Featured Post

The 2017 "Let Them Be For Signs" Series

I've decided to make this year's ongoing astronomical discussion an official series.  So, for your convenience, links to articles...

Monday, June 20, 2016

Rorate Caeli Reaches Level Jonah

Last year, the idea of Level Jonah seemed shocking to some.  But it was a shared reaction that few dared to anonymously and privately share with yours truly.  What is Level Jonah?  A brief recap:
I almost WANT the Church to be lost to most of the West. All of the buildings and art torn down and burnt. All of the churches converted into bars. Relics lost. Music forgotten. And role models and men of good standing--nowhere to be found. Pure chaos and no culture. No education. Just endless anarchy, sodomy, misery, and death. The libs will lie to themselves and tell themselves that they actually like such a condition of life. I almost WANT the fools of the future to look around, miserable in their chaos, and wonder "Gee, what happened?" And then, no one will be around to help them. This generation of people in the West deserves to be marched around in the desert for 40 years until it dies off...
After clarifying that this was not despair, I finished by stating:
that I will be satisfied with the justice of the faithless masses stewing in their own juices once they lose everything. In either this life or the next, these people will get what they deserve, and that's a comfort.
Well, guess what?  Almost one year to the day of that post, Rorate Caeli has joined up with Laramie Hirsch in Level Jonah.  Not officially, of course.  They are simply reacting and concluding the same thing I already have.  

The editors at Rorate Caeli have basically said that we deserve Pope Francis and the...unfortunate things he is doing.  This is a merited punishment due to our collective sins.  According to Rorate Caeli, we deserve Pope Francis, emphasis mine:
We deserve Francis. What is missing in many souls is a typically Christian attitude: resignation. It was not the Holy Spirit who chose Francis, that is not how conclaves work. But God has certainly allowed it, and he has allowed it to continue, and he will allow it until He deigns it necessary to end his Vicar's time here on earth, as He does to each one of us.
Other than resignation, missing from many spirits is the notion of collective justice -- and collective punishment. We have sinned, we have grievously sinned. So many Catholics have been for long immensely unfaithful to the Apostolic tradition they have received, to the pure doctrine that was passed on: is it surprising that from this soil arise unfaithful hierarchs? What is surprising is not that we have Francis as Pope, but that it took so many centuries for us to have a Pope like him
What can I say?  People are starting to conclude the same thing about this matter.  People have not been willing to say this outright.  

I recall how, back in 2013, when a large portion of the online Traditional Catholic community was still over at Fisheaters, there was a big discussion about Pope Francis.  This was before Tracy decided to defend a transsexual, before she became so completely gay-friendly, before she decided to give up the culture war in public spaces because "that's mean," and long before she began her self-righteous crusade against "Toxic Trads."


Back then in March of 2013, we had a huge discussion about what Pope Francis would be like.  And then, we started getting video footage of his actions in Argentina, and we started to learn from the parishioners down there about what kind of leadership he offered.  Various forum members started getting nervous, more discussions of what to expect came out.  By March 17th, Tracy had told everyone that she was tired of hearing everyone's critical opinions.
People can change, and they often do when they become Pope. Let's see if he does. We can see the video, and could watch 100 like them (or watch the same one over and over aga in), and someone could post them in every thread (and risk a ban) -- we get it. He is not a trad when it comes to the liturgy. Looks like it will likely be JPII all over again. OK. But as long as he isn't messing around with Catholic doctrine, it shouldn't affect the lives of trads that much at all. We've been down this road before. We know the tune. And we need to be doing what WE need to be doing, whether the Holy Father is doing what we (rightfully, IMO, obviously) think he needs to be doing or not. 
I really don't look forward to another 5, 10, 20 years of seeing old liturgy videos posted when a small handful are enough to make the point that the Holy Father, at least when he was Cardinal, was a bad liturgist. Maybe the papacy will change him in that regard. Or maybe it won't. Time will tell. But as for now, we've seen the videos. We get it. It sucks. Too bad for us. Too bad for the Church. Wah, wah, wah. We can cry about it, we can bitch endlessly about it, we can get all peevish and sarcastic about it -- or we can DO THE WORK THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE OURSELVES. 
I thought Tracy's opinion was Pollyannish then, and I am confirmed in that today.  Many people back then thought, "Just give him a chance.  You don't know!"  As though a man's past had no bearing on how he would behave in the present or the future.  But the St. Gallen's group chose well when they hand-picked this Jesuit for the papacy.  Their hard work in expunging Pope Benedict XVI has reaped them many fruits.  By the summer of his first year, Pope Francis had successfully squashed the Traditionalism of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate.  And that was just a warm-up.  

