately for their fantasies, “Truth” matters, “Facts” matter, and you can never trust “voters” to be “sensible”. Hence all the effort put into de-fanging voters and the voting process so that it can be controlled, and “sensible” thinkers can prevail “for our own good” of course.

When poisons become fashionable they do not cease to killThe managers and academics just don’t connect with “The People” because they are not “people”. They don’t understand all the “little people”, the ants they see from their upper floor office windows, and they could care less what the “little people” think, feel and believe, because the of course the managers and academics know best. For a lucid example of just how the left regards the “little people” look no further than this article in the magazine “Foreign Affairs“.

There’s a good read here about “Populist Rage”  and “Right Wing Haters”. It’s a sign of the times, this article is. Foreign Affairs Magazine used to be a fair and impartial venue reporting on international politics when, 30 or 40 years ago, I used to read it. I read it as lot back then, I read it a lot when I was a questioning teen.

This particular article is by one  JONATHAN HOPKIN who is an Associate Professor of Comparative Politics at the London School of Economics and Political Science. Now we all know that “Associate” indicates that the Illuminati at the London School of Economics don’t feel that Jonathan quite measures up yet. He may yet make it to full professorship if he is successful in kissing enough butt over the next decade. Or, like an infamous alumni called Pierre he can always run for Prime Minister in Canada if he can’t make it at the university.

hopkin_brexit_rtx2gje2Anyway, here we go  “… tensions over the United Kingdom’s Brexit campaign should have culminated with a referendum this Thursday on whether to leave or remain in the European Union. Instead, it peaked prematurely with the tragic murder of Jo Cox, a pro-EU Labour member of Parliament, who was brutally shot and stabbed last week by a man close to a British extremist anti-immigration group…”

Well GEE you left lib weenie! That same logic makes you close to the murdering Gestapo or the NKVD or maybe the KGB? Ever hear of the terms “Sympathizer”, or “Running-Dog”, how about “Useful Idiot”? And yes, being shot or stabbed does indeed tend to be “brutal”, does it not? So is cutting up babies in the womb. Get used to it!  Soon you will be writing in favour of doing it (stabbing) to seniors and handicapped folks. Get over yourself!  At least TRY to be consistent!

And since guns of all sorts account for only about 3% of murders it does seem that the majority of these events (97%) employ the much more brutal use of knives, fists and feet which seem to be the tools of choice for most folks when offing those one disagrees with.

Why does the left deplore the “brutal murder” of alleged adults but encourage the brutal murder of defenseless children in exactly the same manner? Why? Just wondering?  Anyone? Anyone?

Oh well, maybe we should ban knives? Or Fists? Or boots?  No, no, no, ban –  “Assault Boots” – which would be any boot that was black with cleated soles, eh?

Hell! Even the Pope is on board with this: “Pope Francis has said the result of the U.K.’s referendum to leave the European Union reflects the “will of the people” and that there is now a “great responsibility” to ensure the well being of people in the U.K. and peaceful coexistence on continental Europe …”.  Of course, Francis is also on record as saying that “most Catholic Marriages are invalid” so there is something of a credibility gap in evidence where he is concerned. Is the Pope Catholic?  I don’t know anymore.

So why is the decision of 52% of British Voters to vote to leave the E.U. cast as somehow related to the murder of 1 left wing politician? Of course, there is no evidence of media bias at all, is there? Well lets see where we go with this slant:

provisional-ira

1972 – The Troubles; Battle at Springmartin – A car bombing outside a crowded pub in Belfast sparks a two-day gun battle involving the Provisional IRA

“… It was the first political killing of a British politician since the end of the Troubles, a turbulent era of conflict in Northern Ireland, and it has led many to wonder how a stable country such as the United Kingdom could lose its head over what is essentially membership in a trading bloc.

(Seriously, are you stoned???? The Brexit referendum is like the Northern Ireland conflict???  Were you even alive then?? How is it possible to make that kind of a parallel unless you are willfully smearing the “Leave” voters?)

Answering that question requires reflecting on how the country grew so divided in the first place. Since the beginning, Brexit has pitted younger, more affluent, and cosmopolitan urban Britons against the older, poorer, and less educated ones in the rural and postindustrial parts of the country.

It is this same clash—the elites versus the so-called proletariat—that has fueled the resurgence of extreme right parties across Europe, as well as in the United States. In the United Kingdom, these voters are angry at their financial instability, stagnant or declining living standards, and loss of jobs to emerging economies. And they have blamed it on the migrants arriving on their shores…”  when in fact it is ALL caused by leftist social and economic policies.

And there you have it all in a nutshell – the politics of class, division, and racism in action, always the Progressives strong suite. It’s all the fault of those poor uneducated slobs in the rural and post-industrial countryside. Why stick to the facts when you can create a dramatic fictional story about your enemies (aka propaganda – Mr. Goebbels would be so proud) that all your Rainbow cronies and fellow members of N.I.C.E. will welcome and applaud. After all, what matter the alleged thoughts and realities of we knuckle dragging neanderthals here in fly-ever country, clinging to our guns and religion. Sigh, so much brains, so little sense.

