Welcome Information Connoisseurs

Welcome Information Connoisseurs
Showing posts with label Rod Dreher. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rod Dreher. Show all posts

Monday, January 21, 2019

Those Catholic kids and the American Indian

Those Catholic kids and the American Indian

A textbook case of racial tension encouraged by the System

Divide-and-conquer is the preferred tactic of the Sanhedrin


By Michael Hoffman | www.RevisionistHistory.org

The latest media tempest-in-a-teapot concerns Catholic teenagers from Kentucky set upon by the media and made to star in the perpetual Hate-Whitey videodrome, wherein, whether it’s a Gillette shaving commercial, or kids waiting for a bus after a pro-life, anti-abortion march in our nation’s capitol, they are cast as KKK/Nazi bigots. Of all the crimes and travesties in our land today, this minor incident between Indians and Catholic school kids is the event that propels the liberal outrage machine. Forget the mass extermination of disabled Down syndrome children with abortion, forget the forced conversion of children in our public schools to disease-inducing anal “gay” sex, forget female impersonators dictating an Orwellian regime on college campuses wherein “he" must be referred to as “she," otherwise the truth-telling offender who terms the ersatz gal a guy, is demoted or fired from the faculty or administration.

 It’s a truism that the inmates are in charge of the asylum. They are well on their way to transforming all of us into insane persons in their corporate world of relentless revolutionary change. Thankfully, the scapegoated, stigmatized Catholic youths are fighting back and showing some backbone, as noted below. That such a pitch of media hysteria could be invoked over a white kid merely staring at a Native American is more than ridiculous. This hyper-sensitivity to the least perceived slight to the new aristocracy of color is a revelation of the degree to which our media masters yearn for, indeed ache for a KKK or neo-Nazi group to attack minorities while the news cameras record it. Shaming white people is Job #1. Instilling self-hate is a psychological warfare device, a type of mental genocide that is underway 24/7 in America. 

In the final analysis, let us not imagine that the Zionist ruling class actually cares about the welfare of non-whites. They are merely cannon-fodder on the road to a neo-Bolshevik America. The Israelis have butchered tens of thousands of native people of color in Palestine without any sustained exposure or protest from the U.S. media. The Orthodox Judaic religion teaches that black people are a divinely designated slave race (cf. the Midrash on Genesis in the Soncino edition), and sub-human (cf. Moses Maimonides, The Guide of the Perplexed, vol. 2, in the Shlomo Pines edition). These rabbinic dogmas have caused the black race untold suffering and misery throughout history. 

Meanwhile, the Cryptocracy has used the white race as its golem in Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq. 

The Cryptocracy manipulates people of color to serve as golem in the United States, disseminating a view of American history that portrays the majority of whites as whip-wielding tormentors of colored people in bondage, when the truth is that the vast majority of whites in early America were, as Congressman David Wilmot termed them, “the sons of toil.” Many arrived in this country in chattel bondage, not dainty “indentured servitude.” 

The clandestine objective of crowding whites into ever more narrow psychological categories of self-abnegation and erasure, is to inflame them into lashing out desperately with inchoate violence that can be exploited to further justify ever greater encroachment by the government on our immemoral rights, and the escalation of increasingly intense negative caricatures of conservative white people issuing from the salons of Hollywood and New York. 

The only ones who will emerge mostly unscathed from this contrived race war will be the same ones who emerged largely unscathed to rule in Vladimir Lenin’s Bolshevik Russia, a century ago. 

Whites, Blacks and Native Americans cannot be allowed to join together in opposition to the empire of usury which is choking life on this planet. Divide-and-conquer has always been the watchword of the Sanhedrin. Whites with their affinity for Neocon war-Zionism, and Blacks with their partiality for the Democratic party of sodomite supremacy, non-educating public schools and unlimited cheap labor from south of the border, remain unconscious, easily manipulated golem of the six-pointed System.
__________

In addition to the report below, we recommend Rod Dreher’s incisive analysis here: https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/the-covington-catholic-bonfire-at-the-stake/

