About johnpfmcguire

Has not yet been declassified, unfortunately.

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”. Pure democracy is anarchy.

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:


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*:


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:


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:


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.

Faith vs knowledge


Whether you’re consciously religious or emotionally dependent on parents who are, deep down inside you the question lurks: do systematic beliefs have anything to do with reality?

Some may protest the question, saying that the Bible wouldn’t have lasted so long or be so popular if it weren’t true. Yet in certain times Gnosticism has been quite popular, and The Da Vinci Code and The Matrix are just the latest examples of how that popularity isn’t going anywhere.

Here are several reasons why it seems like systematic beliefs don’t have much to do with reality. They are as follows:

  1. If by reality you mean “physical reality”, faith usually deals primarily with non-physical reality.
  2. Particularly recently there is a false belief that the Constitution of the United States of America says something about a “separation of church and state”. Trickling down from this belief, and equally false, is the notion of a “separation of mind and senses”. Obviously a mind that mistrusts its senses (or rather dislikes what she thinks they’re telling her) seeks faith.
  3. Worship is essentially submission and self-sacrifice. Most religious and biblical people would say that the endpoint of the faith they teach is worship. Faith is to the mind what worship is to the body, namely an at least symbolic dying. (Even if you don’t bow or kneel, baptism itself clearly symbolizes drowning.)

Concerning the first point, Martin Luther pointed out that there is no justice in the world we see. Too often Christians get so lost in the idea of God as creator (Genesis) that we forget about God as helper of the oppressed (Exodus). But to Luther’s point, the idea of a higher form of justice (of which our black-robed rituals are mere shadows) is deeply intertwined with the idea of a spirit-world. This may be why Jesus refuses to deal with only one group of people: those who blaspheme against the Holy Spirit.

Concerning the second point, one of the philosophical foundations of monotheism is perception-reality dualism, which became more explicit in the double truth theory that started in Islam and spread to Christianity. This alone seems to have made it possible for both Galileo and the Vatican to exist and have relevance in the same society, namely because it had become psychologically fragmented. (Psyche is Greek for “mind” or “soul”.) Incidentally, whereas dualism is expressed in monotheism, non-dualism is expressed in monism, which is a trademark of Gnostic and Hindu thought.

Concerning the last point, it is worth noting that while “blind faith” may be seen as a mental self-immolation, it is also considered (particularly within Gnostic and esoteric circles) as a way to access power. Now you may question the sincerity of a belief that is held, as in chaos magick, for strategic ends. How can you have your eyes, so to speak, both opened and closed at once? (Does this image underlie the winking or third eye?) But by the same logic we can certainly question the sincerity of a belief that is held, in systematic faith, for heavenly aims.

Is there a creator of material things? Sure, but they are a very contingent and temporary expression of a deeper reality. Gnostics say this creator of matter, whom the Bible calls the Mighty One, was a child of Wisdom, conceived not in love but in loneliness. They seek reunion with Wisdom through the pursuit of ideals and the rejection of the faux-reality of flesh and matter.

I liken the major (empire-friendly) faiths to a billion people living one person’s dream. Call me a Gnostic, but I say find your dream, your song, your story. If nothing else, it’ll make you more fun at parties.

Patrick is an imperial trope

Once upon a time,

Patrick was raised by “Christian” Roman colonizers who made a living out of oppressing England. Karmically enough, and no doubt amid cries of joy of many an Englishman, the highborn brat was kidnapped by Irish Pagans who found him useful as a shepherd for a family that had only daughters. (He later spread the specious rumor that he’d been a “slave” of the rather disorganized Irish people.) Through years of actually having to do honest work, Patrick grew bitter against the Druidic/Brehonic system (forgetting, as privileged children often do, his own wicked parents’ obvious role in his kidnapping).

“Lie? Me? Never: the truth is far to much fun!”

In adulthood, apparently not having learned his lesson, Patrick found a way to retaliate against the insult to his family’s *snerk* honor and crush the Irish way of life, insinuating the Roman system by means of imposing Rome’s version of the trendy new “Gospel” kick on the Irish, being ordained bishop of Ireland under the Roman Empire’s authority. Patrick continued his pathological lying, spreading rumors that bolstered support for his new hocus-pocus, and many an Irishman and -woman were dazzled and hornswoggled as their native lifestyle was supplanted by a far more cynical one.

On the plus side, authentic Christianity came to Ireland not through Roman-rite bishops but through Egyptian-style abbots! That is why the Roman-law English have always flattered their rather impressive egos (and excused genocide) with the notion that the Irish never really embraced the Gospel, when in fact the Irish embraced the authentic Gospel of the Spirit and often had the strength thereof to reject the watered-down and violence-canonizing fraud of empire.

The end.

I love my awesome sponsors!

Catholiconomics 101

Distributist economics encourages small businesses and employee-owned businesses.

If your knowledge of Roman Catholicism comes from Monty Python, you might think they’re a prolife group that was started in the 1970s. In fact they’re a bit older than that, though like their nemeses the Freemasons probably not nearly as old or as unchanged as they claim. And in that time, particularly in the last 150-or-so years, they’ve come up with some rather compelling socioeconomic theories that (thank heaven) certainly give Karl Marx a run for his royalties.

Blogger’s rundown of human life on earth
IDENTITY is built upon
SOCIETY is built upon
ECONOMY is built upon
FOOD is built upon
LAND is the “real estate”
(Note: this applies to hunting-gathering as much as to farming.)