Another Excellent article here, which we ignore at our peril. The Truth matters, regardless of the opinions and pontifications of the talking heads and celebs, secular AND religious, the Progressives everywhere and in all professions, who are the walking, talking, zombie enforcers of the tyranny of relativism under which we toil and prostitute ourselves for a pittance, yes, selling out for a pittance when we have daily access to Divinely gifted treasure beyond all earthly value. Pity. Pity the poor souls, Pray for the poor souls.

“Ladies in Lavender”, Joshua Bell, from the album “the Essential Joshua Bell”, 2005

As read in the article linked to above,

It is, to be Platonic about this – and why not, when discussing the transcendentals? – as if we had heard it before, or seen something before, even if perhaps we hadn’t heard or seen. The worldly may dismiss this as a kind of déjà vu, and turn for an explanation to, say, pharmacology. But even the most confirmed worldling will puzzle, when it happens to him.

“Maybe it is possible to do or be good. Maybe there is such a thing as beauty. Maybe truth is something that can be known. Stranger things have happened.”

Imagine that!  True beauty, doing your best, doing good for no other reason than to be doing your best and doing good. No pay, no photo op, no votes, no earthly reward.

Omnia ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

Joe

Gandalf StudyAlways remember, “Be charitable in your judgements, and never take yourself too seriously”

 

Standard
The Inner Struggle

Ruminations of Eeyore …

Eeyore Listening to:

【睡眠用BGM】ジブリ・ピアノメドレー・疲労回復・リラックス・安眠・癒し・名曲

My daughter tells me I am in “Eeyore” mode.  I suppose there is some truth in that but I just don’t see a lot of cause for cheery optimism in the panoply of saints and leaders currently in favour.

Even reports that our current Pope is the most beloved of all the popes by the usual communists, socialists and androgynous progressive brights since we started having popes and media fails to stir me.

I did note that they managed to totally ignore his prolific expositions on the family and on the rights of the unborn. What are the odds that their observation and consideration of his encyclical on the environment will bring about an examination of his encyclicals on pedocide, pedophilia, homosexuality and eldercide, and perhaps a reconsideration of their positions on those topics.

So far there is nothing but a deafening silence in these rooms. I wonder …

Cheers

Joe

knight_templar_battle_weary

 

Standard
Pen as Sword - Social Commentary

Environmentalism as Religion … Religion as Environmentalism

I have posted on this subject before,  at least a few times, in “killing-children-to-save-the-planet” and in “the-anthropic-principle” and in “I-have-no-trunk” and even in “anthropogenic-global-warming” and “anthropogenic“.

Now it appears that the Pope is about to enter the fray with an “encyclical on the environment“. This is a much more definitive proclamation that “his extemporaneous remarks at the University of Molise“. David warren has hit it on the head hereOn the “science” behind this — in fact, scientism — I have no reason to trust the advisers appointed, and many reasons to doubt them. They are for the most part not Christian themselves, let alone Catholic, and they represent very worldly vested interests. Huge amounts of money are at stake, in maintaining the “climate change” scare, and the ideological position behind them is unmistakable. These are men in pursuit of power, who wish to create vast new regulatory agencies to trump the existing worldly powers. They propose to compound large evils with an even greater evil. I only hope norms of Catholic teaching aren’t disturbed, while dancing with devils like these.

“Scientific consensus” is a bawd. There was a scientific consensus against Galileo Galilei — even greater across Protestant northern Europe than among his ex-friends in the University of Bologna. The Church is still paying today, for bowing to the scientific consensus of 1616. More broadly, the history of scientific consensus is more or less identical with the history of scientific error. Indeed, scientific truths are discerned, typically if not always, by one man outside the scientific consensus. (Sometimes they are two or three.) The dissenting voice is usually punished. …  (more)

aasacrificing-to-their-god-lfs-990-600x466

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One would hope that perhaps the Catholic Church might just be able to square the circle without supplanting God for progressive fashion., but maybe not, and I have seen and heard crazier things in my short life.

My post on “epa-study-of-fracking-finds-no-widespread-systemic-pollution” is an illustration of the risks and problems with following a “consensus”, especially a consensus with such an “iffy” track record and literally trillions of dollars at stake.

I will wait to see the real thing. The many competing interests on both sides of this issue will be in a great rush to spin this product to suite their own slant and agenda. I have no doubt that few will actually read what it says and those who do will be drowned in a tsunami of dreck as the various parties scream for attention.

The little noticed fact that a veteran Vatican reporter with decades of experience has already lost his accreditation over this item speaks volumes towards indicating which camp the apparatchiks of the Vatican bureaucracy fall into with a large and sonorous plop. Salt and Light will no doubt be trumpeting their victory to the masses. It will probably get front page coverage for a couple of hours on “Being Liberal” before being upstaged by some Liberal celeb wanting to marry his sheep.

My bias is that I believe that yet again the Vatican is about to come down on the wrong side of history in another area of scientific controversy. I detect a distinct smell of sulfur in those cloistered halls these days. Chasing the twitter feed seldom has good results.

Cheers

Joe

CSR

Disclaimer for nitpickers: We take pride in being incomplete, incorrect, inconsistent, and unfair. We do all of them deliberately.

Standard