Featured Post

For Those Who Disregard Prophecy

People who snub prophecy bewilder me. They say, "I'm not obligated to pay any attention to private revelation. The strict teachin...

Tuesday, February 28, 2017

The Kingdom of Católica America Part 7c: How a Catholic Monarch Would Deal With A Racist America

"Yet, given the divisions among us, deeper and wider than ever,
it is an open question as to how, and how long, we will endure as one people."
- Patrick Buchanan

America has indelicately allowed every tribe of man to roar onto her shores. The "powers that be" have shown no regard or caution for the cultures/religions of America's immigrants. Within our borders reside a wide variety of Japethites, Hammites, and Shemmites. It is as if some mad scientist decided to see what would happen by mixing together the most volatile chemicals.

When the Statue of Liberty calls out, "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free," poor huddled masses is precisely what we have gotten ever since. Shiploads of human freight, yearning to be free...free to impose their foreign cultures--such as Sharia Law--onto a new wide-open and pliable territory.

Speaking of foreign-imposed cultures, perhaps it bears repeating that not only was Emma Lazarus, author of that Statue of Liberty poem, "The Colossus," from a Jewish background, but so was Israel Zargwill, author of the famous 1908 play, The Melting Pot, not to mention the fact that the early founders and agitators for the NAACP were also Jewish socialists. One would think that the Jews would have been pleased enough with the Judaized Puritains who were already here.

The Fabian Window
(Note, the two workers hammering the world
into their preferred shape, as a wolf in
sheep's wool hovers on the shield above.)
Yet, being the nomadic and anti-nationalist people that they are, Jews continue to harbor an aversion to "soil" nationalism (at least, for whites), and they continue to argue, as Steve Cohen does, that immigration controls are "inherently racist in that they are based on the crudest of all nationalisms--namely the assertion that the British have a franchise on Britain."

But I digress.

Returning to the idea of an American Melting Pot, it is said that immigrants are the spice of a stew. But taking that image further, if America is a melting pot, then we have a stew made up less of broth and more of a disproportionate amount of spices. Such a stew makes one sick.  There is no culture. There is no religion. There is no race. There is only a cacophany of madness.

A Universal Church, such as Catholicism, is precisely what the doctor ordered for America's troubled quarter of the globe. With a unifying and clear culture that would resonate with every kind of human being on this continent, the Catholic Church could remedy everything that threatens to tear us apart.

However, the earliest attempts by the Church to gain a major foothold in North America--the early missions of Spain and France, as well as the Catholic Englishmen who founded Maryland--were early on demolished with Puritan fire, so that at this point, the Catholics of America are like a people in the wilderness.

And so now, we have a horrifying version of the City of Babel, where people are no longer speaking the same language, literally and culturally. The very idea of ethnic diversity and the experiment of the Melting Pot has become an idol. Vast swathes of the people are kept divided from one another through race-preference propaganda and the overall indoctrination of the pop culture, and they are ready to tear at each other's throats.

How will an American Catholic Monarch handle this? The people I am describing are not the pliable, agreeable citizenry that I fantasized about in the last post. This is a nation divided and ready to fall into civil war.

The Tribes of America Want Something Currently Unspeakable

When you have a diverse population in close proximity with each other, and you have nothing to unify any of them at all, there will be strife and crime. Murders, robberies, and rapes will be the order of the day. The rich and successful people will abandon the area, leaving the poorer and unsuccessful people to slug it out in a "neighborhood war" lasting for decades.

Chinatown, San Frncisco
Consider the Chinatowns, the Korea Towns, and the Filipinio Enclaves. Think about the heavily Somalian community that is about to take over Minneapolis. Is it permissible to mention the German Amish communitiy of Pennsylvania, or even the various scattered Indian Reservations?

Call to mind the never-ending drumbeat in the black community to celebrate black cities, black entertainment, and black news media. Recall how there is a Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard in most cities. Recall "the look of the permanently aggrieved" that seems stamped upon their faces. Remember how Mayor Ray Nagin once said in 2006 after Hurricane Katrina passed:

New Orleans "will be a majority
African-American city.  It's the way
God wants it to be."
-Mayor Ray Nagin
"We as black people, it's time, it's time for us to come together. It's time for us to rebuild a New Orleans, the one that should be a chocolate New Orleans. And I don't care what people are saying Uptown or wherever they are. This city will be chocolate at the end of the day."

Think about the radical Leftist students at the University of Michigan who are currently demanding a no-white space, from which they can further plot social justice activism against whites. Think of all of the safe spaces from whites that are being called for on campuses across the entire nation.

And now, consider Hispanics and their present-day systematic purging of blacks in California neighborhoods. Reflect on the Aztlan Movement, which seeks to claim a legal and primordial right to the lands of the Southwest United States. And let's not forget the myriad of business districts that refuse to feature English--but only Spanish language on their storefronts.

The Slaughter of Cities: Urban Renewal
as Ethnic Cleansing
, by E. Michael Jones
Need I state the desire among whites to have their own domain? Though the white American will not openly admit to it, the very phenomenon of White Flight attests to the fact that whites seek to leave their former cities--most of which are overtaken by diversity--for more controlled and recognizable surroundings. They will even flee to the rural countryside to attain such peace.

According to professor Kevin B. MacDonald, American whites are coalescing into implicit white communities that reflect white identity without dare bringing attention to themselves:
"Research on ethnocentrism has shown that people often have unconscious attitudes that they do not express explicitly. Unconsciously, the vast majority of Whites have the usual stereotypes about Blacks, but they would never say so explicitly, at least partly for fear of the consequences. Parents’ choice of schools and neighborhoods (their “revealed preferences”) reflect this widespread racial hypocrisy. Parents, including liberal parents, act on their implicit attitudes, and there is a profound gap between their implicit attitudes and behavior (where they show in-group racial preference) and their explicit attitudes (where they piously express the official ideology of egalitarianism).

"In effect, they are creating implicit White communities. They do not explicitly state that their choice of friends, neighborhoods, and schools derives from racial preference, because that conflicts with their explicit racial attitudes and with official ideology. And when explaining why they vote Republican, they talk about “limited government,” opposition to the welfare state, and lower taxes. In turn, Republican candidates often appeal to them in exactly these terms."
"Screw you, America.  Viva Mexico!"
Evidence is sown throughout America. People want their own tribe. In quite a few instances, one tribe demands dominance over another tribe. Some Americans can get along with other ethnicities, but most do not handle it well.

Working and purchasing goods in the same proximity of different people of a different race are one thing--but this does not mean you will be able to happily live next to them. Most cannot handle that, and most choose not to deal with that if they can help it.

It's the brutal truth.

Segregation Would Be Allowed Under These Circumstances

Blame lies squarely on the Left, who has forced multiculturalism onto American society.  Such globalists think themselves gods.  But in reality, they've left one of the worst civilizational messes one can leave.

And so, someone has to clean up the progressives' mess.

The self-segregated city of New York.
A compassionate king would, therefore, allow for soft segregation, due to the current emergency circumstances. Segregation of some kind would be allowed--if not outright enforced--and it would be on a temporary basis spanning at least a generation (if not longer) through his line of heirs.

This segregation would not be based on the superiority of one ethnicity over another, as it was in America's Puritan past.  A Catholic Monarch would consider all of the Americans to be equal under the crown.  No, this type of segregation would be out of urgent necessity.  And though there would be segregation in the very beginning, the king and his heirs would work to unite America in as much of a universal fashion as is possible with the circumstances.

So, programs to bus in different ethnic minorities to a particular locale would be ended. Flying refugees into a particular neighborhood or city would halt.  The agitation of communities would end.  Doing this would halt the phenomenon of White Flight, and this kind of an action is something that most Americans want.

In fact, it may be that America would have to be restructured somehow in order to conform to this new paradigm.  What would that resemble?  What model would best demonstrate such a spread of people? That is not the topic for this essay. Although, one idea that comes to my mind is a series of separated enclaves surrounding a central city that caters to all of the ethnicities.

White flight in Los Angeles
It may be that Americans of our current generation decry this kind of an idea.  But the next generation and the one after that may welcome this idea.  And furthermore, this hypothetical Catholic monarch's decree for segregation would be validated by God's Own actions.  Although God transcends race, and even though God prefers that we transcend our ethnic differences, He nevertheless knew from the beginning that we could not, at first, handle being in such close proximity to one another.

I have stated before that God was the progenitor of ethnonationalism.  He divided the nations and determined boundaries for them, and He assigned guardian angels over their different nations. The Lord did this for our own good, as He did not want the world to experience the chaotic civil strife that threatens to tear America apart today.