Of course, by March 14th, 2013, Ann Barnhardt had already reached Level Jonah before I even coined the phrase:
We got what we deserved, and probably better than we deserve. God’s chastisement of His people is sending them bad priests, bishops, and now, in all likelihood, a bad pope. What do you expect? Look around. The world is awash in staggering sin and blasphemy and no one will lift a finger to do anything about it. 
Yup.  That lady is a spitfire.  If you haven't read her, Barnhardt's expressed opinions are FAR MORE pungent than mine will ever be (...probably).  But by December of that year, I was in full agreement with her.  I said that Pope Francis is the perfect leader for our time and that he reflected the laity quite accurately.  "I'm fresh out of pity for people. You want this, West? You got it. Drink it in."  A lot of people didn't understand where I was coming from then.  But that is not the case today.  

Returning to an old Fisheaters discussion, I recall a poster stating the following:
Everything I have read is that this guy is described by the word “humble”. Perhaps you could even say he takes a great deal of “pride” in his “humility”. PERHAPS he simply dislikes “trappings of high office” and “high” liturgy and the like because he personally views it all as some kind of barrier between the people and their clergy. Maybe he uses “Bishop of Rome” because he thinks it is the least pretentious of all the titles and he by instinct always gravitates towards the title, thing, manner of dress, etc. that is perceived by him to be the least pretentious or the most humble. If so, then this is purely an aesthetic preference. It does NOT automatically follow therefore that he accepts the entire progressive decentralization mantra and all that would follow. He may of course – but we don’t know that. Yet.

Remember those days, kids?  "Oh!  Pope Francis is so humble!  And if you have anything to say against him, then you're a complete asshole!"  Of course, we can now look back and see that a "Humble Pope Francis" image was a wonderful disarming way to shut down any discussion about concerns or worries.  Everyone who dared to question the man was considered an outright jerk.  

Look!  Cardinal Bergoglio took the subway in Buenos Aires!
How deliciously subversive and humble!
HOW DARE you question this cool cool man!

His humility persona was disarming.  It shut down opposition.  The world--and I mean The World, like secular media and movie stars--just went gaga over Pope Francis.  "Only a Holy Father like Francis could pull off this kind of stunt," Time magazine said.  " Buckle up, people. We’re only fourteen months in to his papacy. This is already fun."  Before we knew it, Vanity Fair and Time had declared him Man of the Year.  

We're told in Scriptures that to be a friend to the world is to be an enemy of God. We're told not to conform to the world, not to be surprised that the world hates us, that the whole world lies in the power of the evil one, that we should not love the world or the things in the world, and that if anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

And yet? Pope Francis is a friend to the world's major players, he works to conform the Church to fit the world's preferences, and the world loves, not hates, Pope Francis. Even though Satan is the prince of this world, Pope Francis still believes in global initiatives to control global problems, working with the anti-life United Nations and other organizations, treating the Church like a non-governmental organization.

Does this pope love the world, and thus, the love the Father is not in Pope Francis? I dare not say that. I am not his heart's judge. I recognize Pope Francis as the pope, and I will pray for his conversion to the Traditional Catholic Faith. Whatever the condition of his soul, we will find out on the other side. I will not be like Dante Alighieri, who in his work, The Divine Comedy, placed Pope Boniface VIII in Hell before the pope was even dead.  Even if it seems that Pope Francis is working against the interests of the very Church Herself.

Here, the pope is awarding medals to Hollywood activists who promote abortion and same-sex "marriage."  

Others are becoming more publicly vocal.  Others are now openly admitting that Pope Francis is making a great quantity of unfortunate decisions.  Just this past weekend, LifeSiteNews stated:
It has been a difficult and disturbing process, but many of us have finally had to face that we had to stop making so many excuses for Pope Francis. The evidence has become overwhelming be that there are serious problems that we must no longer withhold the uncomfortable truths from our readers. Many others are coming to the same conclusions. Francis' statement yesterday that 50% of marriages are likely invalid will pull the rug out from millions valiantly trying to save their marriages and the millions who did save their marriages by perseverance, prayer, forgiveness and deeper love. Every day seems to bring an even worse pronouncement from Francis.
However, even though LifeSiteNews is concluding this, they have not yet reached Level Jonah.  Level Jonah is both a reaction as well as a conclusion.  It is the point at which you realize that the game is up, the world is screwed, and God is punishing us.  You realize that God is punishing us by letting us have exactly what we want so that we stew in our own juices. 

"Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad," said the writer Longfellow.  The first five seals of the Apocalypse are man-made disasters.  Natural and supernatural punishments don't even BEGIN until the sixth and seventh seal.  That is how God has always worked.  He first gives us a short moment of mercy (such as this Year of Mercy) to repent.  After that, we are left to our own madness.  Then?  The asteroid hits us.  

Realized this, and you have reached Level Jonah.  


