I was channel surfing a bit today, and came across a C-SPAN recording of Rod Dreher's acceptance of an award by some conservative group for best book of some kind. I thought I'd look in and see what Mr. Dreher would say about what he calls "The Benedict Option."
A while back I'd read a bit on it, and I reviewed some remarks about it, and of course I sat for a few minutes watching Dreher tell us precisely what this option is. Sure enough, it isn't much. All he does is overwhelm us with pithy declarations imploring us to behave more Christianly in a culture that reviles Christianism.
Sounds a lot like the Catholicist Nation.
The Catholicist Nation is the place where people can be very religious -- even very very Christianly religious -- yet still be light years away from what Jesus tells us about Himself and ourselves so we may have genuine spiritual contentment in any circumstance. Dreher merely bleats "Be like the Christians of old and do those wholesome former things and you'll be bold and brave and..." And yeah.
Be a Catholicist.
I know this because he said something very typical of Catholicist thinking in his address to the conservative club gathering shown there on the television. After that there wasn't much more for him to say because it was ultimately all pointless plap. The same stuff Catholicists have been blithering since Augustine.
It was something along these lines, but his words were pretty much, "Protestants, Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox must join together and..." you know, do all these splendid things he says we should do.
That's the dead giveaway -- and by dead I do mean dead. You can do a whole bunch of delightfully religious things but if you don't have Christ, you don't have life.
And Rome does not have Christ.
Please know that I don't have anything against Rome itself. Rome is the present manifestation of Cain's legacy to crack heads of sinners in need of salvation -- those who refuse to make Christ their atonement and righteousness. The Roman Catholic Church is the ecclesiastical manifestation of Caesar's duties under Cain's charge to prosecute with the most extreme prejudice evildoers who interminably draw themselves under his authoritative jurisdiction.
Dreher is just a smart-sounding stooge doing the work of Rome's militant units insisting that people continue to labor under the misapprehension that followers of Christ and souls lost in the grip of Roman religious, political, and commercial ritual are the same. I don't have anything against Dreher, I feel badly for him -- all he knows is what Cain's academia and media have pounded into his psyche completely outside God's presence: that anyone who appears to be Christian doing Christian things is a Christian and let's all get together and take care of business together -- perhaps even start a revolution, a Benedictine revolution! ::Woo-hoo::!
Please don't get me wrong, followers of Christ are asked to love those souls with as much passion as Christ did. But saying we're all just mild-mannered Christians who need to do more of this thing or that thing the Jesuits want us to do is just committing millions of celebrants of his book to a path that leads to Hell.
The real option is for people to see Rome for what it is, refrain from censuring it or challenging it or remonstrating against it, but rather come out of it and dwell richly and joyfully in the Kingdom. Understand and know Christ as He Himself says in the ninth chapter of Jeremiah's book, and from there you may proficiently minister to those captivated by Rome, or anyone for that matter, in order that they may have life.
Sunday, April 15, 2018
I was channel surfing a bit today, and came across a C-SPAN recording of Rod Dreher's acceptance of an award by some conservative group for best book of some kind. I thought I'd look in and see what Mr. Dreher would say about what he calls "The Benedict Option."
Friday, March 30, 2018
I've long felt that there is only one thing that has true intrinsic value.
He is God.
He is it -- in and of Himself, irrespective of anything else. The only intrinsically valued thing.
Everything else has instrumental value, that is, anything else has value in the perspective of the one doing the valuing. There is one qualified exception to that, however, and it is an important one.
It is that one thing that is instrumentally valued by God, and in a sense does have a certain amount of intrinsic value if we see that for what it is.
That other thing?
The human soul.
If we see the human soul the way God does, we can see it too has a measure of intrinsic value. From that we can value lots of things in lots of ways. We can value things the way we want to, but that leads to all kinds of evil. We can also value things the way God does, and that requires some measure of understanding of His will and purposes particularly when it comes to the way He loves us while at the same time giving us the freedom to make those kinds of value assessments.
I share this because the Bible confirms this, and it does so in a number of ways, but the way I want to elucidate right now is this. It is indeed quite appropriate in that this Sunday is Resurrection Day, since the biblical truth about your destiny is that you are indeed resurrected when you die.
Yes, it doesn't matter who you are or what you did, you will be resurrected. Good, bad, righteous, evil, doesn't matter. You will live forever. Remember, God made you to be an eternal being because of the value He placed in you.