Miami - self-segregated
Several demographics have been
driven out completely.
"The children had to be separated," as a parent would say.  Segregation is not a good unto itself, and there are people who are capable of transcending racial barriers. In fact, looking at different people with a universal attitude is a very Catholic phenomenon, and most Catholics ought to be able to transcend their own tribe to one degree or another.

However, the Miracle of Pentecost took place among believers in the Church.  This is important to know, because most of America is not in the Church, nor would an American King be dealing with only Catholics. It would be folly for the Catholic King of America to believe this nation, with its racist past, would be able to experience an immediate, rapid repentance and conversion from its previous puritanical bigotry, and to further expect Americans to regard other people with Catholic minds. This will not happen.

White flight from Chicago,
with self-segregated communities
God segregated mankind for his benefit, and men have segregated themselves for the same reasons. Whether it was the separation of men at Babel, the exile of Cain, the isolation of the Hammites, the preservation of the Hebrews, the tribalism of the Persian King Jamshid, or even the reclusiveness of the Japanese, the "children have been separated" for their own good.

America, having become a microcosm of the world, shall have to re-learn ancient lessons that were taught with acts of God. A Catholic King will recognize this, and he will tread carefully with this most crucial issue of our land, if we are to remain as a whole nation.

The End of Subversive Racial Organizations

White people are "sub-human"
with "genetic defects."
- Yusra Khogali, co-founder of
Black Lives Matter in Toronto

Any organization that preached a takeover would be suppressed. Any kind of caucus or party that openly or even secretly discussed the spread and subversion of Catholic America would be infiltrated, exposed, and destroyed.

 The state-sponsored Catholic religion would be the binding force that would formally (and later, organically) hold Americans together. At its core, Catholicism is universal. And in the long term, within the span of untold generations, Catholic American universalism among the Americans would be realized. Defiance of that end, whether in openly hostile organizations, college rallies, or secret Freemasonic-styled clubs, would be punished.

There would no longer be a national Black History Month. Martin Luther King Jr. Day would not be a compulsory celebration. Otherwise, if these traditions are to remain, then there must be a Hispanic History Month, an Asian History Month, a Jewish History Month--and certainly, a White History Month. Such traditions would either include everyone, or there would be no such traditions.

"We declare that the call of our blood
is our power, our responsibility, and
our inevitable destiny...for the race
everything.  Outside the race, nothing."
-Alberto Baltazar Urista Heredia,
Chicano activist
There would be no toleration for the promotion of "home countries" such as Mexico.  Law and order would be dispensed, should there be a massive parade or protest march of "Americans" waving the Mexican flag.  This is America, and we either have a country, or we don't.  New lines must be drawn.

There would also be no tolerance for DiversityKult. While diversity and interracial mixing can be a fine thing if done for the right reasons, this current, hyper-actively pushed, Babel-styled, globalist, race for a Utopian nation of mixed people would end. Advertisers would be encouraged to speak to the actual target audiences, rather than some kind of utopian family unit that is not the mainstream.

There is currently a disproportionate representation of mixed families in American media, and it has become obvious that this is a part of a push towards a one-world ethnicity. Certain parties in our society have pushed for a "browning" of America for one reason or another, and in doing so, they make a god out of race.  Under an American Catholic king, this idolatry would end, as it demeans the majority of families and couples who choose not to engage in interracial families.

"The non-Europeanization of America is
heartening news of an almost
transcendental quality."
-Joseph Ben Zion Wattenberg,
Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute
It is easy to suggest that people of mixed ethnic backgrounds would be celebrated. It feels emotionally satisfying to say that such mixed Americans would be regarded as the fruits of American universality. We say to ourselves: "The day will come when people will see mixed Americans, and they'll smile and say, 'Only in America!'" It is nice to think of a national holiday for such people. After all, under such measures, mixed Americans would be able to identify with one another, no longer feeling like displaced children who try to figure out which of their parents' cultures they should identify with.

Yet, even revering mixed Americans is making an idol out of race.  At first, this American phenomenon would be welcomed happily.  And, after all, celebrating mixed Americans would seem to remove a tooth from the various race factions calling for dominance.  However, given the fullness of time, in the span of many generations, there would be a new conflict of "New Americans" vs the "Old Americans," and a similar but even more complex race issue would be burning a hole in the middle of the nation.

Pope Pius XI
"Whoever exalts race, or the people, or the State, or a particular form of State, or the depositories of power, or any other fundamental value of the human community - however necessary and honorable be their function in worldly things - whoever raises these notions above their standard value and divinizes them to an idolatrous level, distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God; he is far from the true faith in God and from the concept of life which that faith upholds."
-Pope Pius XI


A Catholic king would stop forcing the idea that all men are built equally, when they are not. He would have us acknowledge our differences.

Not everyone can catch sickle cell disease. Not everyone can tolerate milk, nor eat garbanzo beans. Not everyone shares the same tolerance for iodine. Even our very brains are different. This is an objective fact. God has allowed the tribes of men to segment in different ways from one another.  We are not the same.

Observe CCC #1936, 1937:
"On coming into the world,
man is not equipped with everything
he needs for developing his bodily
and spiritual life.  He needs others..."
A Catholic Monarch would recognize that each ethnic group has much to offer the nation, and that the Catechism teaches that "benefits are derived from social commerce," that talents "are not distributed equally," and that differences between men oblige them to practice generosity and kindness, with a mutual enrichment of one another.

And, while the king would have us objectively acknowledge our differences, he would also encourage us to take advantage of our similarities.

This king and his heirs would encourage the different tribes of America to conquer their weaknesses and engage other countrymen in generosity and good will. He would encourage this, all the while allowing their communities to retain their identities if they must. As it was with the fallout from the Tower of Babel, North American people would be allowed to retreat for a time, lick their wounds, recover, and start fresh.

# # #

Now, everything in this article having been said, the chances of its implementation are slim to nothing. The ethnic and ideological civil war that threatens to tear the American nation apart is vivid and apparent to most Americans today. As of this writing, a great darkness looms in the near future, and people will acknowledge this if you ask them about it, and they trust you enough to talk about it.

This impending civil war scenario is largely due to various self-interested Leftist parties that have stoked the fires of division for the last century. Nothing was done to stop it, and so long as America refuses to convert its heart to Jesus Christ, nothing will be done to stop the calamity that waits to take us all. That calamity has no shape as of yet, but whatever form it takes, be assured that dark forces are working at this very moment to make it a reality.

The world will never enjoy unity apart from Christ. The same can be said of America. Without a religion--the True Religion--to unite us, we will continue to edge toward the cliff until we all fall off of it as a people.

"I did not expect to live in such an unusual moment. 
 When the God of thunders and of rocky heights, 
the Lord of hosts, Kyrios Sabaoth, 
would humble people to the quick, 
allowing them to act whatever way they wished, 
leaving to them conclusions, saying nothing." 
 -Czeslaw Milosz, Veni Creator


Wednesday, February 22, 2017

God, Bless And Welcome John Vennari Into Your Presence

John Vennari is dying this week.

"The doctors say I don't have much time left.  Please pray for me and for my Purgatory.  Was blessed to receive last rites yesterday and the apostolic blessing."

Thank you John, for everything you've done for us. God, please do not let our friend linger in Purgatory. Have mercy. Bless him, Lord, and welcome him to Heaven.

* * *

I bring up the following, only because I wish and hope that someone will do the same on my behalf when my day comes, for the benefit of everyone.  

THAT day of wrath, that dreadful day,
shall heaven and earth in ashes lay,
as David and the Sybil say.

What horror must invade the mind
when the approaching Judge shall find
and sift the deeds of all mankind!

The mighty trumpet's wondrous tone
shall rend each tomb's sepulchral stone
and summon all before the Throne.

Now death and nature with surprise
behold the trembling sinners rise
to meet the Judge's searching eyes.

Then shall with universal dread
the Book of Consciences be read
to judge the lives of all the dead.

For now before the Judge severe
all hidden things must plain appear;
no crime can pass unpunished here.

O what shall I, so guilty plead?
and who for me will intercede?
when even Saints shall comfort need?

O King of dreadful majesty!
grace and mercy You grant free;
as Fount of Kindness, save me!

Recall, dear Jesus, for my sake
you did our suffering nature take
then do not now my soul forsake!

In weariness You sought for me,
and suffering upon the tree!
let not in vain such labor be.

O Judge of justice, hear, I pray,
for pity take my sins away
before the dreadful reckoning day.

You gracious face, O Lord, I seek;
deep shame and grief are on my cheek;
in sighs and tears my sorrows speak.