Wednesday, June 15, 2016

Geocentrism: Cassini's Take On It

Today, we're not going to talk about Cassini being banned from the Echo Chamber.  Instead, we will take a brief cursory glance at what Cassini has to say about the topic of geocentrism.

There are various mechanisms in place within our modernist society that work against geocentric thought.  Understandably, if you're being taught in a public school that the Earth is nothing special, that it is just one among an endless number of unremarkable cosmic bodies in the heavens, you're going to grow up to believe that.

And, as we all know, the Catholic Church of today seems to prefer to go-along-to-get-along when it comes to "Science!", which is not a surprise for many readers here.

Cassini, who dared to open up these ideas to KK's Echo Chamber, has been ostracized from his online friends and colleagues.  No more prayer requests for that guy.  Not on KK's turf.

So, in the spirit of reaching out to a fellow traveler in this place we find ourselves, here in the outskirts of the online Traditional Catholic community, let's take a closer look at what Cassini is trying to tell us.  Cassini sent me an introduction to a book he wrote, The Earthmovers.  With Cassini's permission, I have edited his introduction to fit the purposes of this blog post.

# # #

For two hundred and sixty years, Catholics have been led to believe in a moving earth and a fixed sun, and these same Catholics are made to share in ‘embarrassment’ and shameful ‘guilt.’ After all, their Church--their very predecessors--once defended the biblical conception of a fixed earth and moving sun, and they condemned Galileo for denying this model. This, of course, meant that nearly all Catholics were forced to support a fantastical consensus and canonical contradiction that was a U-turn for the Church.

This new direction, courtesy of the Church's contemporary "movers and shakers," continues even now.  This new model is, first and foremost, a matter of intellectual pride.  They want to preserve and retain the ‘scientific’ image.  They want to defend their new credibility and the respect they have built up in the wake of the infamous Galileo case.

The traditional account of the Creation was taught for centuries by the great Fathers; but now, new Catholic contemporaries love to quote Scriptures out of context when it suits them. Today’s Genesis must be ‘scientifically correct.’  Genesis must be in line with ‘solidly grounded theories’ and ‘acquired truths’ before it has any credibility in the eyes of 'scientifically rational Catholics.' These new Catholic facilitators of science acquire this ‘comfort zone’ by the most blatant abuse of the facts.  On this matter, they claim a divine authority that they say was given "by God Himself," and they rely on the customary obedience of the Catholic Church's hierarchy.

Today, they can manipulate people's wholesale ignorance of facts, and they possess a propaganda machine that is second to none.  They always have their way. ‘It’s all for the good of the Church,’ they say.  However, it is they—and not the Church—who requires obscurantism and consensus in order to remain credible. These new 'scientific' mover-and-shaker Catholics do not really care about the Church's proper path when it comes to the Earth's position.  They, instead, are more absorbed by their own pride in ‘scientific’ knowledge.

Consequently, many critics of my unpublished book, The Earthmovers, would first endeavor to ignore what it dares to talk about.  These new readers will dismiss or censor the true facts about cosmology, without taking time to think.

The credibility of four hundred years of 'Galileoism' and its promulgators will be defended on every ground, both Church and state. So, if ‘relativity’ offers these 'scientific thinkers' a choice between geocentrism and heliocentrism, they will stick with their heliocentrism. They will do this with an arrogance we can easily predict.  You will see for yourself that the very ‘scientific method’ they claim to adhere to will actually mean nothing to them. Their belief in the Copernican revolution and Galilean reformation is ideologically and psychologically based, not theologically, metaphysically or empirically based. Accordingly, the Catholic truth that they should be defending will be corrupted to meet their philosophical position.

This is why they will resort to both censorship and the tried and tested ‘ad hominem’ ploy.  Critics of traditional geocentrism express an unqualified rejection of certain kinds of disclosures.  For example, there are proofs such as stellar aberration, stellar parallax, and the Foucault Pendulum.  None of these proofs support heliocentrism at all.  Such critics would direct only rhetoric against the contents of The Earthmovers in order to avoid actually having to address the book's evidence.

Entrenched Galileans will point out in no uncertain manner that the geocentrism and geostatism of The Earthmovers is simply stupid according to most scientific minds.  They will merely repeat the same Church authorities who allowed an illusion: that the 1616 decree was abrogated.  Indeed, they will repeat the same statements of those who endorse Vatican Council II. Such critics will also claim that the pro-geocentrism author is either an un-trained scientist, cosmologist, mathematician, historian, or theologian, so what could they therefore possibly know?

Today, if someone is a coached professional in any institution of Church or state, that person could never have written The Earthmovers in the first place.  Such a writer would have been dismissed for endorsing geocentrism.  Many people today are excluded, banned, or fired from their various institutions because they reject old-age evolutionism.

It was freedom from such peer-pressure and peer-review that enabled this work to be recorded.