The issue is, will you be resurrected into life, or will you be resurrected into judgment? Will you be in His embrace because you accepted Jesus' atoning sacrifice for your sins, or will you be given over to the consequence of your reprobation, the rest of eternity dwelling in a place God made specifically for you?
Yes, that place is Hell.
One thing that doesn't happen is that you "disappear."
This is somewhat of a big deal now that Pope Francis revealed in an interview that he believes unrepentant sinners will just disappear when they die. Though he didn't exactly say "There is no Hell," there is no other option. He's essentially saying it.
There has been some media attention regarding this statement, and the church is wrestling with the dissembling it must do to try to hold its grip on the faithful, but it is indeed what someone who is completely out of the presence of God and given a position of tremendous authority would say to try to get people to like them. The pope is a Jesuit -- they are experts at this kind of thing.
This idea is also just a corollary to the whole humanist atheist nihilist empiricist perspective that more and more people seem to be very comfortable adopting. There is no life after death, when you die you're done, you vanish, good thing the pope said there is no "Hell" because the whole thing is a superstitious fairy tale, so get over it and get with what us intelligent people know, sheez. Oh and what a great guy the pope is for being honest about things, way to go.
Frequently Heaven and Hell are not capitalized, probably because of some silly journalistic stylebook law. I capitalize them here, by the way, because they are real places. Live in Chicago or New Zealand? Real places. The Bible often itself makes reference to the Greek term, Hades, always capitalized.
What's with how people consider these places now?
First of all, see how the pope is drawing more people into Hell by getting them to appreciate him while drawing them away from Christ who warned about Hell like crazy. He's a great guy because he's insisting no one will ever be in such a place, ::whew::! On the face of it, however, dispensing with Hell also dispenses with morality and freedom. He confesses he's a nihilist after all. And one more thing, the idea of "annihilism" -- that bad people merely disappear when they die, they're annihilated -- has been heretically argued within sects of Christianity for centuries, almost always as a way to kind of soften the magnitude of God's perfect justice, so it doesn't hurt so much. It is nothing new.
Second, all I can think about is how much people are not as much drawn to the pope or any schnazzy guy like that as they are to David Hume.
Yeah, David Hume, the philosopher who said you can't know anything unless you see it or touch it. I mention him because this is exactly what so many brazenly declare.
"Hell! Ha! Where is it? I don't see it! Show me where it is. When I look up I see a sun and stars that are gas and fire, nothing else. When I look down I see ground and we know there is just molten rock underneath. There is no Hell, there is no Heaven, so stop it."
"So you are skeptical about the existence of those things, of Heaven and Hell?"
"Of course I am!"
"Are you sure about that?"
"I'm very sure!"
"Well I think then that I'm more of a skeptic than you are, because I'm skeptical of that. I'm skeptical of empiricism, that you can only know something because you can see it or touch it. No, there are things we can know for sure, and certainly some things to be skeptical about. The real question is, what are the evidences of things and what are the best explanations of things? There are hundreds of things we can know for sure without seeing or touching them -- one of which is the truth that David Hume's empiricism is hokum because empiricism itself is not something you can see or touch, thus making it self-defeating!"
The quite interesting thing about David Hume is that he developed his thinking from instruction he received from Jesuits. Look at his life, and look at how much he resided in the company of Jesuits and how influential they were in his life. I recently read an article -- from The Atlantic even! -- about how he was profoundly affected by Jesuit dabbling in Buddhism -- the religion of nihilism! Jesuits are experts at widely disseminating ideas like empiricism through their academic institutions and media channels.
So it comes full circle, really. A few hundred years ago the Jesuits taught a middling philosopher a way to rationalize the wholesale dismissal of God, that idea continues to weave its way prominently through a Catholicized populace exceedingly ill-equipped to challenge it, and the pope simply presents a bold confirmation about what they really believe about it.
It isn't just the pope. It is everywhere, from all stripes of grandly publicized poobahs who proudly spout these things only because all they know now is existence outside the presence of God. As Cain's minions that is all they understand.
It is fascinating -- as sorrowfully harrowing as it is -- that they can't get how much like Hell that is.
But hey, there's a place for them just the same -- always and forever.
Saturday, March 03, 2018
The Oscars will be broadcast this Sunday night, and it will indeed be yet another great display of the grandest virtue signaling around. Really beautiful insecure people will say really beautiful insecure things -- and it'd be one thing if they were merely beautiful and insecure.