You Who did Mary's guilt unbind,
and mercy for the robber find,
have filled with hope my anxious mind.

How worthless are my prayers I know,
yet, Lord forbid that I should go
into the fires of endless woe.

Divorced from the accursed band,
o make me with Your sheep to stand,
as child of grace, at Your right Hand.

When the doomed can no more flee
from the fires of misery
with the chosen call me.

Before You, humbled, Lord, I lie,
my heart like ashes, crushed and dry,
assist me when I die.

Full of tears and full of dread
is that day that wakes the dead,
calling all, with solemn blast
to be judged for all their past.

Lord, have mercy, Jesus blest,
grant them all Your Light and Rest. Amen.

-The Dies Irae

The Kingdom of Católica America Part 7b: Race - How An American King Would Ideally Unify Us

America has a race problem.  Many times, "black leaders" will state that it's time to have a conversation about race.  However, aside from the usual race-baiting and mob inciting of the Left, there's really not that much tolerance for "a conversation about race."

In fact, while the Hispanics of the United States seem loyal to Mexico and all points south, American blacks are in a state of being permanently aggrieved.  Even though this nation was one of the very first to rid itself of slavery, white people have carried the guilt of African slavery on their shoulders for generations, and now it's to the point where the whites are prepared to throw themselves onto their own swords to appease a seemingly unappeasable portion of this country.

And so, we are left with a question: How in the world could a Catholic Monarch possibly solve the race issues of America?

In An Ideal Situation, A Catholic Monarch Would Do This...

There are two ways to bring a people together under one common banner.  The first method is to unite people based upon race.  Since there are many races in the United States, that idea is out of the question, unless the king wants to have a balkanized and problematic situation on his hands.

The second way to unite a people is through religion.  Even those on the hard Right will admit this.  For this reason, I have always argued that the United States would do very well with a Catholic monarch.  By uniting the country under the banner of Christianity, with Catholicism as its state religion, the people would be united in a way that this nation has never seen in its entire history, dating back to the colonies.

Should the people turn towards religion as their one shared and common uniting culture, then America can achieve the unity that the Marxist Left so desperately wants to prevent.

In such an ideal scenario, instead of focusing on the different weaknesses of the different ethnicities, people would instead focus on the different strengths that the different demographics would have to offer.  As I stated in a previous post, the Catechism states that "benefits are derived from social commerce," that talents "are not distributed equally," and that differences between men oblige them to practice generosity and kindness, with a mutual enrichment of one another.

In a truly Catholic and unified America, the people would strengthen each other and the culture as a whole by offering one another their best traits and abilities.


Not only would Americans in this ideal monarchical situation flourish, but they would even lose interest in remaining a separated people.  In fact, the king could even encourage the different groups of people to breed with one another, and under this ideal condition, the people would have no issue with this.

Fears of miscegenation would diminish.  Unlike the current globalists and leaders of MultiKult--a group who makes an idol out of such a thing--such unity would not be artificially be pushed upon the populace in such a horrifically patronizing style.  Rather, the citizens of the American Kingdom would naturally make such decisions, here and there, with the approval of the king--though not by an overt and demanding push, as we see in the major media today.

Just as the French intermarried with the different Indians and blacks of North America, so too did the Spanish kings encourage such intermixing.  In fact, consider how the Spanish strove to spread Christendom among the wild unexplored continents and islands of the New World and the Far East. This is an excerpt from C.H. Haring's The Spanish Empire in America.  The emphasis is mine:

The Papal Bull of 1493, which gave to the kings of Castile dominion over the Indies, imposed one supreme obligation: to spread the gospel and draw the pagans into the Church of Christ; and Isabella to the day of her death regarded the welfare of the American natives as a major responsibility. When, therefore, the new governor, Nicolas de Ovando, came out to America in 1502, he was instructed by Isabella to assure the native chiefs that they and their people were under the crown's special protection. They might go in entire freedom about the island, and no one was to rob them or harm them in any way, under severe penalties. They were to pay tribute only as the rest of the king's subjects. Only in the royal service in mines or on public works might they be compelled to labor. These orders were followed to the letter. But left to themselves, the Indians refused to work...They withdrew from all association with the colonists, with results that from the European point of view were disastrous. Within a few months Governor Ovando wrote to Spain protesting that the only effect was the falling off of tribute, lack of labor, and inability to carry forward the work of conversion to Christianity.

The soverigns replied with the famous orders of March and December 1503, which legalized the forced labor of free Indians but attempted at the same time to protect them from uncontrolled exploitation. The natives must be made to work, if necessary, on buildings and farms and in the mines, but in moderation and for reasonable wages. At the same time, to ensure their being civilized, they must be gathered into villages, under the administration of a patron or protector, and provided with a school and a missionary priest. Each adult Indian was to have a house and land which he might not alienate. Intermarriage of Spaniards and Indians was also to be encouraged. And in everything they were to be treated "as free persons, for such they are." Only cannibal Indians from neighboring islands if taken in war might be sold into slavery.

Up until the dysfunctional Puritains either killed off or drove off the Spanish and French, it is highly arguable that significant inroads were being made with the American Natives.  Would only the Puritains have left them alone!  We would have had less of a genocide lingering on our national conscience.

A Humble, Likeable, Successful Nation

Nevertheless, should such a Catholic Monarch arise in such ideal conditions, this nation could achieve a respectable stability among all of the tribes of this continent.  America would be living out the reverse Babel--a scenario in which I previously went into detail.

Indeed, as I laid out in that previous post I linked to, should America undergo a period of repenting and praying for forgiveness (for the godlessness of the 20th Century, and perhaps for our Puritain rejection of Catholicism), we would overcome our differences, and our undertakings would succeed.  Americans, en masse, could plead for God's mercy.  In gratefulness and thanksgiving, Americans would sing praises to the God of the Universe for His benevolence and mercy, and we would be thankful that He didn't wipe us off of the map.

As the nation ages, and the citizens become more of a unified and singular people, sharing a common language becomes a reality. There are no tribal divisions within their society, nor does anyone seek to remember how they were once divided from each other. In time, the distinctions between Japethites, Shemites, and Hammites is erased.  The Babylonian "Curse of Tongues" would no longer be such a reality in the United States.

There would be no more minorities. No more demographic differences. We would be united as a universal nation, all common to one another, worshiping the same Universal God of Creation.

And we would live happily ever after.

 In other words, if everyone agreed to get along with one another, we'd be fine.
If Only...

This, my friends, is what would happen to America if it heartily welcomed a Catholic Monarch to rule over it, and the people were unstubborn, compliant, and willing to work with such a king.  If the people could put aside their differences and unify as one common people under God, this nation would know a peace of which it cannot conceive.  We would be many times stronger than America ever was at its peak.  Our achievments would be astounding, and we'd probably be colonizing outer space.

However, not everything works out in such an ideal fashion.  More often than not, there are great troubles in bringing a people together.  Which is why, in the next post, I will discuss the final scenario:

How a Catholic Monarch Would Deal With A Racist America

Sunday, February 19, 2017

The U.S. Left and George Soros Might Have Overthrown Pope Benedict XVI

The Rad Trads are starting to put two and two together lately.  Seeing how law and order is not on our side in this cultural war for the West, investigations are slow-going and independent.  And it seems that a lot of correlations are popping up recently, thanks to new evidence that continues to pour in--that Obama, the U.S. Democrats, and George Soros may have conspired to some degree to oust Pope Benedict XVI in 2013.  

Should this be true, it only leads more credence towards the idea that Pope Benedict was blackmailed out of the Seat of Peter, and that his resignation was invalid, rendering Pope Francis as an anti-pope.  However, I want to repeat again that this is only a notion that I entertain.  I'm still calling Pope Francis the pope.  For now.

Bye, folks.  I'm not the pope anymore, although I'll still keep dressing like one.
Enjoy your new Leftist leader!
Early E-Mails and Strange Meetings - A "Catholic Spring"

Consider the released Wikileaks e-mails from Hillary Clinton's hacked e-mail records.  Bear in mind that this all takes place before Benedict XVI's resignation.  This first message is from Sandy Newman to John Podesta of Pizzagate fame.

February 10, 2011
Hi, John,

This whole controversy with the bishops opposing contraceptive coverage even though 98% of Catholic women (and their conjugal partners) have used contraception has me thinking . . . There needs to be a Catholic Spring, in which Catholics themselves demand the end of a middle ages dictatorship and the beginning of a little democracy and respect for gender equality in the Catholic church. Is contraceptive coverage an issue around which that could happen. The Bishops will undoubtedly continue the fight. Does the Catholic Hospital Association support of the Administration's new policy, together with "the 98%" create an opportunity?