Cardinal Daly made a reference to the role that ‘intellectuals’ had in the move from biblical geocentrism to biblical heliocentrism.  He asserts that the Church that defended the interpretation of the Fathers was wrong, and Galileo was as Catholic as the theologians involved in 1616 and 1633, but more knowledgeable in the field of faith and reason:
Galileo emerges as a decisive figure, not simply in an historical conflict between science and religion, but also, and paradoxically, in the process towards greater mutual respect and understanding between the Church and science. For Galileo it was never a question of choosing between Copernican science and the Christian and Catholic faith; he remained, to the end of his life, deeply committed to both. Indeed, Galileo, particularly by his reflections on the interpretations of Holy Scripture, hoped to bring about reconciliation between faith and science. A man of unwavering faith in the truth of divine revelation, he also believed strongly in the unity of truth and was convinced that what was proved true by science could not conflict with the truth revealed in Holy Scripture correctly understood; and this, of course, is a profoundly Catholic position…

...If the theologians who advised the Inquisition and who opposed Galileo could have had the benefit of the Vatican II’s teaching, there might never have been a Galileo case. Indeed, if they could have had the benefit of Cardinal Newman’s thinking, there might never have been a Galileo case.
As we can see from Cardinal Daly's false conclusion, intelligence, while a great gift from God, can come with a very high price tag—especially when engaging in matters challenging traditional Catholic theology, metaphysics, and even dogma.

St Augustine affirmed that ‘If there were no pride, there would be no heresy.’ In 2015, an exorcist in Barcelona said that of all the sins preferred by Satan, pride was the greatest. We all want to be clever, and the more clever, the better.  Ironically, Galileo calls this ‘vainglory in one’s own reasoning.’ Being clever gives a man a personal and social satisfaction that is irresistible.

Cleverness can bring honor, glory, respect, advantage, reward, and fame to those who excel in any given field of knowledge. Francis Bacon understood this well when he said: ‘Knowledge is power.’ Thus, a consensus is compelling, contagious, and essential in order to succeed among one’s peers.

Yet, again, the temptations involved in being clever are enormous, as we can see in the case of Cardinal Daly. The great intellectual saints –St. Augustine, St. Aquinas, and St. Bellarmine—realized this, and they refused accolades and honors.  They preferred to embrace humility and accept authority instead of human reasoning. They knew that this was an area that Satan has not neglected. Studying the facts of geocentrism is not only a test of reasoning, but it is also a crucial test of Catholic faith.

Why was The Earthmovers written, taking all of twenty years to complete? In the main, it was written to retell the story of the Galileo case and its aftermath in the light of the fact that we know today geocentrism was not proven wrong and that it can never be falsified. Four hundred years of written and verbal history needs to be challenged, and truth must be the victor, not The Earthmovers. This book was written to vindicate and restore the traditional exegesis and hermeneutics of the Catholic Church and its Scriptures. It was written to defend the 1616 decrees. It was written to restore the good name and authority of the churchmen, popes, theologians and believers of the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries who upheld the geocentric interpretation of Scripture.

With a book such as this, we realize that there is probably something herein to offend or disturb many people—especially Catholics.  With this in mind, it is likely that only a few might welcome it. Nevertheless, for those who still have a love for Catholic truth and knowledge, let us give the truth, as others tried before.  Let us continue to try and demonstrate these facts, and the reader can take it or leave it.

# # #

Truly, I find that re-examining the basic tenants of our scientific foundations to be a fascinating exercise.  Considering the thought that the Earth is actually in the center of the known universe brings levity to a depressing year of political and social current events.  A colleague of mine recently told me about something that G.K. Chesterton once said:
The poet only desires exaltation and expansion, a world to stretch himself in. The poet only asks to get his head into the heavens. It is the logician who seeks to get the heavens into his head. And it is his head that splits.
What a great quotation.  Imagine if geocentrism were true.  Imagine that the Earth was actually the center of the physical universe.  What an undeniable proof that God truly has something wonderful in mind for the very people He created.  If geocentrism is true, then it can be said, for sure, that it is the evolutionists and heliocentrists who try to "work God into the narrative."  It is the archons of "magic science" who are trying to cram the heavens into their heads, so long as they don't crowd out their precious cult of "Science!"

But I digress.  I am not nearly as schooled on this topic as either Cassini or the people who brought us The Principle.  I'm just a blogger who likes to explore ideas.  And it seems that this summer, The Hirsch Files brand is going into CoasttoCoastAM territory.  Not to say that I intend to talk about UFOs, bigfoot, strange noises, or other such phenomenon.  No, this season, I'm more interested in cosmological and astronomical topics.

If Charles Coulombe can cheerfully delve into the haunted places of the world, the rationale for Catholic monarchy, or the history of rum, and yet still retain the respect and admiration of Catholics on all parts of the Left/Right spectrum--then why not yours truly?