It's a wholly other thing for their words and actions to accomplish the work of the militant religious order charged with the divine task of ruthlessly regulating the behavior of a reprobate population.
A street artist who has developed quite the reputation for calling out the hypocrisy of the Hollywood leftists has made his mark again, putting up three billboards in a nod to the odds-on favorite to win best picture, Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri. (I had my own take on the film in my last blog post.)
The one here in the photograph says quite a bit. Instead of being arrested, the accomplices will simply walk down the red carpet and beam over the virulent sycophancy, and after accepting their awards and then in whatever forum blasting Donald Trump in some vicious (but naturally quite righteous way of course), shuffle off to... shuffle off to what?
They are indeed objects of great pity because their god is their stomach, waiting to be filled with whatever ingestible item will kill their pain. Followers of Christ should respond to their sadly benighted existence by first fervently praying for them, then maybe if the opportunity arises ministering His word to them, and then just as importantly
Understanding how they're being used by the System.
Take a peek at F. Tupper Saussy's book Rulers of Evil, and check out the ninth chapter. It is titled "Securing Confidence," and it is about precisely what the title says: Rome establishing a beachhead in the hearts and minds of those not counseled by Scripture. Go ahead, while enjoying the awards ceremony on television pull up the chapter on your mobile device (here it is!) and read a bit when you aren't filling out your Oscar ballot. The chapter really isn't that long and could be covered during the commercial breaks.
You'll see that the entire Hollywood enterprise is truly a propaganda machine to promote sexual immorality (even in and around their boastful claims they have the strongest sexual rectitude) and a more robust fealty to Caesar and his so-very charitable programs to enable irresponsible people to keep being irresponsible (it's called freedom, dammit!)
All of this wouldn't be so energetically proficient if there weren't the networks involved. People must be encouraged and empowered by other people in a network of some kind to feel okay with pursuing a word or an act. If it is the System, it is the power and principalities in the spiritual realm who are doing the work of infusing devotees with the things to think and feel. If it is the Kingdom, it is Jesus Christ Himself who informs people. Ultimately it is one of those two networks.
In my latest home page piece I write a bit about Niall Ferguson's fine new treatise on this thing the network, but add some of my own take. I enthusiastically invite you to look it over, tell me what you think, let me know (my email address is on the home page). I want to get it right, merely so the reader would find the true overwhelming beauty and glory of the Kingdom.
Monday, February 19, 2018
Anyway, this was what I was privileged to behold. It is an advertisement, for the film Get Out, but it wrapped around the paper, covering up the actual front page news stories. Oh don't worry, those were just as racialistically oriented as the ad, but that the Times chose to feature this full four page movie ad to lead its Sunday issue says a lot.
In fact, I addressed this very principle in my latest home page piece. The Times is merely a large powerful megaphone for the World Operatives sworn to inject the most robustly virulent humanist dogma into the minds of those who refuse to follow The Word instead.
The message here is clear. It is not as much that Jordan Peele has found a poetic new way of talking about racism, but that he's spewed a viciously tired way of accusing all white people of a systemic racism that exists only in the minds of those captivated by the Society.
Don't get me wrong, I agree we're all racists, I understand that -- but so are Jordan Peele, the editors of the Times, and those who enable this ugly feature of the culture war to fester. We are not racists because we're white, we're racists because we're sinners, all of us guilty before a God who holds us accountable for far worse than racism.
Of course hard core racialists have a habit of going apoplectic over that kind of a statement. Racism is the absolute worst thing on the planet to many people.
I saw another horrifically racialist film last night, Three Billboards Outside of Ebbing, Missouri. (A few spoilers follow, just so you know.) It was packed with all kinds of the standard assumptions about how racist the police are and how inept they are and just how good it feels to haul off with tons of violence against it all, especially when it comes from such a viscerally compelling protagonist like a Frances McDormand character.
There was even a scene when the McDormand character rips a huge new asshole on a Catholic priest who visits her home to urge her to take down the messages on these billboards. Interesting her analogy: she likened the priest to a member of a gang, and that when the gang does something evil then the unwitting member of the gang is culpable because he's in the gang. She pulls no punches by even making a reference to the church's rampant sexual abuse scandal.
That's all fine and true and the rage is certainly understandable! The intriguing thing is that some reviewers found it much like a Flannery O'Conner story. O'Conner was a devout Catholic who wrote graphically about the worst in people then subtly showcased some mildly redeeming quality in them that made her stories so appealing.