Of course, this idea may just reveal my total lack of understanding of the Catholic church, the economic power it can bring to bear against nuns and priests who count on it for their maintenance, etc. Even if the idea isn't crazy, I don't qualify to be involved and I have not thought at all about how one would "plant the seeds of the revolution," or who would plant them. Just wondering . . .

Hoping you're well, and getting to focus your time in the ways you want.

Next, we have the reply from John Podesta:
We created Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good to organize for a moment like this. But I think it lacks the leadership to do so now. Likewise Catholics United. Like most Spring movements, I think this one will have to be bottom up. I'll discuss with Tara. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend is the other person to consult.
Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics United are George Soros-funded groups.

Consider the recollection of Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, who recalled how in 2008 he was visited by two men from Catholics United.
Back in 2008, in the weeks leading up to the Obama-McCain presidential election, two young men visited me in Denver. They were from Catholics United, a group describing itself as committed to social justice issues. They voiced great concern at the manipulative skill of Catholic agents for the Republican Party. And they hoped my brother bishops and I would resist identifying the Church with single-issue and partisan (read: abortion) politics.
It was an interesting experience. Both men were obvious flacks for the Obama campaign and the Democratic Party—creatures of a political machine, not men of the Church; less concerned with Catholic teaching than with its influence. And presumably (for them) bishops were dumb enough to be used as tools, or at least prevented from helping the other side. Yet these two young men not only equaled but surpassed their Republican cousins in the talents of servile partisan hustling. Thanks to their work, and activists like them, American Catholics helped to elect an administration that has been the most stubbornly unfriendly to religious believers, institutions, concerns and liberty in generations.
An Appeal For Trump to Investigate

Now, a letter has been sent out to President Donald Trump to investigate the possibility of a conspiracy to upturn the Catholic Church for Leftist ends.  

This letter has been signed by David L. Sonnier, LTC US ARMY (Retired), Michael J. Matt, Editor of The Remnant, Christopher A. Ferrara (President of The American Catholic Lawyers Association, Inc.), Chris Jackson of Catholics4Trump.com, and Elizabeth Yore, Esq., Founder of YoreChildren.

This letter asks the following questions:
- To what end was the National Security Agency monitoring the conclave that elected Pope Francis?

- What other covert operations were carried out by US government operatives concerning the resignation of Pope Benedict or the conclave that elected Pope Francis?
- Did US government operatives have contact with the “Cardinal Danneels Mafia”?

- International monetary transactions with the Vatican were suspended during the last few days prior to the resignation of Pope Benedict. Were any U.S. Government agencies involved in this?

- Why were international monetary transactions resumed on February 12, 2013, the day after Benedict XVI announced his resignation? Was this pure coincidence?

- What actions, if any, were actually taken by John Podesta, Hillary Clinton, and others tied to the Obama administration who were involved in the discussion proposing the fomenting of a “Catholic Spring”?
- What was the purpose and nature of the secret meeting between Vice President Joseph Biden and Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican on or about June 3, 2011?

- What roles were played by George Soros and other international financiers who may be currently residing in United States territory?
There are definitely a lot of correlations between the scheming of the Left during that period and the immediate subsequent resignation of Pope Benedict XVI.  While Pope Benedict has stated in the past that he was not under any pressure to resign when he did, if it were the case that he was being blackmailed, chances are that he would never admit to it publicly.

Anyway, food for thought.

Wednesday, February 15, 2017

Bergoglio Is Not The Pope.........?

It is at this point in my life as a converted Catholic that I get to entertain a notion.  The same notion that Ann Barnhardt entertained.  That is--the possibility that Pope Benedict XVI was pushed out of the Chair of Peter, and Bergoglio was pre-arranged to take his place by the St. Gallen Mafia.

What's so funny?
After all, not only is there heavy infighting among cardinals about the legitimacy of the highly-questionable and Church-destroying Amoris Laetitia, but there's even future discussions about a new Catechism being constructed around the latter.  Some speculate that another Synod will be called that legitimizes sodomy and gay marriages, and still, other rumors are in the air that before he goes, Pope Francis will call a Third Vatican Council.

Pope Francis has shed his I'm-A-Humble-Guy persona.  He has clearly come off as a tyrant and a dictator within his organization.  The manner in which he has destroyed and suppressed those who exhibit true Catholic culture is well known.  Such radical changes in such a short time bespeaks the possibility of a devious act of subversion.  The man is even staring to be publicly considered a formal heretic.

It is almost impossible to convince anyone to convert to the Catholic Church due to the Freemasonic, Marxist-styled subversion.  Typically when I approach anyone with the idea that the Church is the One True Universal Church that was started by Jesus Christ, the usual reply I get is that "I wouldn't touch that foot with a ten-foot pole with a man like Francis at the helm."  I've heard this often over the past few years of this pope's reign.  

So, let's entertain the question.  Is it possible he is not pope?

With permission from Ann Barnhardt, herself, I am re-posting her post: Cutting the Crap: 32 Questions and Blunt Answers About The Catholic Church and Antipope Bergoglio

* * * * *

Question 1: What is the deal with Pope Benedict XVI “retiring”?

It has now become clear the Joseph Ratzinger was told by a group of homosexual Cardinals calling themselves the “St. Gallen Mafia”, led by Cardinal Carlo Martini, that he would be permitted to elected pope, but that if he was still alive after eight years, that he would then resign, and if he didn’t resign that he would be forced out, likely with threats of blackmail.

St. Gallen Mafia admission citation HERE.

Citation that the Ratzinger election and papacy was “pre-programmed” by Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, and that Martini ordered Ratzinger to “resign” in ARSH 2012, HERE.

Question 2: So was Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation valid?

No.  Pope Benedict’s resignation was invalid, and obviously so. To argue otherwise requires the willful suspension of disbelief.

Canon 188 states:
A resignation made out of grave fear that is inflicted unjustly or out of malice, substantial error, or simony is invalid by the law itself.
Question 3:  Which criterion of Canon 188 invalidates Ratzinger’s attempted resignation?

All of them, except simony, which is bribing or paying off. However, the clearest criterion, which has been explained at length by Pope Benedict’s personal secretary, and by the clear, objective evidence of Pope Benedict’s actions, is the criterion of Substantial Error.  Pope Benedict believed that he could fundamentally transform the office of the papacy into a collegial or synodal office by “partially resigning”.  He believes that he has abdicated the “active” aspect of the Petrine Office, but retains the “contemplative” aspect.  More on that later.

Secondarily, we now know that the homosexualist St. Gallen Mafia instilled grave fear in Ratzinger, which was certainly unjust and obviously malicious.  Upon his election in ARSH 2005, one of the first things Pope Benedict said was “Pray for me that I do not flee for FEAR of the wolves.”

Question 4:  What is Pope Benedict afraid of? Is he blackmailable?

Because The Church has been so thoroughly infiltrated by homosexuals, EVERY PRELATE without exception could be linked to homosexual priests under his jurisdiction.  I think it is safe to say that every churchman is now one degree of separation from a sodomite, and thus every churchman COULD be accused of sins of omission, namely, “Why didn’t you say or do anything about…”. Sodomites are, by definition, ruthless Diabolical narcissists, and have no problem throwing their own under the bus in order to increase their own power.

Question 5: But other popes have resigned previously, right?

Yes, other popes have resigned.  In fact, Pope Benedict XVI visited the tomb of Celestine V in ARSH 2007 and very, very conspicuously left his papal stole on the tomb, which we now understand was a signal to the St. Gallen Mafia that he was fully planning to “resign”.  Pope Benedict XVI is an intelligent, studious man.  He clearly researched and was well-informed of the history of papal resignations, and yet has done everything in his actions to communicate the incomplete nature of his attempted resignation.

Reportage of Pope Benedict XVI visiting Pope Celestine V relics twice.

Question 6: What about Pope Benedict’s actions after his attempted resignation were different?

First, Pope Benedict chose to retain the title of “Pope”.  Because the Petrine Office was instituted by Jesus Christ Himself, it cannot be changed, altered, modified, transformed or evolved in any way – not even by The Pope himself. There is no such thing as a “Pope Emeritus”, and just because a retired bishop can be called “Bishop Emeritus” this has NO BEARING on whether there can be a “pope emeritus” because of the singularity and supernatural character of the Papacy.  A bishop is not the Vicar of Christ.  The papacy is unique and singular and has never, does never and will never provide for an “emeritus”. There can only be one living pope at a time, and since Pope Benedict’s resignation was made in substantial error, and in fear unjustly and maliciously inflicted upon him, his resignation was invalid, he never ceased to be The Pope, and he retains the fullness of the Petrine Office until he either dies, or resigns in accord with the law, which at this point is simply impossible.