The following is by Jonathon Van Maren of Lifesite News

CNN, followed by the rest of the media lynch mob, has reported that a bunch of MAGA-hat wearing kids from Covington Catholic School in Kentucky had swarmed an elderly Native American man at the Lincoln Memorial following the March for Life in Washington D.C., chanting slogans like “build the wall.” 
Social media promptly exploded, with commentators of every stripe condemning the kids for being jackasses (which, if the short video clip released by the media was the entire story, would be the case). A number of pro-lifers followed suit, ostensibly in order to shield the movement from criticism and ensure that the entire March for Life was not tarred by the incident.
Things got ugly quickly. Journalists and pundits began to release photos of the high school boys next to images of white racists mobbing black civil rights activists at lunch counters in the 1960s. Some even compared the boys to the fresh-faced thugs of the Hitler Youth. One writer at Slate.com noted somberly that the facial expression of Nick Sandmann, the now unfortunately famous young man facing off with indigenous activist Nathan Phillips, was familiar because we’d seen his type before: Young, cocksure, powerful – and evil. 
Nobody, apparently, considered the fact that the image was simply one freeze-frame shot of an uneasy and awkward teenage boy thrust into a situation he didn’t know how to deal with. The media and the rest of the progressive mob badly wanted this story to be true: A pack of racist young white Catholic school boys sporting Trump hats following an anti-abortion march mobbing a Native American man? It was just perfect.
Too perfect, as it predictably turned out. Reason was the first publication to release a detailed rebuttal of the narrative, noting that when the nearly two hours of video footage of the incident was viewed – something the media presumably should have done before setting out to destroy the lives of some high school boys – a notably different story emerged.
 Soon thereafter, Nick Sandmann released a statement begging people to hear he and his classmates out. Here it is in part:
I am providing this factual account of what happened on Friday afternoon at the Lincoln Memorial to correct misinformation and outright lies being spread about my family and me.
I am the student in the video who was confronted by the Native American protestor. I arrived at the Lincoln Memorial at 4:30 p.m. I was told to be there by 5:30 p.m., when our busses were due to leave Washington for the trip back to Kentucky. We had been attending the March for Life rally, and then had split up into small groups to do sightseeing.
When we arrived, we noticed four African-American protestors who were also on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. I am not sure what they were protesting, and I did not interact with them. I did hear them hurl direct derogatory insults at our school group.
The protestors said hateful things. They called us "racists," "bigots," "white crackers," "faggots," and "incest kids." They also taunted an African-American student from my school by telling him that we would "harvest his organs." I have no idea what that insult means, but it was startling to hear.
Because we were being loudly attacked and taunted in public, a student in our group asked one of our teacher-chaperones for permission to begin our school spirit chants to counter the hateful things that were being shouted at our group. The chants are commonly used at sporting events. They are all positive in nature and sound like what you would hear at any high school. Our chaperone gave us permission to use our school chants. We would not have done that without obtaining permission from the adults in charge of our group.
At no time did I hear any student chant anything other than the school spirit chants. I did not witness or hear any students chant "build that wall" or anything hateful or racist at any time. Assertions to the contrary are simply false. Our chants were loud because we wanted to drown out the hateful comments that were being shouted at us by the protestors.
After a few minutes of chanting, the Native American protestors, who I hadn't previously noticed, approached our group. The Native American protestors had drums and were accompanied by at least one person with a camera.
The protestor everyone has seen in the video began playing his drum as he waded into the crowd, which parted for him. I did not see anyone try to block his path. He locked eyes with me and approached me, coming within inches of my face. He played his drum the entire time he was in my face.
I never interacted with this protestor. I did not speak to him. I did not make any hand gestures or other aggressive moves. To be honest, I was startled and confused as to why he had approached me. We had already been yelled at by another group of protestors, and when the second group approached I was worried that a situation was getting out of control where adults were attempting to provoke teenagers.
I believed that by remaining motionless and calm, I was helping to diffuse the situation. I realized everyone had cameras and that perhaps a group of adults was trying to provoke a group of teenagers into a larger conflict. I said a silent prayer that the situation would not get out of hand.
During the period of the drumming, a member of the protestor's entourage began yelling at a fellow student that we "stole his land" and that we should "go back to Europe." I heard one of my fellow students begin to respond. I motioned to my classmate and tried to get him to stop engaging with the protestor, as I was still in the mindset that we needed to calm down tensions.
I never felt like I was blocking the Native American protestor. He did not make any attempt to go around me. It was clear to me that he had singled me out for a confrontation, although I am not sure why.
The engagement ended when one of our teachers told me the busses had arrived and it was time to go. I obeyed my teacher and simply walked to the busses. At that moment, I thought I had diffused the situation by remaining calm, and I was thankful nothing physical had occurred.
I never understood why either of the two groups of protestors were engaging with us, or exactly what they were protesting at the Lincoln Memorial. We were simply there to meet a bus, not become central players in a media spectacle. This is the first time in my life I've ever encountered any sort of public protest, let alone this kind of confrontation or demonstration.
I was not intentionally making faces at the protestor. I did smile at one point because I wanted him to know that I was not going to become angry, intimidated or be provoked into a larger confrontation. I am a faithful Christian and practicing Catholic, and I always try to live up to the ideals my faith teaches me – to remain respectful of others, and to take no action that would lead to conflict or violence.
I harbor no ill will for this person. I respect this person's right to protest and engage in free speech activities, and I support his chanting on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial any day of the week. I believe he should re-think his tactics of invading the personal space of others, but that is his choice to make.
I am being called every name in the book, including a racist, and I will not stand for this mob-like character assassination of my family's name. My parents were not on the trip, and I strive to represent my family in a respectful way in all public settings.
I have received physical and death threats via social media, as well as hateful insults. One person threatened to harm me at school, and one person claims to live in my neighborhood. My parents are receiving death and professional threats because of the social media mob that has formed over this issue. (End quote; emphasis supplied).
Many of the commentators who joined the initial pile-on have begun to retract their statements in view of the evidence. Jake Tapper of CNN tweeted out the rebuttal column by Reason, Scott Adams of Dilbertissued an unqualified apology to the boys and those who were misled by his initial condemnations, and conservatives and pro-lifers who had initially rushed to join those expressing outrage indicated their regret for doing so. A few media outlets such as NBC even released follow-up articles noting their initial mistake. Progressive indignation, however, continues to rage across social media. A few media figures, like Reza Aslan (who last made news for eating a piece of human brain in India), have been doubling down, insisting that it is crazy to believe that nuance might be necessary in a story where MAGA hats are present.
The boys and their families are already facing threats, vile name-calling, and doxing, which is apparently how some vile people show their disapproval of actions they consider unloving. Andrew Hodge, the brother of one of the boys, noted on Twitter that his family and relatives are facing nonstop threats of physical violence, and that nobody contacted his brother for the other side of the story before running with it—and some people are even attempting to contact the college Michael plans to attend in order to destroy his career plans of being a chef. There are many, many people out there right now who are trying to completely ruin the lives of a few high school students, and it is disgusting to watch.
It would be disgusting even if the original story had been true. Utterly wrecking the lives of high school kids because of a moment of indiscretion (and the MAGA hats on a school field trip were a questionable decision) is malicious, counter-productive, and shameful. Those joining social media mobs to supposedly combat evils such as racism are in fact acting in the service of hatred, which is revealed clearly by the fact that they seek only to destroy. The media, of course, gets their clicks and the viral videos and their virtue-signalling and then moves on. Even if the story turns out not to be true, it will have been very profitable for them nonetheless.
I hope we can all learn a lesson from this incident. The media, as usual, is willing to jump at the chance to smear those they have contempt for: Pro-lifers, conservatives, and Trump supporters. We should consider their biases and their track record before we instinctively believe their stories about people they despise, and before we join the social media pile-on. And the media, I hope, can take a long, hard look in the mirror and realize that real people paid real consequences for their irresponsible reporting this weekend. Kids got death threats. Families had their addresses posted online. High school students saw strangers try to destroy their future plans. And it isn’t over yet. That is what happens when the media gets a story wrong. There should be consequences….
__________

