Religion by another name

The world is complex, and when faced with complex things societies generally turn to ideology to foster group cohesion and so we don’t have to explore the complexity of reality, because that, we think, is no fun. It’s way more fun (read way more violent) to moralize and jargonize than to have to sit down and study the world (“science”)–or heaven forbid our own thought processes (“philosophy”). So, just as it is popular now to say that religion and magic were merely devised by lazy or ill-equipped minds to explain away the complexity of the physical world with a “God of the gaps” catch-all, so too does the “irreligious” left do the same exact thing they accuse their political opponents of, except the left directs its voodoo at dismissively generalizing social questions. Hence it is clear that what separates political parties is an intrapersonal fragmentation based on an arbitrary decision on which field of study to engage seriously and in which one to stifle all tenacious research, let alone critical thinking. (I’ve termed this phenomenon “strategic self-delusion”.) That is why even if you say that your political ideology, strategy or party represents what you “believe”, isn’t it true what they say that belief is just a fancy word for “ignorance”?

Politics, because it is about groups marching to drumbeats, is the opposite of thought (in any robust, independent or competent sense). So although most of these hyper-political com-rads are all about reducing complex social phenomena to agenda-serving dog-whistles (sometimes called doublespeak) dressed up in high intellectual jargon (even mass has a scientific meaning as well as a Marxian one) with lots of obscure French terms sprinkled on top, what this doesn’t mean is that you’re allowed to test their theories in reality, since they’ll quickly tell you that reality itself has been skewed by the (they’ll insist unnatural) forces of ownership (wait, aren’t most animals of prey territorial?) and capital (as they and they alone define it). And this closes the circle of that envy-based reasoning that is the professional agitator’s ticket to job security as the de facto pseudointellectual leaders of an endless (because circular) revolutionary struggle probably ultimately intended just to wear down the host-population for an easier takeover by their inner-circle Bolshevik Ashkenazic cabal. But dude, you should have known the moment they began interpreting the free market as somehow being an unnatural or cohesive “system”/“conspiracy” that they were projecting their own mentality onto reality, in short that you were being snowed!

When the communist claims to reduce society to a “field of science” while reducing science to a set of dogmas, he is actually undermining the legitimate sciences–what are known as the “hard sciences”–and advancing a method not for Cartesian meditative inquiry but rather for leveraging control of the mass landed populations for–and here’s the kicker–his own ethnic group’s profit.

It’s a truism most painful to say that there are atheists who aren’t scientific, atheists who are sordid, atheists who are total fucking weirdos, atheists who are only atheists because (they think) it absolves them of any accountability, but give that a moment to sink in. We’ve been pseudoeducated to consider atheism as a radical commitment to scientific rigor, and atheism (like its half-witted spawn communism) is quick to insist that it’s all about that and nothing else. So it’s the perfect crime when communist atheism undermines its own alleged foundation, namely the scientific method, which is shockingly easy to do when we’re all lumped into groupthinking “communities” in the city with no sense of how agriculture, let alone wild nature, even function. When a people have lost the strength of the hills and their only remaining instinct is anger, well of course they’re ideal livestock for these bad actors to steer into stampedes (“protests”) against those who stand in their way and those who’ve “wronged” them (probably by standing in their way, as the Romanovs did). The principle at work here is that a group that’s renounced hierarchy is only as smart as their stupidest member: ergo, as long as we’re only allowed to do anything as a group (manufactured “consensus”), the provisional revolutionary government need be accountable to no one! And in the case of its newest climate hysteria tactic, they have a word for pseudoscience: BUSINESS AS USUAL!

“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is not a scientific organization. It calls itself that, but it’s not. It’s a political advocacy group that dresses itself up as a scientific body, all the while defying the basic tenets of scientific inquiry by selectively accepting some experimental results and refusing to acknowledge a whole lot of others. It’s latched onto this theory about CO₂ emissions produced by man, and they’re saying that’s the culprit of everything that’s wrong with the planet”.

(The staunchly counter-revolutionary journalist Michael Voris.)

It is this blogger’s assertion that communism is merely a different form of capitalism that regards human beings as another natural resource and nothing more.

To further illustrate my point, or I should say to give legs to common sense, I’m going to present a brief glossary of politically charged words that have lost almost all of their original meaning, which I will revive alongside each word.

The Left. “Equality”. Whereas rightism means hierarchicalism, leftism means egalitarianism. (The French word for “left” is gouche.)

Liberalism. A liberal is someone who believes in individual liberties.

Communism. A communist is the opposite of a liberal. A communist believes in a unit known as a commune (see Yiddish kibbutz) and that only groups, and by no means individuals, have rights. See also socialism. (Most so-called “liberals” today [I call them neo-liberals for clarity*] seem to be in fact communists.)

Socialism. See communism. (Now wording aside, theoretically there is a difference: with socialism the state allegedly [“re”]distributes wealth more judiciously by rewarding contributions, whereas communism spreads out resources according to needs, independently of what they contribute to the state. It’s the difference between From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs VERSUS From each according to his abilities, to each according to his usefulness.)

Democracy. Rule by the commoners, proletariat, or simply “the people”.

Redistribution of wealth. This is a radical proposal because it assumes that wealth was once evenly distributed or that it can’t be created through ingenuity, both of which are clearly a stretch at best.