Cardinal Brandmuller and Bishop Sciacca both demolish the notion of a “pope emeritus” HERE.

John Paul II declared the notion of a “pope emeritus” impossible after being diagnosed with Parkinson’s Disease.

Second, Pope Benedict retained the Papal style, Your Holiness. Only the Pope is addressed as “Your Holiness” / “His Holiness”. He likewise chose to retain his Papal Name and, in clear contradiction to the previous popes who had resigned, did NOT revert to his baptismal name, Joseph Ratzinger.  By retaining his Papal name and style, he is clearly communicating his belief that he is still a participant in the Petrine Office, which he is – he is the EXCLUSIVE holder of the Petrine Office.  To argue that this studious, conscientious man has done all of this as a mere flippant oversight once again requires the willful suspension of disbelief.

Third, Pope Benedict freely chose to continue to wear the Papal white cassock.  Upon his departure from the Vatican in February of ARSH 2013, Pope Benedict sent the clear signal that he believed himself to still be a holder of the Petrine Office.  He was asked immediately why he did not follow the clear precedent of all previous popes who had resigned by reverting to the black cassock.  His answer was stunning in its dishonesty.  He said that he was wearing the Papal White because there were no black cassocks for him to wear.  He publicly announced his “resignation” nineteen days before he “left office”.  The notion that there was not a single black cassock anywhere in the city of Rome, or that no one in Rome could have made him – the Vicar of Christ – a black cassock in NINETEEN DAYS had he requested it, is, very simply, a boldfaced lie.

Fourth, Pope Benedict defied all previous precedence with regards to Papal resignations, by choosing to continue to live INSIDE THE VATICAN.  All previous popes that resigned LEFT ROME so as to avoid ANY appearance of retaining the papacy or possible confusion to the faithful on the question.

So, we have a man, with the title “Pope”, addressed by the Papal style, “His Holiness”, wearing the Papal white, living inside the Vatican. Once again, to argue that Pope Benedict XVI is completely oblivious to the optics of this requires the willful suspension of disbelief.

Pope Benedict’s personal secretary, Archbishop Georg Ganswein, confirming the above:
From the election of his successor, Pope Francis—on 13 March 2013—there are not then two Popes, but de facto an enlarged ministry with an active and a contemplative member. For this reason, Benedict has not renounced either his name or his white cassock. For this reason, the correct title with which we must refer to him is still “Holiness.” Furthermore, he has not retired to an isolated monastery, but [has retired] within the Vatican, as if he had simply stepped aside to make space for his Successor, and for a new stage in the history of the Papacy, which he, with that step, has enriched with the centrality of [prayer] and of compassion placed in the Vatican Gardens.

Question 7: Is it possible that Pope Benedict XVI is just stupid?

No.  To argue that requires the willful suspension of disbelief.

Question 8: Why is Pope Francis saying and doing things that are in direct opposition to Jesus Christ and His Holy Church? I thought that was impossible?

“Pope Francis” IS NOT THE POPE.  Jorge Bergoglio is an antipope, falsely elected in an invalid conclave because Pope Benedict never validly resigned the papacy.  Therefore BERGOGLIO HAS ABSOLUTELY NO PARTICIPATION IN THE PETRINE OFFICE, INCLUDING THE CHARISM OF PAPAL INFALLIBILITY.  As an antipope, Bergoglio is completely free to say and do things which are heretical, apostate and even satanic, because none of the supernatural protections of the papacy apply to Bergoglio, because Bergoglio is not now and never was the pope. Antipope Bergoglio hates God and His Holy Church and is hellbent on destroying it. All of his intentions toward the Church are malevolent. He is a servant of satan, carrying out a satanic agenda.

Question 9: Isn’t Pope Benedict XVI a heretic for doing what he has done, and thus no longer the Pope either?

Pope Benedict XVI is indeed a heretic and is now the worst pope in the history of The Church, BUT this makes his papacy ILLICIT, but still VALID.  It is absolutely essential to understand the difference between LICAITY and VALIDITY.  At this point I would refer you to an excellent essay by Fr. Brian Harrison, penned in ARSH 2000, and thus completely unprejudiced with regards to current events.

“A Heretical Pope Would Govern The Church Illicitly But Validly”

Question 10: But wouldn’t this same concept of “illicit yet valid” apply to Bergoglio as well?

Absolutely not, because Bergoglio’s election was itself invalid.  The question of Bergoglio’s heresy and apostasy is moot with regards to the papacy because Jorge Bergoglio is not now and never has been the Pope.

Question 11: So if a pope who is a heretic is illicit yet valid, that means that the sedevacantists have been wrong all along?

Yes.  Pope John XXIII was almost certainly a Freemason.  Paul VI was a raging sodomite and pro-Communist. John Paul II was a phenomenologist and kissed the satanic tome of the musloids, the koran, and his so-called “Theology of the Body” is deeply heretical.  Pope Benedict’s metaphysics are so warped as to be not even properly called “metaphysics”, revolving around “meaning” and not “being”.   And yet, all were/are popes, valid yet illicit.

Question 12: Has Pope Benedict’s warped notion of metaphysics informed his actions with regards to the papacy?

Yes.  Pope Benedict thinks that the defining criterion of something’s existence is what it MEANS, not what it IS.  And so, he thinks that it is not important what the papacy IS, but what it MEANS, and thus it is free to be redefined, even if that redefinition defies the principle of non-contradiction. Thus, Pope Benedict thinks that he can both be and not be the Pope – he can be the “contemplative pope”, but simultaneously not be the pope, because the papacy is a matter not of being, but of meaning.

Question 13: Is it possible that this warped notion of metaphysics is a function of Pope Benedict being stupid?

No.  Just because someone is wrong, does not mean they are stupid.  In fact, it is intelligent people that make the most enormous mistakes. You will never meet a person with Down’s Syndrome that denies the realness of reality, but there are trainloads of geniuses that do. And remember that Lucifer, the largest intellect created by God, rebelled against Him.

Question 14: Why do people like Cardinal Burke keep saying that Pope Francis isn’t a heretic, and they are not accusing him of heresy?

Because Cardinal Burke and pretty much everyone else are operating on the false base premise that Bergoglio is the pope, and they think that they cannot say anything “against the Pope”.  BERGOGLIO IS NOT THE POPE. While Cardinal Burke claims that he is intensely concerned about saying anything “against the Pope” or damaging the authority of the Petrine Office, the truth is that CALLING A MAN WHO IS NOT THE POPE, “THE POPE”, IS THE MOST DAMAGING THING ONE CAN DO TO THE CREDIBILITY AND AUTHORITY OF THE PETRINE OFFICE.  Further, when Cardinal Burke says that he is not accusing Bergoglio of being a heretic, he is obviously dissimulating.  In the five Dubia questions submitted to Bergoglio, the first question addresses heresy, and the other four questions address apostasy, namely the denial of objective morality and the denial of objective truth.

Question 15: Could it be that Cardinal Burke and everyone else are afraid?

Yes.  Absolutely. To his credit, Cardinal Burke recently said in an interview that he feared standing before Christ at his judgment and being asked why he didn’t defend Our Lord and The Truth.  Sadly, Cardinal Burke is not nearly afraid enough, because he continues to try to live with one foot in The Truth of Christ, and the other in the lie of the Bergoglian antipapacy, Novus Ord-ism and Vatican Two-ism.

Question 16: What are they afraid of? Why won’t anyone talk openly about this?

They are afraid of

a. Jeopardizing their career tracks or status
b. Jeopardizing their cash flows (this applies to bloggers, news outlets, anyone who lives off of The Church in any way)
c. Incurring social stigma and being socially ridiculed or rejected (do not underestimate this dynamic)
d. Being exposed/blackmailed for either sexual sins or financial crimes

Question 17: Several trad bloggers that I read argue that the papacy really isn’t that important.  This contradicts not only what I was taught, but common sense.

The papacy is extremely important.  In fact, it is so important that Our Lord instituted it BEFORE He founded the Church at Pentecost. To argue that the Papacy isn’t important is irrational, effeminate, and explicitly contrary to the words and actions of Jesus Christ in the Holy Gospels, and thus completely uncatholic.

Question 18: Several trad bloggers that I read argue that we can’t know who the pope is.  Can that be right?