Are Cassini's critics able to put away their dark glower for a while, and happily consider a lighthearted, more upbeat view of our place in the universe?  Or must we--without exception--continue to limp through our workweek with the idea in mind that we are ultimately nothing but pond scum and chimps on an unremarkable rock in a vast universe that shows us to be insignificant?

I asked Cassini in the comments of the last post:  How can accepting that the sun revolves around the Earth affect our daily lives?  His answer was that we can free ourselves from the 'magic' of scientism that now dominates human philosophy and ideology.  Our faith can be elevated to a higher level.

I get what Cassini is saying.  When I consider the possibility that Mankind has a special physical place in this amazing universe, like Chesterton describes, I feel exaltation as my mind reaches for the heavens.  It's an exciting thought that, for now, I am happy to entertain.

The Universe, according to St. Hildegard





Friday, June 10, 2016

Banned From SD, Cassini Has More To Say

Last month, I told you crazy kids about how the Echo Chamber decided it would be best for the community if Cassini were ostracized for daring to discuss geocentrism.  

Obviously, I think that Too-long-didn't-read Kaesekopf is overreacting as he always does, that he is a dictator who has no clue how to throw a party, and that he fears subjects he is too lazy to give any consideration.  His place is a laughing stock, and I pity those who carefully and fearfully tread on his eggshells.  

Cassini, however, shall not be silenced here, at my homebase.  I give him the floor.  Take it away, Cassini:

-----------------------


Sorry Cassini, you are banned from using this forum!
Promoting geocentrism, decreeing it as infallible/dogmatic. Permanent ban.
This ban is not set to expire.
 
This is the second so called ‘Catholic’ forum that has banned me for my defense of the 1616 papal decree of Pope Paul V that defined as formal heresy those who rejected the geocentric references of Scripture. The other forum was Catholic Answers.
 
Here above I am accused of ‘promoting geocentrism.’ Now that on its own would not bring on a ban, merely offer many of its members the opportunity to have a laugh at Cassini’s expense. 400 years of belief of earth-flying-around-the-sun "magic" has established it as an absolute fact. Indeed, such has been the propaganda from churchmen and scientists, that if any even tries to challenge this ‘fact’ they must be held as ‘retarded idiots.’
 
In fact, that is the last thing I really promote, for it is merely the subject matter of Pope Paul V’s decree. What I really promote is that the papal decree published by the Holy Office in 1616 was an ‘infallible’ decree thus making the subject matter of Heliocentrism heresy, and geocentrism Catholic dogma.
 
Now, who decides what is a dogma within Catholicism? Is it 300 years of heliocentric-believing theologians? Is it the majority of posters on a Catholic forum? Is it the Moderator of Catholic Answers or the moderator of Suscipe Domine? No, the Church decides, and it is popes who speak for the Church.
 
Now, Cassini has read in Finocchiaro's Retrying Galileo, something that was hidden in the secret archives until translated from Italian into English in the 1980s--that the 1616 decree against Galileo’s heliocentrism was judged as ‘irreversible’ that is infallible, 'certainly contrary to the Sacred Scriptures’ as the Holy Office of 1820 agreed. In other words, for the fourth time, popes in 1616, 1633, 1664 and 1820 agreed with the fact that the 1616 decree was ABSOLUTE, without error and binding.
 
But the moderator of two Catholic forums have banned me for upholding this Catholic dogma agreed by popes and never abrogated.

-----------------------

As I've said before, here at The Hirsch Files, you people will have your place to talk.  I will not censor you here.  If any of you folks get banned, shunned, or treated like crap, you come on over and state your case.  I assure you, your colleagues read this blog.  

Many times, different topics require "subtlety and finesse," as Michael Savage would put it.  Moreover, if you are going to succeed in good talk, you're going to take off your "emotion hat," and embrace some dialectic discussion.  Are there any readers who possess any kind of a quality resembling this?  Kudos to you, if you can.

Many folks get emotional over different topics, and they incapable of looking at any of the fine points.  If you lack nuance, and you don't even care to look up what "nuance" means, then stop reading this.  If you think you know everything, and all you are capable of is reacting with your emotional rhetoric, then stop reading this.  If thought-out discussion about real and observable phenomenon bores you to tears because you're a TL;DR tabloid reader, then stop reading this.  If you simply blow off the technical details of a conversation, and it all strikes you as drama, then check your Facebook feed.  If you lack the ability to shut up and simply read what the other man is saying to you, then return to your clique.