Oh hell, let’s launch this baby into space!

* I’ll make the contention that neoliberals, like neoconservatives, are Bolsheviks.

Crisis: intrigue vs natural causes

The seeds of communism have a pattern of finding their most fertile soil in clear central authority and earthly glory. As worms on an already dead corpse, so is Marxism on the rigidly (read mindlessly) hierarchical society. So it’s hardly surprising when Masonic-Marxist mores take root in say Russia or the Vatican, which let’s just face it are both halls of power, both claimants to the glories of Old Rome (remember Romanov means of the Roman!), and both arenas where dogma and canon have ossified in lieu of Christ’s seeking and Saint Paul’s testing all things.

By no means even one instant before the Anima Christi will have left the Corpus Christi may the beloved know decay. In the act of leasing out his soul, the churchman deprives Mother Church of her nominal purpose in his regard, which common sense tells us means he’ll have, as they say, no skin in the game. Try and guess with me how many of those who “serve” the Body of Christ are, even as we speak, on a spiritual trajectory on which the Church can never serve these alleged servants of the true Chosen People of God in the spiritual and eternal way in which it was meant to. Men without any meaningful sense of morals, faith, hope or even fear of the Lord for heaven’s sake who have no dog in the fight of the Church Militant: such men cannot long moisten the mask of seriousness before it starts cracking up, and you’ll just wind up with dust all over the sacred vessels, and that stuff’s hard to buff out (speaking from experience as an “altar attendant” as I believe they’re now called). Are priests seriously promising you heaven while their minds are squarely on this world and its pomps?

Anyone not entrenched within the clerical caste think tank, which by now is led by the nose by a gay mafia operating out of St-Gallen in Switzerland, knew that under these conditions something had to give up the ghost sooner or later. It was to be either reform or flamboyant faithlessness. The lay faithful have now no steady path before them save in visions, dreams and that socially unacceptable fuzziness of a personal encounter with the authentically aetherial.

If there were a way to save the neighborhood parish, for my money it’s this:

  • The Doctors of the Church must receive pride of place in all homiletics.
  • The Gospel can no longer be redacted either for time or for content.

The laity you want are leaving because they aren’t really getting Jesus, which means they aren’t getting God! Your pomps have proved their own undoing.

So start with these two points, and call me in the morning.

The Last Supper Code

Advisory. This post deals with a thing generally regarded as most sacred in the older mainline Christian traditions. Pope of Rome John Paul II, in his Catechism, called the Eucharist “the source and summit of the Christian life” (1324). This article is going to mercilessly dissect how Holy Communion operates on the psyches (that is, the souls) of believers. If the Mass, Liturgy or Communion Service is sacred to you and you would not suffer it to be analyzed, then please read no further.

At Mass this evening, I noticed for the first time something about the standard rubrics. While sitting silently beforehand, I found that the prayer of my heart came out as From deceitful people, deliver me! Perhaps because of this, later at consecration, I noticed that it began with the words:

ON THE NIGHT HE WAS BETRAYED

As I sort of zoomed in on these words, I started having some aha moments. My first thought was: What if that phrase is there to tell us where Jesus was at in that most revered moment, namely a little ticked at getting a very raw deal at the hands of a sell-out? What, in other words, if Jesus was feeling the heat and accordingly doing exactly what he taught with the words “turn the other cheek”? In short, what if Jesus was *gasp*:

VICTIM-SIGNALING

So yeah, at this point I’m wondering: What if the Last Supper is Jesus’s “passive-aggressive masterpiece”? And what if it was indeed? Has this Mystery not become a communal immune system booster, making members of the Body of Christ psychologically impervious to the dampening effects of various attacks (“persecutions”)? Perhaps what the Mass implies is:

BECAUSE JESUS ALREADY WEATHERED SOMETHING HE CLEARLY PERCEIVED AS THE ULTIMATE BETRAYAL, THEREFORE I WHO PARTAKE LITERALLY OF JESUS AM UNPERTURBED BY ANY COMERS.

Other Abrahamic adherents may call Christians “idolaters” and “cannibals”, but what if the true meaning of the Incarnation and the Last Supper was so we’d have some of the most sobering examples of self-denial imaginable?

So yeah, you would probably be within reason to term the mood of the Last Supper at least superficially one of passive-aggression, victim-signaling, turning the other cheek or going the extra mile. But what’s the aftertaste like? Could it be that the energy of the Lord’s Supper is a portal to a new and more robust expression of divine love, an internal revolution, namely:

CONSPICUOUS ACCEPTANCE OF ONE’S FATE AND PERHAPS SOMETHING AKIN TO THE SUBMISSION IN LOVE OF THE LATER RELIGIOUS FIGURE RUMI?

Is Jesus not saying See that I am betrayed and condemned without cause! with so bold a gesture that all considerations of “whether or not the person (in this case Jesus) is actually betrayed, condemned or even whether or not it really is without cause” are quickly sidelined and made secondary? The spotlight of the Gospel (even Mark’s!) is on the fact that Jesus owned and resolved his victimization, transforming it into a sacrament, the Blessed Sacrament!

Isn’t it just amazing what something that looks like the most “cheeky” approach to the most shite situation can accomplish and inspire? Well, that’s all I had to say about that.