Monday, July 17, 2017

The Benedict Option

The Benedict Option

By Michael Hoffman
www.RevisionistHistory.org

Pope-follower Rod Dreher of The American Conservative magazine is the author of The Benedict Option, which lays out a commendable strategy for preserving Christendom against the barbarians by securing a redoubt in rural America and creating communities that will have a decent chance to survive and flourish, similar to those of St. Benedict of Norcia (480-547 A.D.).

Dreher is seconding a well-known alternative. It is not his original concept, as he freely admits. We may quibble with the particulars but the idea is sound and many are acting upon it. Where I reside, in northern Idaho, many hundreds of Conservatives (at least) relocate here every year, seeking freedom and fellowship with Christian people of like mind. So kudos to Dreher for popularizing and attempting to systematize the “Benedict Option.”


The Other “Benedict Option”

The problem is that Dreher himself, as a flawed personal guide to the Vatican labyrinth, is enamored of some very confused and naive thinking concerning another Benedict, the former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger who is now “emeritus Pope" Benedict XVI.

Could Mr. Dreher be so gullible as to be unaware of the Machiavellian and Hegelian feints, stratagems, double-talk and double mind issuing from the popes of Rome? It would seem so, based on his analysis of Pope Benedict’s recent, thinly veiled hints to the effect that his successor, Pope Francis, is making shipwreck of the Church. 