Here, floating in the void of the internet, floats my space station: The Hirsch Files.  And in this place, free thought is allowed and fakery is exposed.  In this matter, I share the same sentiment as Vox Day:
In case my position is not clear, let me state it outright: I reject the concept of credibility by association.
I am not a moderate, I am outlet-agnostic. No one owns me and no one dictates what I can and what I cannot say.
Here, beyond the walls of your typical internet community village, I will NOT be policed.  If a discussion forum moderator doesn't like intellectual discussion, and only blowhard rhetoric and rah-rah cheerleading, then count me out.  Ham-fisted, TL;DR, I-don't-care-what-you-have-to-say emotional speech dictatorship and zombified mob-mentality groupthink have no place here.  I don't have time to walk on eggshells or the patience to qualify everything I say to some nanny.  Intellect will NOT be shut off here.  Any leftover r-selected rabbits should go off and play in a meadow.

Seventh Rule: Fights will go on as long as they have to.

With that said, next post, we'll take a look at some of what Cassini is trying to tell us in a book he wrote, titled The Earthmovers.  Outer space, interplanetary exploration, and cosmology have always fascinated me, and I think it's high time that we crack open the topic of the latest geocentric movement.

Toodles.


Tuesday, June 7, 2016

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 teachings of the Catholic Church are sufficient for my salvation."

What a deaf ear! We are in a living Church, with a living Tradition!

To amble through your Christian life and pay no attention to the clear words of our Lord as they come down from Heaven--it strikes me as though such people only want to listen to the nice parts of the story. They only will hear what they want to hear, and nothing more.

Desmond A. Birch, in his book, Trial, Tribulation & Triumph: Before, During, and After Antichrist, explores the relevance of prophecy for our modern lives. More specifically, in Chapter Two, Birch goes to great lengths to explore the doubters, the nay-sayers, and those who just don't have the time for all that silly prophecy stuff. This voluminous work is so in-depth on the subject of prophecy, one walks away wondering if Birch left any stone unturned.

Doubters and skeptics of God-sent prophecy are quite numerous in the Church. It even seems as if most clergy disregard the mountain of prophecy that points to our time. Yet, prophecy is an ingrained part of our very religion. It is a central thread that cannot be removed from Christianity.

When it comes to these cynics, will they listen to the Bible? Consider St. Paul, who told the Corinthians:
"Aim at charity, yet strive after the spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophecy."
"He who prophesies speaks to men for edification and encouragement and consolation."
"Now I should like you all to speak in tongues but still more to prophesy. For he who prophecies is greater than he who speaks in tongues."
And to the Thessalonians, he said not to "extinguish the Spirit. Do not despise prophecies. But test all things; hold fast that which is good."

Desmond Birch demonstrates how the entire Judeo-Christian religion is rooted with prophecy.

For example, the Lord promised Abraham and Sarah that they would have descendants more numerous than the sands of the sea. That prophecy right there is where the entire Jewish faith began. Judaism began with God revealing Himself to a ninety nine-year old man and telling him his future.

When it came time for Christ to arrive on Earth, the details of His coming were spelled out. We were told His birthplace, the miracles he would do, his race, tribe, where his ministry would be held, and even the manner of his death. Everyone, including Pharisees and Roman authorities, knew of the prophetic coming of Jesus Christ. Otherwise, King Herod would not have committed the Slaughter of the Innocents.

Even after the events ot he Bible, prophecy was still trusted by the early Christians. In the winter of 68 AD, as the Christians of Jerusalem witnessed the Zealot Jews prepare for war with Rome, they fled the city. They remembered Christ telling them:
"But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies [by an earthenwork wall]; then know that its desolation has come near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains; and those who are inside the city depart; and let not those who are out in the country, enter into it."
Relying on prophecy, the Christians escaped to Pella, leaving the remaining Jews to be starved and slaughtered by Titus. This is all thanks to the prudent attention towards legitimate Christian prophecy.

Even today, when we wear the Brown or Green Scapular, the Miraculous Medal, devote ourselves to the Sacred Heart of Jesus or the Immaculate Heart of Mary--even when we are praying the Rosary--we are assenting to approved private revelations.

Again, Desmond A. Birch touches upon all of this and more.
Saint Thomas Aquinas states that prophecy divinely instructs us about what to do. Prophecy is there for our good, and prophecy exists for the direction of human acts. "Wherefore at all times men were divinely instructed about what they were to do, according as it was expedient for the spiritual welfare of the elect."
We live in a terrifying time, as the headlines will attest. However, the events are spelled out for us, thanks to prophets such as St. Francis of Assisi, Blessed Catherine Anne Emmerich, and Venerable Mother Mariana de Jesus Torres. In fact, the time we are living in is so perilous and so important, that there are countless approved prophecies for exactly this moment in the Church's history.

We are approaching the 100th anniversary of God's warning to Mankind in the Fatima warning. This is the eleventh hour. Yet, we have a Church hierarchy who scoffs at prophecy and neglects to follow the instructions sent to them directly from Heaven. This very spirit--this glib dismissal of prophecy--it is all contrary to how a Catholic should orient their faith.