Thing is the film has received rave reviews, except that I'd been reading it has fallen back a bit in the Oscar buzz. Huh. I wonder why? Apparently the reason is that it is not racialist enough. Please. The idea is that one of the main characters is a particularly uncouth police deputy (played by Sam Rockwell) with a terrible racist streak, yet as the movie comes to a close he seems to have "found" that "redemption." He essentially has a change of heart, starts being a bit more kind and understanding, and then helps the McDormand character chase down a rapist. End of movie. (Yeah, well, that whole thing deserves some attention, but not now.)
The critics getting the most airplay seem to feel that such a racist bastard should not be let off the hook so easily. Oh my. These racialists are just flat-out diabolical. I mean I may not quite understand this, so forgive me, but is the crime of racism just so reprehensible to them that should such a prominent film introduce even the smallest sense of mercy into the mix that it should be so widely dismissed?
The screenwriter is nominated for an Oscar and is also a lapsed Catholic. When I see that someone is a lapsed Catholic I generally think of someone who considers the Catholic Church bad for sexual abuse scandals and backwards patriarchal male-only-priests type things, then slips off into the humanist dogma and links up with progressively-minded organizations who promote those things. Certainly not all, I don't want to stereotype at all, but really, at least the most prominent ones do -- like moviemakers.
You can see it all over his film, though. The McDormand character is livid about just about anything that isn't in tune with the latest progressive agenda item. It is not overtly political, but it is not unclear. The humanist is the one who is really the one who is the most kind and sensitive and caring and bold and courageous to fight for this aggrieved group's rights and that aggrieved group's rights! Yeah how righteously wholesome!
So you've got wickedly sinful people trying to find redemption. Some go over with the humanists because they haven't a clue about the real redemption. They only know the Catholic Church and we all know how bad that is... so that Jesus thing? Not happening. If we want to get rapists, we'll have to hunt them down ourselves.
That's the message of this film, from a lapsed Catholic who only knows that he must have faith in a Caesar who has failed him and now flounders as best he can to find a better version of him. He hasn't the faintest notion of The Real Redemption because he's never been introduced to Him.
And the Society of Jesus, the guys with all the versions of Jesus they'd like you to embrace, they're perfectly happy with that. Their job is not as much to get you in the Catholic Church, but to keep you from Jesus. If being a Catholic gets you there, fine. If spitting on the Catholic Church gets you there, then that works too.
Either way as long as you are intractably in Caesar's grip, then it works for them, they've done their job.
Three Billboards is just another weapon in their arsenal.
Unless, of course you are a follower of Christ, you see it for what it is, your own faith in the real merciful life-gushing Christ flourishes, and you can better articulate what's happening here to the Flannery O'Conner types (there are so many -- the field is ripe for harvest!) so they may understand and know The True Rich Beautiful Redemption.
Tuesday, February 13, 2018
I've been seeing this person "Omarosa" appear in the news a lot. Who is this?
From what I gather she is someone who worked in the Donald Trump White House for some time, and her qualifications for this position were her appearances on Trump's reality show The Apprentice in one or more of its manifestations. A basic Google search result tells us she is a "television actor." I've never seen her or heard her speak a word, but she seems to be getting a lot of attention. I have no idea why.
I imagine it is because the mainstream news media consider her a prominent voice in the anti-Trump movement so they afford her gobs of airtime, even shoving cameras and microphones in her face to help her out: "Come on, give us more of the dirt on Trump and do it in your spectacularly endearing way!" Again, I really don't know much about her so I don't want to be presumptuous at all, but I did find out one other interesting thing.
She is a minister of some stripe. Reading some of her biography she'd done studies to be a better institutionally accepted Christian individual -- I guess that's why she did it, no harm in that. This is a key part of this post's subject.
The latest news whirl is that Omarosa proclaimed that a Mike Pence administration would be worse than a Trump one, so apparently her message is "Be careful what you wish for Trump haters!" The reason is, in her words, "[Pence] is extreme. I'm a Christian. I love Jesus, but he thinks Jesus tells him to say things. And I'm like, Jesus didn't say that. It's scary."
Now, first of all, if she follows Jesus as she claims, doesn't she expect that Jesus would want her to do and say the things He would want? Why is Mike Pence's version of Jesus any worse than hers?
But that's the main point.
Who's version of Jesus is the one that is true?