These signals were delivered by Archbishop Georg Ganswein, Benedict's surrogate, in a eulogy for a deceased “Conservative,” Cardinal Joachim Meisner, on July 15. Dreher and other “Conservative Catholic” pundits view Benedict’s eulogy for Meisner — who had questioned Francis— in which the erstwhile pope spoke of a catastrophe afflicting the Church, as a sign of resistance to Francis (See Dreher, “Pope Benedict’s SOS). 

Benedict’s surrogate stated, “...the boat has taken on so much water as to be on the verge of capsizing.

Mr. Dreher writes:

 Keep in mind that Catholics think of the Church as the 'barque of Peter' — a boat, captained by Peter. Benedict XVI is saying here that the Church appears to be going down, capitulating to the Zeitgeist. ...I had to re-read that statement from Benedict several times to quite believe it. This is a staggering remark, one whose power is amplified by the fact that it was delivered at the requiem mass for a cardinal who challenged Pope Francis directly. I cannot read it as other than Benedict’s judgment of the state of the Catholic Church under Francis. If you have a more plausible reading, let’s hear it. If I’m correct, contained within these few lines is Benedict’s counsel to the Catholic faithful who wish to resist this dictatorship of the Zeitgeist: you are not wrong; things really are as bad as they seem — but stand fast in the faith, and fear not."

The patent message is that there remains one “conservative” pontiff willing to buck the tide of a liberal pope, and rally troops on the Right against the Left. 

Why the need to send this message? It is important to the Cryptocracy to retain Conservatives' faith in the popes. The pay-pray-and-obey tradition on the Right must be kept open for the sake of the survival of the institution. The far-Leftist Francis is undermining the centuries-old Left-Right papist symbiosis. Into the void and in the nick of time steps the other "Benedict option," 90-year-old Pope Benedict to attempt to build Conservative morale sufficient to keep Right wing sheep in the wolf's fold. 

(His eulogy was vague enough to afford him plausible denial should the Left call him out on “undermining” Francis). 

If he truly were a tribune of Conservative Catholicism, however, why did Benedict abdicate in the first place, knowing full well there was a strong chance the papacy would be turned over to Bergoglio? Even more significant is the fact that Benedict XVI was himself a wrecker. The Cryptocracy has performed a wonderful act of prestidigitation in transforming Pope Benedict into a faithful watchman against revolution, when in truth he was a leader of it.

For example, Benedict is a pontiff who does not believe in the literal bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, as documented in this writer’s book, The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome (pp. 89-90).  Hence, he is not a Christian by any meaningful standard of measurement. Like many popes since the Renaissance he is also a Neoplatonic heretic (p. 90).

Followers of the Church of Rome may lull themselves to sleep concerning the grave transgressions of Pope Benedict XVI, though by doing so they are leaving the field wide open for Protestants who are not so myopic. Matthew Vogan, who writes with civility in his essay, “Does the Pope Believe in the Resurrection?” (Free Presbyterian Magazine, September, 2010; reprinted in my book [pp. 89-92]), compiled a devastating dossier on Benedict which true Catholic Conservatives should have written themselves, but were too busy blindly extolling Benedict's alleged orthodoxy.

In the Church of Rome since the sixteenth century, the thesis is always played against the antithesis, i.e. the Right is always a stage prop against the Left. The opposition of zealous Leftists to the pontificate of Benedict XVI did not render Benedict a true Catholic. Leftists are enraged that Benedict did not modify church edicts against contraception and women priests. But of what genuine significance is this particular “conservatism,” when a Neoplatonic-Hermetic revolution against the Gospel itselfthe radical overthrow of nearly 1500 years of Christian teaching on Judaismis implemented by Pope Benedict? 

The Left-wing oppositional thesis does not absolve Benedict XVI of his complicity in Paul VI’s 1965 Nostra Aetate, or John-Paul II’s “Shoah” business, or his own unconscionable synagogue visits where he behaved nothing like the apostles of the early Church or St. Vincent Ferrer. In the synagogues he colluded with the rabbis and thereby encouraged them in their resistance to the Gospel. 