St. Theresa of Avila is also put off by this uncharitable deafness towards prophecy. She, herself, was gifted with foretelling of the future. She remarked:
"Some individuals, seem to be frightened at the very mention of visions or revelations. I do not know why they think a soul being lead in this way by God is on a dangerous path, nor what is the source of this alarm."
Pope Benedict XIV (1740-1758) stated that we very well ought to be giving prophecy serious consideration. In the quotation below, emphasis is mine:
"In keeping with laws of prudence, one must give them the assent of human belief [assensus fidei humanae], in that such revelations are probably and piously credible. Consequently it is possible to refuse to accept such revelations and to turn from them, as long as one does so with proper modesty, for good reasons, and without the intention of setting himself up as superior.
"Though an assent of Catholic faith be not due to such revelations, they, however, deserve a human assent, according to the rules of prudence, by which they are probably, and piously credible, as the revelations of Blessed Hildegarde, St Bridget, and St Catherine of Sienna."
How prudent is it to merely throw out the entire lot of prophecy directed towards our time on this Earth? So many things that were foretold hundreds of years ago have already taken place just last century. And yet, we continue to have wilfully blind people all around us who appear to set themselves up as superior to those zany prophecy followers. (Those zany prophecy followers happen to largely be Catholic Traditionalists, might I add.)

Birch lays out the fact that, in today's Catholic Church, there is a clear, modernist, anti-prophecy school. It portrays believers of prophecy as ridiculous for thinking that "someone by the power of God could know the future." Such believers are either credulous or uneducated. For the anti-prophecy school of thought, "prophecy" is just some creative way to express current events.

Time and again, I have witnessed a pattern, both online and in daily life, that takes place when prophecy is brought up in conversation with other Catholics. Take, for example, arguing the legitimacy of the Messianic prophecies foretelling Christ. In this kind of an argument, Desmond Birch delineates this pattern very nicely. The deniers will either change the subject, argue that the prophecy could apply to anyone, argue that the prophecy was written after the fact, or argue that the prophecy was never fulfilled. The pattern is predictable.

This strange spirit of disbelief in prophecy tends to puff people up into trying to know God outside of Himself. These people put on airs, adopting a false intellectualism. Catholics are supposed to believe in the charism of prophecy of future events. Yet, a great amount of the laity have transformed themselves into extreme high critics who, filled with unbelief, attempt to "demythologize" theology.

Such disbelievers fail to accept the Divine Mysteries as mysteries, and their very mode of thought helps to destroy their basic belief in the Gospel's historicity. Many pastors who ignore prophecy and build themselves up to be greater than such silly folklorists as the prophets--such men have become responsible for a great loss of faith, confusion, even denial of Catholic faith.

Indeed, our pastors have very much muddled the understanding of the laity, as they have exchanged some of the very basic foundations of Catholicism--prophecy--for, what can almost be described as, informed denial. Priest minds are closed off to prophecy as early as the seminary, as Birch describes below:
"There are flaws in the premises and logic of the 'Contemporary Theological Movement' every step of the way. A large number of those calling themselves 'Catholic theologians' (whom you will encounter today on North American or Western European campuses) were to a significant degree intellectually formed in the flawed premises and conclusions of the extreme higher critics."
Thanks to this false intellectualism, the Church hierarchy is now responsible for some of the most questionable theology of our time. We live in a veritable age of "senseless questions and elaborate arguments," which, in and of itself, was also announced in prophecy. This very confusion, stemming from unbelief, was foretold multiple times in the past by humble saints.

The evidence is available to everyone now. And yet, there remain a vast amount of people who will not turn their ear for one moment towards prophecy--even if the 21st Century itself is being described in detail for us.

Such people will continue to parrot: "Belief in private revelation is not necessary for my salvation." And so, such people will continue to miss the forest from the trees when it comes to understanding our era's current crisis. However, prophecy is real. As Birch argues:
"The future Antichrist and Parousia are part and parcel of the Christian view of history. The Antichrist and the Parousia are as historically certain to a Christian as Christ's passion, death, and resurrection. Prophecy of future historic events is inseparable from Christianity."
Like it or not, there is a false church being built. There is diabolical confusion among the Christians, and we do have a Church of "cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against other bishops." As prophesied, clergy have become unfaithful, and innocence has been destroyed.

Those who ridicule and disparage this valuable foreknowledge given to us by Heaven itself will be caught unaware by rude surprises--that is, if they do not first despair in confusion as to how things came to be the way that they are.

As for those who continue to accept God's ongoing messages with the eager zeal of a father's loving children, their hearts will be prepared. Such people will be able to stand fast in their complete faith in God, and they will appear stronger and unwrecked amidst their peers on the other side of cataclysm.
"Be not afraid, I go before you always. Come, follow me, and I will give you rest."
-Jesus Christ

Wednesday, June 1, 2016

Millennial Music: Synthwave, The Alt-Right is a Big Tent, More Youtube Censorship


So, three topics.  Let's crack on.