No, that is clearly wrong.  The truth is objective, external to ourselves, and above all, KNOWABLE. If the identity of the pope is unknowable, then the papacy itself is irrelevant.  If the papacy itself is irrelevant, then the Church is irrelevant.  If the Church is irrelevant, then Christ is irrelevant. If Christ is irrelevant, then Christ is not God. If Christ is not God, then nothing, and i mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, matters. People who argue that the identity of the pope is unknowable are effeminate and are under one or more of the four categories of fear in Question 16.

Question 19: Several trad bloggers I read argue that who the pope is isn’t our problem, and we should just leave it to future generations to deal with. Can that be right?

No, that is not right. It is a lie from the pit of hell, promulgated by wildly effeminate people who reject the notion that they should be asked or even expected to take up their cross and deal with objective reality. It is the narcissistic, adolescent mindset of pathologically weaseling out of all responsibility.  Imagine if the Apsotles had argued that none of them could ever know whether or not Christ was Divine, and that the question should be left to future generations to decide, and thus it was impossible for them to fulfill the Great Commission, much less die as martyrs.

Question 20: Several trad bloggers I read argue that what is going on in the Church right now, and with Bergoglio, is actually no big deal. Can that be right?

No, that is very, very, very wrong.  Countless souls are being lost to hell every day, and will continue to be lost to hell until Our Lord returns in Glory, because of this.  This is perhaps the single most important thing that has happened since the Pentecost. To minimize the importance of The Church being infiltrated and an antipope installed who is systematically and rapidly destroying The Church down to its foundations, scandalizing countless souls into eternal, unending damnation, never to see God, is of unquantifiable importance.  Anyone who argues otherwise is wildly, wildly effeminate.

Question 21: Several trad bloggers that I read argue that this has all happened before.  Is that right?

No, that is absolutely wrong.  Never before in the history of The Church has there been an antipope who has denied the existence of objective moral norms, denied the existence of truth, and effectively attempted to abrogate the Ten Commandments and the Seven Sacraments, denied the existence of hell, called The Great Commission “sinful”, or actively fomented and encouraged adultery and Eucharistic sacrilege. Never.  Not even close.  Not even the Arian Schism approaches this.  Anyone who argues otherwise is dissimulating.

Question 22:  Why doesn’t Pope Benedict say or do anything?

It is a combination of pride, weakness, and possible blackmail/coercion. Furthermore, if Pope Benedict asserts his authority in any way, he will be acknowledging the illegitimacy of his resignation, and thus has painted himself into a corner.

Question 23: Is Bergoglio going to come after the Traditional Mass? Some trad bloggers I read say Bergoglio doesn’t care about liturgy one way of the other.

Yes, Bergoglio will eventually come after the Trad Mass.  The driver behind Bergoglio is satan, and satan cares very, very, very much about liturgy, and desperately wants to eliminate the Venerable Gregorian Rite from the face of the earth, and eventually the Rite of John Chrysostom and all of the other venerable Catholic Rites of the Holy Sacrifice. The notion that Antipope Bergoglio “doesn’t care”, especially in light of his ruthless attacks on traditional orders, and his incessant insults directed obviously at Traditional Catholics, is a position that requires the willful suspension of disbelief.

Question 24: If Bergoglio rescinds Summorum Pontificum and abrogates the Mass of the Ages, what should priests do?

WHY would a priest obey an antipope? Bergoglio has as much authority to overturn Summorum Pontificum as I do – NONE.  Again, the question is asked from the foundation of a false premise, namely that Bergoglio is the pope.  BERGOGLIO IS NOT THE POPE.

Question 25: What is the path forward barring supernatural intervention?

The only path forward is to declare Bergoglio antipope, forcibly remove him, and then WAIT FOR POPE BENEDICT XVI TO DIE. If a conclave were to be called after the removal of Bergoglio, but before the death of Pope Benedict, the man “elected” at that conclave would be every bit as much an antipope as Bergoglio, no matter how orthodox he might be.  The only way to be certain that this mess is cleared up is to wait for Pope Benedict XVI to die.  This was what The Church did after the resignation of Pope Gregory XII, and this was how the Great Western Schism was ended.

Question 26: What are the odds of this happening without supernatural intervention?

Epsilon above zero.

Question 27:  Why is this happening? Why is God permitting this? Doesn’t He love us?

This is happening because God is very angry, and we deserve it. Of course He loves us, and what this situation affords us is the chance to stand up for Jesus Christ, His Holy Church, and His Vicar on Earth, and declare the truth in circumstances never before seen in the history of The Church.  This is the chance for the Remnant Faithful to stand up and scream that the Church has been infiltrated, that the Novus Ordo must be abrogated and that the Second Vatican Council was a failed council that should be burned to ash and thrown onto the garbage heap of history.

God has also permitted this because it shows us exactly what the logical conclusion of Modernism, Vatican Two-ism and Novus Ordo-ism looks like, without having the papacy fall into the hands of an open apostate.

Question 28: Is it possible that Antipope Bergoglio is the Antichrist or False Prophet Forerunner of the Antichrist?

Antichrist, no.  False Prophet Forerunner, yes, that seems not only possible, but probable.

Question 29: Is it possible that Bergoglio is a satanist?

Yes, it is possible.

Question 30: Is it possible that Bergoglio is demonically possessed?

It is a foregone conclusion that Bergoglio is demonically OPPRESSED. Possession is possible, but unlikely, as satan has no need to possess a person who is fully on board with the satanic agenda of his own free will, as Bergoglio clearly is.

Question 31:  Shouldn’t we keep this quiet?  Won’t talking about this drive people away from The Church? Who would want to join a Church that is under attack by satan?

No.  The truth, even when horrifically ugly, is always authentically attractive.  What drives people away is the effeminacy and obvious dissimulation of failing to acknowledge that Bergoglio is an antipope.  Further, the false premise of Bergoglio being the pope immediately leads to the logical corollary that The Church is false and irrelevant, and thus that Jesus Christ is irrelevant, and thus that everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, is thus irrelevant.

It is precisely because The Church, the Mass, the Eucharist, the Sacraments, the Papacy and the Law are under attack by satan that so compellingly demonstrates that they are all true, good and beautiful.  Not only does the truth of the situation not drive people away, it inspires them to join up.

But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews indeed a stumblingblock, and unto the Gentiles foolishness:  But unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
1 Corinthians 1: 23-25

Question 32:  Should I stop going to Mass?

ABSOLUTELY NOT. What you should do is move heaven and earth to attend a Traditional Mass or Divine Liturgy, and then go every single day humanly possible, and spend as much time as possible before the Blessed Sacrament, and go to confession frequently.  Do whatever it takes, right now, to find a good parish or chapel. If you wait until The Remnant Church is forced completely underground, you will have a much harder time.  This is precisely what the parable of the wise and foolish virgins is about, folks.  At some point, the door will close, and if you are one of the foolish virgins who got caught without any oil in your lamp, and had to scramble to find any, it will, at some point, be too late, and the Bridegroom will close the door.  You have been warned.  It is obvious what is happening.  No one will have any excuse.

Go to Our Lord, kneel before Him and BEG HIM to provide for you and your family to always be able to go to Mass. Beg Him to show you the way and illumine the path for you, as He illumined the path of the Magi. Beg Him to fill your lamp with oil Himself, and to keep it always full.  Beg Mary, Mother of The Church, to intercede for you.  Beg St. Joseph, Patron of The Universal Church, to lead you to safety as he led Our Lord and Our Lady on the flight to Egypt.

* * * *

This poster says: "Francis, you police congregations, have priests removed, have decapitated the Order of Malta and the Franciscans dell’Immcolata, ignored Cardinals … but is this your mercy?"

So, if you've read this far down, what can we expect in the future if our worst fears are true?  Ann has a touch more to say on this point, and I have permission to re-post the following as well.  Her forecast is in response to a question - ANSWERS: Why Won't Any Cardinals Speak Up Against Antipope Bergoglio?

* * * * *
The reason why none of the Cardinals, of which it is reliably reported and confirmed that no less than 30, THIRTY, have privately “dialogued” with Bergoglio about his heresy, will call this jerk out has been communicated to me.

The threat Antipope Bergoglio is holding over all of them is that if they resist him…



I have news for you, Emeninces. Antipope Bergoglio is going to call “Vatican 3” and attempt to “lock everything in” no matter what. Once again, you are being played. The only proper strategy against Antipope Bergoglio is FULL ON CHARGE. There is no “appeasing” Satan or his minions. You either fight, or you die, and die as filthy, miserable cowards.

St. Catherine of Siena, pray for us.
St. Vincent Ferrer, pray for us.

* * * * *

Pray for us, indeed, should this all be true.