Most lifelong Catholics are at least nominally aware of the existence of such things as “common sense” or “Pope Leo XIII’s 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum“, and yet in simply searching through quotes of note (a dangerous hobby I’m learning), I found myself utterly speechless by how unapologetically the views of the bastions of twentieth-century Catholic orthodoxy in the economic arena CONDEMN the at times tinnitus-inducing views of those men and women who are most likely to have on that very day lit a votive candle to venerate said bastions. Here’s a quick timeline for your notes, FREE OF CHARGE:

  • 1891 – POPE LEO XIII makes an inseparable link between capital and labor:

“Capital cannot do without labor, nor labor without capital”

Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum, 1891

  • 1907 – Pope Saint Pius X refers to the temple peddlers whom Jesus violently drove out of the temple as “Philistines” (Palestinians?).
  • 1928 – G.K. CHESTERTON stresses capitalism’s striking similarity to socialism in theory:

“There is less difference than many suppose between the ideal Socialist system, in which the big businesses are run by the State, and the present Capitalist system, in which the State is run by the big businesses.”

G.K. Chesterton, Illustrated London News, 1928

  • 1951 FULTON SHEEN notes capitalism’s historical usefulness for inaugurating socialism:

“Those who think that capitalism and socialism are enemies should long ponder, how the capitalistic system of England (European Union) has without any revolution, become socialistic. Capitalism in the United States has ‘not yet’ become socialism, but the growing power of the State indicates that the transition is taking place slowly. It may be inquired when the transition of one to another takes place without revolution.”

Ven Abp Fulton Sheen, Toledo Blade, 1951

  • 1952 – FULTON SHEEN calls capitalism a sinful system:

“Both capitalism and socialism are opposite sins against property. Capitalism emphasizes private rights to property without any social responsibility to the common good; socialism emphasizes the social use of property, to the forgetfulness of personal rights. The true solution is one in which the rights to property are personal, but the responsibility is social. A man is free on the inside because he can call his soul his own; he is free on the outside because he can call his property his own.”

Ven Abp Fulton Sheen, Crisis in History, 1952

  • 1954 – DOROTHY DAY quotes L’Osservatore Romano denouncing capitalism being rotten to its very core, contrasted with communism:

“Capitalism seizes, confiscates, and dries up wealth, i.e. reduces the numbers of those who may enjoy riches, holds up distribution and defies Divine Providence who has given good things for the use of all men. Saint Thomas Aquinas says that man must not consider riches as his own property but as common good. This means that communism itself, as an economic system, apart from its philosophy – is not in contradiction with the nature of Christianity as is capitalism”. Furthermore, “Capitalism is intrinsically atheistic. Capitalism is godless, not by nature of a philosophy which it does not profess, but in practice (which is its only philosophy), by its insatiable greed and avarice, its mighty power, its dominion.”

Count de la Torre, L’Osservatore Romano, 1949 – Dorothy Day, The Catholic Worker, 1954

Now I personally would differ with de la Torre and Day in that Marx and Engels were professed materialists. This of course implies a denial of the spirit which more than covers the ultimate blasphemy against the Holy Spirit which Jesus calls the only unforgivable sin!

Friedrich Engels wrote in 1880 that:

“The materialist conception of history starts from the proposition that the production of the means to support human life and, next to production, the exchange of things produced, is the basis of all social structure; that in every society that has appeared in history, the manner in which wealth is distributed and society divided into classes or orders is dependent upon what is produced, how it is produced, and how the products are exchanged. From this point of view, the final causes of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought, not in men’s brains, not in men’s better insights into eternal truth and justice, but in changes in the modes of production and exchange.”

Engels, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, 1880

Subsidiarity is to governance what distributism is to economics.
Subsidiarity, within a hierarchical model, means resolving things at the lowest possible level.

With that having been said, the evils of capitalism (both inherent and manifest, upon which no one having read this can continue to credibly plead invincible ignorance) is a subject that American Catholics need to stop crossing the highway to avoid just because the capitalist system is helping them at the expense of the whole rest of the world. (Optional: HYPOCRITES!)

Restorative justice is the social habit for allowing for economic distributism and governmental subsidiarity, ultimately starving the forces of inequity and allowing for a fully grassroots and fractal paradigm.

 I love my awesome sponsors! 

Scientism, Religionism and Plain Reality

YouTube doesn’t allow “annotations” anymore, but see below for reference chart


  1. Whereas ‘dark’ matter is invisible to the human eye, black holes are actually ‘black’ to the human eye. I mistakenly said black holes were invisible.
  2. Obviously a cryptid stops being a cryptid once enough literate people observe it.


  1. I would liken the body to a car you drive. As with different drivers, different souls identify to varying degrees with their shells. If someone’s soul/mind is absent often due to trauma-induced demoralization, we say they’re a shell. I was nothing but a shell until recent years. They called it autism. Cannabis helped me come out of my shell. But ganja or no, I’ve just never known why I had to tow the empire line and pretend it wasn’t laughably convoluted and corrupt. I merely lacked the words to call out the culture codependency and conspiracy that had me logistically hemmed in for most of my life, and the evidence suggests they would have had me lobotomized or worse to silence my voice, perhaps not unlike what happened to JFK’s sister. Frankly, I’m trying to learn about permaculture and earthships so I can become fully food independent, preferably underground and fully undetectable.
  2. To strengthen the earlier point, the Upanishads call the soul “a flame the size of a thumb”, which of course recalls to mind the “pilot light”!

❤ I love my awesome sponsors! ❤