Millenial Music: Synthwave

A discussion in other quarters has inspired me to post a little blurb about today's music.

Basically, it sucks.  The mainstream stuff, that is.

However, I can appreciate the frustration that Millennial musicians have with the previous generations.  You know, previous generations will ramble on and on about how their music was the greatest thing since sliced bread.  I mean, I enjoy the Beatles on occasion, but they're not the greatest band in the world.  Just the most overrated.

I've been stuck listening to Baby Boomer crap for my entire life.  I'm at the point that I hate it.  I despise hearing it at all.  It plays over and over, everywhere I go.  In shopping markets.  At work.  At baseball games.  Enough.

The Millenial music of today tends to be cynical towards the past, taking lessons from it, and re-vamping it to suit the new style.

It is probably for this reason that I've fallen into a preference for synthwave.

Unlike those optimistic songs of the past, this music tends to trend more towards cynicism, which I can appreciate because I'm cynical about everything now. Ladies would call me a pessimist, while guys would understand that I'm a realist. And the real truth is that this world is raw and unforgiving. For the moment, I've found synthwave seems to convey this feeling.

And I think that the perception of the youth of this present time is a perception of despair, frustration, and pent up rage. Cold realism. A loss of empathy, and an embrace for crude things. That is what I identify with. Not because I choose to, but simply because this is the era I'm born into, and this is how I'm shaped.

Lazerhawk's "Redline", Kavinsky's "Outrun", Power Glove's "So Bad," it all returns me to a moment in the 80s when we thought the future was screwed. No flying cars, no hoverboards, no humanistic space travel.  The future would instead be filled with terminators, roadwarriors, and zombies.  The musicians of this period do not look forward any longer.  They look back.  And when they look back, they stare in disdain.



The Alt-Right is a Big Tent

I read someone tonight claiming that Traditional Catholics are falling into a trap when they join the ranks of the Alt-Right.

There is no "joining" the Alt-Right.  It's a place where you end up.

The Alt-Right movement is a big tent right now. So far, even Traditional Catholic Monarchists can fit underneath this tent.

That's not to say that it'll always be this way.

But, since it is a big tent, that means that alt-Right people all have something in common, which I think is: the Left's nonsense. For that reason, I'm able to listen to Milo Yiannopoulos and "get him" on a few levels. I don't agree with him on everything, but I do on many things.

And, now that I think about it, I think that the reason the alt-Right has such an ENORMOUS tent is because the Left has pushed so many people so far to the brink for so long. Otherwise, this loose coalition wouldn't be necessary.


More YouTube Censorship

Seems YouTube decided to block Davis Aurini from posting a 30+ minute video review of the movie, Tombstone.



It's clear that the archons who run YouTube have blacklisted him.  Last year, Matt Drudge and Aurini noticed this trend, then Aurini became a victim to it this year, then our friend Ann Barnhardt had it happen to her this month, and now it's happening to Aurini AGAIN today.
About ten minutes ago I discovered that I no longer have the ability to upload YouTube videos longer than 15 minutes. This could be from the immediate copyright claim made against my review of 1993’sTombstone that I just uploaded (creepy how they manage to pull that off automatically), but there was no indication of that. The only notification I received was that the video itself was being pulled for review; I’m inclined to believe this was an additional punishment laid on my account some time in the past week, due to the false-flag and hacking attempt I dealt with back in March. At this point, I think it’s safe to say that I’ve got some enemies working at the information giant, and they’re going out of their way to No-Platform my YouTube channel, and undermine my SEO, on there and in regards to my blog.
The liberals have successfully created cheap, free platforms for the masses to use.  Now that they have everyone hooked, they'll do as they please and start censorship of speech and thought.

Consider this fact reported by Bloomberg this week:
U.S. Internet giants Facebook Inc., Twitter Inc., Google and Microsoft Corp. pledged to tackle online hate speech in less than 24 hours as part of a joint commitment with the European Union to combat the use of social media by terrorists.
Guess who the terrorists are?  Clue: not liberals, and probably not too many Muslims.

Non-left people will be the terrorists for the School of Zuckerberg.

Want more?  Here's another report, from the Associated Press:
The European Union reached an agreement Tuesday with some of the world's biggest social media firms, including Facebook and Twitter, on ways to combat the spread of hate speech online.
Under the terms of a code of conduct, the firms, which also include YouTube and Microsoft, have committed to "quickly and efficiently" tackle illegal hate speech directed against anyone over issues of race, color, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin.
People on the Right are going to be forced to leave the cheap, "free," most public zones that are available, and they will be forced to re-locate to more private, more costly, diverse platforms.  That is how this cultural battle is developing.  

Facebook is not your friend.