Monday, February 13, 2017

The Intellectual Alternative Right

The Alt-Right movement is neither a political party nor a group that you join.  The best way to describe it is that it is an agreement.  The Right in America (and now, the world) has agreed with one another to stop being weak and to cower from the Left.  That's pretty much what the Alt-Right is.  The movement is an umbrella that encompasses a lot of conservatives who are tired of liberal crap, and they're not going to be afraid to be called names by the Left any longer.

The Right, at a point in history, therefore decided to distance itself from the NeoConservatives.  They agreed to be intellectually honest, and to stop being emotional reactionaries.

Alt-Right is merely a word for the umbrella that encompasses everyone who is Right Wing who has agreed to this.  There are many different kinds and brands of people involved in this.  As a Traditionalist Catholic, I am only one branch of people within this movement.  There are Catholics, Jews, whites, blacks, straights, and queers who fall into this category.

The Origins of the Intellectual Alternative Right

The best way to start understanding what the Alt-Right is, is to take a quick look at how it started.

It could be said that the Alt-Right, as we talk about it these days, was first conceived in 2008 by Paul Gottfried at the H.L. Mencken Club.  Back then, shortly after Barack Obama had just won the presidency in a race against John McCain, there was heavy resentment on the Right against the Neoconservatives within the Republican Party, who seemed to sabotage everything that the conservatives wanted to do.  Patrick Buchanan was one of the first casualties of these George H.W. Bush NeoCons, even though he would have made one of the best Republican presidents we'd ever have.  He was just too Right for the NeoCons.

The title of Paul Gottfried's address, in which he expressed how fed up he was with the pansies on his side of the aisle, was The Decline and Rise of the Alternative Right.  I've provided my own Cliff Notes if you want to read, and you just want to skip through a lot of it.  However, his address bears reading after the place that I highlighted in red:

If the H.L. Mencken Club can achieve that for which it has been formed, it should have an eventful and for those who disagree with us, profoundly disruptive future. We are part of an attempt to put together an independent intellectual Right, one that exists without movement establishment funding and one that our opponents would be delighted not to have to deal with. Our group is also full of young thinkers and activists, and if there is to be an independent Right, our group will have to become its leaders. 
For years I’ve belabored acquaintances with the observation by stating that the paleoconservatives who had spent their lives butting their heads against the American conservative movement, were becoming less and less useful. Note that I do not excuse myself from this judgment entirely, for what I’m describing is my own generation and those with whom I’ve been associated. Paleoconservatives did an enormous service in the 1980s when they kept the neoconservatives from swallowing up entire the intellectual and political Right. They had performed something roughly analogous to what the Christians in Asturias and Old Castile had done in the eighth and ninth centuries, when they had whittled away at Muslim control of the Iberian Peninsula. But unlike the rulers of Castile and Aragon, the paleos never succeeded in getting the needed resources to win back lost ground. Unlike the medieval Spanish monarchs, they also didn’t have the space of several centuries in which to realize their goals. 

In the above section, Gottfried was discussing how the Right has basically been under siege since the early 1980s.
But equally significantly, the curmudgeonly personalities that had allowed the paleos to stand up to those from the Left who had occupied the Right prevented them from carrying their war further. Although spirited and highly intelligent, they were temperamentally unfit for a counterinsurgency. They quarreled to such a degree that they eventually fell out among themselves. Soon they were trying to throw each other out of the shaky lifeboat to which their endangered cause had been confined. Of course considerable disparities in resources and contacts put these partisans into a weaker position than that of their enemies. But their breakdown into rival groups, led by competing heads, commenced early in the conservative wars, and (alas) it has been going on up until the present hour. The founding of our club came out of such a fissiparous event, of the kind that had occurred with some regularity on the Right during the preceding two decades. 
Nor is it surprising that the same paleos who broke from the movement often imposed their own litmus tests. Or that their sectarianisms involved highly sectarian opinions over such questions as whether Elizabeth One’s defeat of the Spanish Armada or the later discomfiting of the Stuarts doomed Anglo-American societies to unspeakable moral and political corruption; or (supposedly even more relevant) whether the ethics of Irving Babbitt as selectively filtered through the aesthetics of Benedetto Croce can help save this country from anti-intellectualism or from the disciples of Leo Strauss. Or even more timely, whether being instructed in Babbitt’s view of the Higher Will would have mitigated the misfortune of having the stock market plunge. Although there are other such paleo ruminations that can be cited, I shall be merciful and spare my audience the heavy burden of having to hear about them. 
This section above discusses the various "rival groups" among the conservatives, who in the 1980s, prevented the active players on the Right from making headway and attacking the Left.  There was infighting, initiated by what would later be known as NeoConservatives.  Such hold-outs, the John McCains, were sectarians that behaved to the detriment of conservatives.
The late Sam Francis used to conjure up an ideal-type essay that sprang from the archaic conservative mentality. It was a fifty-page study by a now deceased University of Georgia professor of English; and it dwelled on how Western society was going to rack and ruin because no one read Flannery O’Connor any more in light of Eric Voegelin’s Order and History. There was, indeed, such an essay, which was not entirely a product of Sam’s fertile imagination and Menckenesque wit. And having read this literary-cultural exercise, I would have to agree that it typified a certain kind of paleo cultural commentary. It is moralizing aspiring to be scholarship. As a European intellectual historian, it seems to me that such tracts at their best strain to resemble something that might have been composed by a French counterrevolutionary two hundred years ago. But these reproductions operate at a higher level of abstraction without showing anything that strikes this reader as being historically relevant. 
While not all paleo polemics fit this description, many of them do—or at the very least, bear more than a vague resemblance to what is being caricatured. 
The above is a lot of flourish that I think his speech could do without.  Gottfried is about to get to the point below.  I'll underline points of interest:
And I’ve been struck by how often these jeremiads have been accompanied by either frantic endorsements of third- or fourth-party politicians or else mournful laments about how the barbarians are climbing in through our windows and how we should therefore prepare ourselves for pious deaths. The fact that I myself have sometimes written in this vein need not detract from my critical remark. My observation is arguably true even if I too am an aging paleo. 
To put this into perspective: what is now called paleoconservatism did not grow out of resistance to the Reformation or French Revolution. It is the product of recent historical circumstances, and it assumed its current form about thirty years ago as a diffuse reaction to the neoconservative ascendancy. It was never unified philosophically, and its division between libertarians and traditionalists was only one of the many lines of demarcation separating those who began to call themselves “paleos” about 25 years ago. In 1986 I noted in an article for the Heritage Foundation’s Policy Review that most paleo thinkers were Protestants or Jews. They were also preoccupied with sociobiology, a discipline or way of thinking that had influenced them deeply. Today the paleo camp looks markedly different as well as much older, and it shows little interest in the cognitive, hereditary preconditions for intellectual and cultural achievements. And the despair about American society among paleos may be pushing some of them toward the liberal immigrationist camp, providing they’re not already there. Others of this group have become so terrified by those on their left that they pretend not to notice the stark fact of human cognitive disparities. This quest for innocuousness sometimes takes the form of seminars on educational problems centering on endless sermons about values and featuring rotating lists of edifying books. Presumably everyone would perform up to speed if he/she could avail himself/herself of the proper cultural tools. The fact that not everyone enjoys the same genetic precondition for learning is irrelevant for this politically motivated experiment in wishful thinking. 
Gottfried is laughing at the fools on the right who want to despair and "prepare ourselves for pious deaths," because the Left seems about to take over.  Some conservatives have become pro-immigration, and a lot of them pretend that diversity and multiculturalism are great, due to their fear of the Left.  (Today, such neoconservatives are called cuckservatives.)
More recently we have been confronted by another problem on the right, namely groups that give little evidence of being what they claim to be. As far as I can tell, there is nothing intrinsically rightwing about denying the claims of family and society on the putatively autonomous individual. And the dream of living outside of the state in a society of self-actualizing individuals, opening themselves up to being physically displaced by the entire Third World, if its population chooses to settle on this continent, is not a rightist alternative to anything. It is a failed leftist utopia. It is one thing to deplore the modern welfare state as a vehicle of grotesque social change or for its violations of the U.S. Constitution. It is another matter to believe that all authority structures can be reduced to insurance companies formed to protect the property and lives of anarcho-capitalists. Such a belief goes counter to everything we know about human Nature, and even such an embattled anti-welfare- statist as H.L. Mencken never hoped to destroy all government. He loathed egalitarian democracy but not the traditional social and political authorities in which communal life had developed and which conforms to our intertwined social needs. 
Gottfried calls out those groups on the Right who are not who they say they are.  They may claim to be right wingers, but in reality, they are liberals.  Many such people have even left the Republican Party and become Democrats.  He also calls out those on the Right who are satisfied with letting America be displaced by Third World immigrants.
Having made these critical observations, I would also stress the possibility for positive change represented by this organization. We have youth and exuberance on our side, and a membership that is largely in its twenties and thirties. We have attracted beside old-timers like me, as I noted in my introductory paragraph, well-educated young professionals, who consider themselves to be on the right, but not of the current conservative movement. These “post-paleos,” to whom I have alluded in Internet commentaries, are out in force here tonight. And they are radical in the sense in which William F. Buckley once defined a true Right, an oppositional force that tries to uncover the root causes of our political and cultural crises and then to address them. 
And when I speak about the postpaleos, it goes without saying that I’m referring to a growing communion beyond this organization. It is one that now includes Takimag, VDARE.com, and other websites that are willing to engage sensitive, timely subjects. 
A question that has been asked of me and of others in this room is why we don’t try to join the official conservative movement. This movement controls hundreds of million of dollars, TV networks, strings of newspapers and magazines, multitudinous foundations and institutes, and a bevy of real and bleached blonds on FOX-news. This is not even to mention the movement’s influence on the GOP, the leaders of which dutifully recite neoconservative slogans. To whatever extent the GOP still has something that can be described as a “mind,” it is what neoconservative surgeons have implanted. 
Why then don’t the post-paleos ask to be admitted to this edifice of power? Even as the beneficiaries of second- or even third-rung posts, our younger members would be better off financially than they are in their present genteel, hand-to-mouth existences. It is easy to imagine that even the secretaries at AEI, Heritage or The Weekly Standard earn more than many of those in this room. Movement conservatives certainly have the wind in their sails; and perhaps most of us have been tempted at one time or another to join them in order to benefit from their considerable wealth. 
Gottfried acknowledges what would later become the youthful representation of the Intellectual Right, and he notes their willingness to uncover the root causes of our problems and openly address them.  He then rhetorically asks why we don't attempt to join the main conservative branch on the Right that controls all of the money and media.