Don't get me wrong, as a Catholic Mike Pence's version of Jesus is well-suited to carry on the duties assigned him by Cain's legacy. Some things may be perfectly within the things he's expected to do based on Jesus' authorization of Pence to do Caesar's work. Or it could be Pence may have said things that distort the reality of who Jesus really is and what He is about. I understand that.
The problem is those specific things are never addressed. Furthermore if they are, the purveyors of the Hollywood extravaganza that is Cain's work will always spew the Catholicist version of Jesus, never the biblical one. Is Omarosa's the biblical one? It may be, but I don't think it is simply because the purveyors are too eager to broadcast it.
Indeed they are unlikely to say anything about what Omarosa thinks about Jesus unless it fits in with the narrative, or even what Mike Pence thinks unless it too fits in properly. This is so a widely Catholicized populace can continue to believe from merely what they reported about what Omarosa said that Jesus is actually whatever Caesar says he is.
Really, would you be able to discern whether Omarosa's version or Pence's version is the real Jesus? Do you spend time with Him every day, reading His words, prayerfully, corporately, intentionally dwelling in His courts with Him listening to Him understanding what He is saying, then loving those around you with His love?
Or are you one of any of those frightened cowering types of Christians? Or are you simply dismissive of this "Jesus" anyway and now scared to death of Trump and Pence and all of them to further rationalize your participation in "The Resistance," which by the way is precisely what Caesar wants you to do to destroy your soul?
May I introduce you to Him, and not just because of what I say or anyone says. Find out for yourself.
Wednesday, January 03, 2018
Starting off the new year here I saw on the Internet news about what's going on in Iran. Thousands of people are filling the streets to protest Iran's government. Already two dozen people have been killed in the violent demonstrations. I don't know the details of what precisely is happening, but I do know a bit about how Cain's Agency led by the Society of Jesus is the most instrumental force in shaping government policy in every nation and forming what every citizen of each nation thinks about their government.
Iran has always been some kind of theocracy, at its core ultimate leadership is held by the oldest wisest Shia Islam minister of some sort. The core purpose of government is to crack heads, and when the people feel it is cracking heads of the right people they are fine. Trouble is when World Operatives disrupt that process, and right now it is being upended, as it has any number of times in Iran's history.
The mainstream news organizations led by the New York Times refuse to cover it all sufficiently because they are given over to their still fervent adulation of Barack Obama, whose pathetic foreign policy was such a catastrophe that the seeds for this current revolution are now sprouting.
But then, that's Cain's objective.
Disruption. Destabilization. Desolation. Death on some scale enough to draw enough people's attention back to Caesar's rule.
I heard on the radio news about California's new recreational marijuana law taking effect. They covered it profusely, and every individual interviewed about it was a stoner elated that he or she could now buy pot. Not one interview was with a scientist who knows about the horrifically detrimental effects of the drug.
I'd even heard that a benefit of the law is that now real studies may be done to determine the effects of marijuana. I guess. The only thing is research has already demonstrated how destructive it is, it is just that is still rarely broadcast, and deep politics handlers will still generate a narrative that does the most to mess with people and their communities.
I wonder: why such extensive coverage except to behave as one big advertisement for one of the most hideous activities an individual can practice? Why are loud blaring news organizations giving it this much credibility?
I know why.
I saw on television a promo for a new TV show. "The Chi." I knew nothing about it before seeing the ad. I imagine the "Chi" is short for Chicago. But here's what I watched for about a minute.
Very brief shots edited together very deftly, all showing black people in states of desperation or violence or sensuality. It was all strung together so fast, you know, the Michael Bay effect, that I couldn't tell you one thing about its intellectual value. It was all just gut emotion.
But what was in my brain was people pointing guns at other people, people running, people looking very angry, and dancing women in meager outfits -- and I'm pretty sure every one of them was black. Now this may not be exactly what this program is about, I understand that, but the truth is what was in that ad is what I think it is about.
I did peek around on the web at what they say the show is about, and the idea is that it is about the South Side experience.
And the South Side experience is all about that -- whatever it was that was in that commercial that now resides in my psyche.
This is what we're supposed to think of black people. Oh don't worry, white people have already degraded themselves with their wretched programming, I agree.
But still, this is the picture the mainstream media powers want us to have.
It breaks my heart for black people, or any people for that matter. How much their souls are being poured into the mouth of a ravenous devil.
This last item is one I take a bit more time exploring, with my latest home page piece. Would like to invite you to look it over, see if I've shared something of value with you. Email me with your thoughts, would love to hear them.