Furthermore, when he was Cardinal Ratzinger, his "Pontifical Biblical Commission" documents promulgated by Pope John Paul II (such as The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible), offered support for the "misunderstood" ancient Pharisees, and amounted to a whitewash of these deadly enemies of Our Lord. Moreover, the future Pope Benedict recommended the blasphemous Talmud and Midrash (“Jewish exegesis”) to Catholics for a better understanding of the Scriptures (The Occult Renaissance, pp. 551-558).This is a Conservative? What this is, is a mockery. 

Benedict’s synthesis of the Leftist thesis and the Rightist antithesis culminated in his continuing perpetuation of the calamitous “Elder brothers in the faith” fraud, and Holocaustolatry. Both of these modernist innovations were as strong as ever under Benedict’s pontificate and thanks to his astute maneuvering, were taken up by “Roman Catholic conservatives and traditionalists.” 

Follow Michael Hoffman on Twitter (@HoffmanMichaelA)


Few people in the world bear more personal responsibility for the theological, moral, liturgical, and pastoral chaos in the Vatican II Sect than Joseph Ratzinger.

As theological advisor to Cardinal Josef Frings, Ratzinger participated in the shaping of some of the Vatican II documents to a significant degree. As an influential theology professor at various universities, and as an academic and author, he helped inculcate in his students’, colleagues’, and readers’ minds the “letter and spirit” of that infernal synod.

As “Archbishop” of Munich and Freising, Ratzinger implemented and applied Vatican II throughout his diocese. As Prefect of the so-called Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, he determined the official “magisterial” interpretation and application of the Second Vatican Council for over 23 years, in close collaboration with “Pope” John Paul II.

Novus Ordo milestones such as the 1983 Code of Canon Law, the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church, the 1993 Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism, the 1993 Balamand Declaration, the 1999 Lutheran-Catholic Accord on Justification, and the 2000 Dominus Iesus Declaration were all issued under Ratzinger’s watch.

And as “Pope” from 2005-13, well, he had the power to do whatever he pleased. He could have changed anything he liked, righted every wrong, retracted or corrected every error, excommunicated every heretic.

Instead, he had Hans Kung over for coffee, went to synagogues and mosques, paid his obeisance to the Jews at the Wailing Wall, continued the blasphemous Assisi prayer meetings introduced by John Paul II...and appointed (Leftist) “cardinals” like Donald Wuerl, Reinhard Marx, Rainer Woelki, Kurt Koch, Luis Tagle, Gianfranco Ravasi, and Francesco Coccopalmerio.

Is the Novus Ordo Sect capsizing? You bet it is! Though not despite Joseph Ratzinger, but in large part because of him.

It is an old trick: Lament the very problems you yourself are responsible for creating or aggravating! Governments love to use it. It evokes compassion and makes you look like a hero. It works every time it’s tried because people have a very short memory. And it is particularly easy to pull off when your complaint blackens your successor, when you yourself are no longer in the game and thus won’t be called to account anymore.

Don’t be taken in by Benedict’s crocodile tears. Back in 1985, a mere 20 years after the close of the council, he was making headlines claiming we needed to “rediscover the true Vatican II” (see Joseph Ratzinger and Vittorio Messori, The Ratzinger Report [Ignatius Press, 1985], pp. 29-31) and warned against “degrad[ing] the liturgy to the level of a parish tea party and the intelligibility of the popular newspaper” (p. 121). That was 32 years ago! That record has been playing ever since.

It was no different for John Paul II. As far back as 1980, he ostensibly bewailed “the varied and frequent abuses being reported from different parts of the Catholic world” concerning the liturgy (see Instruction Inaestimabile Donum, Foreword).

Over 20 years later, he was still “lamenting” the same thing: “In various parts of the Church abuses have occurred, leading to confusion with regard to sound faith and Catholic doctrine concerning this wonderful sacrament” (John Paul II, “Encyclical” Ecclesia De Eucharistia [2003], n. 10). 

The following year, he once again emphasized that “it is not possible to be silent about the abuses, even quite grave ones, against the nature of the Liturgy and the Sacraments” (Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum, n. 4) — all the while his own “papal” liturgies looked like this.

“Pope” Paul VI did the same thing when he “deplored” (boasted?) that “the smoke of Satan has entered the sanctuary” (Homily of June 29, 1972), yet he himself continued to fan the flames at every opportunity. This is not the mark of sincerity, it is the mark of hypocrisy.

Don’t fall for this latest episode of the same old charade. They’ve been doing it for decades.The latest trick is that they’re trying to make you believe there is an essential difference between the “good and orthodox” Benedict and the open Modernist Francis. The truth, however, is that both are selling you a pig — it’s just that Benedict’s has lipstick on it.