At this point, you really ought to be reading the main body of the quoted text:
Allow me to suggest two reasons that most of us have not gone over to the Dark Side. One, that side will not have us; and it has treated us, in contrast to such worthies as black nationalists, radical feminists, and open-borders advocates, as being unfit for admittance into the political conversation. We are not viewed as honorable dissenters but depicted as subhuman infidels or ignored in the same way as one would a senile uncle who occasionally wanders into one’s living room. This imperial ban has been extended even to brilliant social scientists and statisticians who are viewed as excessively intimate with the wrong people, that is, with those who stand outside the camp that the neocons occupy and now share with neo-liberals and the center-left. I suspect that most of us, including those who belong to my children’s generation, would not be trusted even if we feigned admiration for Martin Luther King, Joe Lieberman and Scoop Jackson and even if we called for having open borders with Mexico and for attacking and occupying Iran. Even then a credibility gap would be cited to justify our further marginalization. 
True conservative people, true people on the Right will never EVER be welcomed by main body that is the Neoconservatives.  Look at Ann Barnhardt and how marginalized she is.  Look at Patrick Buchanan.  Look at any other person on the Right who "mainstream" people typical regard as "radical."  There is no open debate for modernists or the Left.  We are subhuman infidels to the John McCains.  Nothing we could ever do would win the hearts of either the NeoConservatives, or the Left.
But there is another factor, beside necessity, which keeps us where we are. We are convinced that we are right in our historical and cultural observations while those who have quarantined us are wrong. This is indeed my position, and it is one that the officers of this organization fully share. But to move from theory to practice, there are two counsels that I would strenuously urge. First, we must try to do what is possible rather than what lies beyond our limited material resources. What we can hope to achieve in the near term as opposed what we might able to do in the fullness of time is to gain recognition as an intellectual Right—and one that is critical of the neoconservative-controlled conservative establishment. Although that establishment does permit some internal dissent, and has even provided support for a handful of worthwhile scholars, it is at least as closed as were the Communist Parties of Eastern Europe before the collapse of the Soviet Empire. But unlike that now vanished domination, the neocon media empire is not particularly porous, and with the help of the Left, it is more than able to keep out of public view any serious challenge from the right. It is precisely our goal to become such a challenge. And it is my hope that a younger generation will acquire the resources to do so and will know how to deploy them. 
We will not become NeoConservative, John Boehner/Paul Ryan/Ted Cruz/Glenn Beck/John McCain traitors who sacrifice truth for proper appearance.  We will fight the Left with what we can, when we can.  We will strive to claim victory whenever possible, and this apparently includes winning the presidency, as we have seen with Donald Trump.  We will gain recognition for taking a sincere and honest look at the issues.  We will be critical of the NeoConservatives and all of their failings.  We will challenge the traitors who have screwed us over for decades.

If there is any paragraph of this address by Gottfried I urge you to read, the following paragraph is the one necessary for you to read all the way through.
Second, if we wish to advance our cause, we must meditate on the successes of our most implacable enemies. The neocons marched nonstop through the institutions and treasuries of the Right and took them over almost without breaking a sweat. And they did so without themselves having to move to the right. In fact they converted the Right to the Left, by equating their mostly leftist politics with reasonable or non-extremist conservatism. They then pushed into near oblivion anyone on the right who resisted their transformations. And as one of their victims, I certainly begrudge them these successes. But as much as I might rage over neocon mendacity and movement conservative gullibility and cowardice, I can also understand the magnitude of the domination achieved. And as painful as it may be for us, we must try to grasp that in Machiavelli’s language, it was not just Fortuna but also virtu that was at work in making possible our enemies’ spectacular achievements. Their opponents failed not only because they were obviously outgunned but also because we were less well organized, less able to network, and less capable of burying internal grievances. 
Here, Gottfried is bearing witness to the fact that the fake Right managed to take everything the Right had ever built up, and they used it against itself.  The NeoConservatives have, in fact, turned many on the Right into leftwingers.  Then, they exiled those remaining on the Right who wouldn't shut up.

I know all about that last bit.

And so, therefore, the new Intellectual Alternative Right must "meditate on the successes of our most implacable enemies."  We shall study the Left, and we will  imitate their tactics when applicable.  The Right has been polite for DECADES.  This shall now end, as you can see with the Donald Trump presidency.  And if the Left wants to take it to the next level, get physical, start riots (as seen at Berkeley), and try to ignite a brand-spanking new civil war in this country, we will greet them with law and order, and legal 2nd Amendment self-defense.
A friend once noted my ambivalence when I describe my enemies. My repugnance for their shallow ideas and grubby personalities has always been mixed with deep admiration for how they stick together like a band of brothers. It is this side of neoconservative history that we must keep in mind and imitate if we intend to climb out of the oblivion into which they have cast us. Our enemies may be vulgar but they are surely not fools. And their indubitable successes have much to teach anyone who hopes to supplant them—ultimately to do to them what they have done to us. 
The Left and the NeoConservatives stick together at all times.  They do not shoot each other in the back of the head, like the Right does.  I've touched on this here, citing the various times that I've tried to address various issues in different places, only to be betrayed.  There is a prevalence among those on the Right who are too clueless to learn to support their allies.  Instead, they prefer to be Armchair Avengers who refuse to go into war unless they approve of a strategy in all of its details...which of course will never happen.  Such actionless utopians will never get their feet muddy and slog it out in the trenches.

An Era of Post-NeoConservatism

In a later article, shortly before the 2016 election, Gottfried remarked how happy he was of the new Intellectual Alternative Right:
They are a breath of fresh air for anyone like me who occasionally forces himself to look at the centrist bilge, ostentatious beating up on Confederate symbols and the shilling for multinational corporations that I encounter on the respectable (non-right) Right...
This is the most promising attempt to create a post-neoconservative Right that I have seen since being exiled from the conservative movement eons ago. I’ve no idea whether the center will hold in what is still a loose, ad hoc alliance. But I welcome its emergence in the last few months. Often in politics, it’s the enemy that unites, and in this case those whom circumstances have brought together, have chosen their adversaries well. They are facing with very limited resources, the ultimate traitors to the Right and to an America that should be spared Hillary’s picks for federal judgeships and her refusal to fight specifically Muslim terrorists.

The Intellectual Alternative Right is a very broad place.  If you are a right-winger, and not a moderate, then you likely fit somewhere underneath this massive umbrella.  There are different branches and sections of this movement, to be sure.  Not everyone agrees with everyone's philosophy or religion.  However, in this paradigm, such differences will be debated with respect and intellectual honesty, unlike the emotional moderate Neoconservatives, or the feral and insane Left Wing.