1 Sept: On the anniversary of a very creepy thing, two very creepy things happened

Sometimes coincidences are just coincidences. Sometimes they aren’t.

Yesterday, 1 September, on the anniversary of a very creepy thing, two very creepy things happened.

1- Francis gave a speech to the world’s bishops, more an more reduced to “branch managers” disguised as a speech to the Italian Association of Professors and Experts of Liturgy. HERE

2- Biden gave a speech to his base disguised as a speech to the nation. Transcript from Hell’s Bible (NYT) HERE Video from C-SPAN (D-SPIN?) HERE

Let’s have a look at some excerpts.


Progress in understanding and also in liturgical celebration must always be rooted in tradition, which always carries you forward in that sense that the Lord wants. [He knows!] There is a spirit that is not that of true tradition: the worldly spirit of “backwardsing[indietrismo… but wait for it….], fashionable today: [There it is.  “It’s a fad.”] thinking that going to the roots means going back. No, they are different things. If you go to the roots, the roots take you up, always. Like the tree, which grows from what comes from its roots. And tradition is really going to the roots, because it is the guarantee of the future, as Mahler said. Instead, backwardsing means going back two steps because “it has always been done like this” is better. [Weird word salad at this point.] It is a temptation in the life of the Church that leads you to a worldly restorationism, disguised as liturgy and theology, but it is worldly. And backwardsing is always worldliness: this is why the author of the Letter to the Hebrews says: “We are not people who go backwards”. No, you go on, according to the line that tradition gives you. To go back is to go against the truth and also against the Spirit. Make this distinction well. Because in the liturgy there are many who say they are “according to tradition”, but this is not the case: at most they will be traditionalists. [Get it?  But they are not Christians!  Nice.] Another said that tradition is the living faith of the dead, traditionalism is the dead faith of some living. They kill that contact with the roots by going back. Be careful: today the temptation is backwardsing disguised as tradition.

This is incoherent.  Think about this. It’s just a fad, he says.  We see this popping up in publications like Hell’s Bible. The writer opined that right now being a traditional Catholic is chic, fashionable, like being in a cool club. [Julia Yost of First ThingsThe Atlantic nut implied the same with bizzare smears and fearmongering.  It is becoming a talking point, almost like there is coordination.  Traditionalists are being painted as people to be feared, as dangerous people who kill the roots.

Also, if it just a fad, then why worry about it?  It will pass, if it is a fad.  So why all the terror rhetoric and name calling?

BTW… “indietrismo” is not an Italian word.  So, translating it is not easy.  “Backwardsing”, to my ear, sounds almost as stupid as “indietrismo”, so that’s my choice, at least today.

Also, about going backwards.  Apparently, if you go to the roots, that’s okay.  But if you go just two steps, that’s not okay.  It seems that desiring the Tridentine Mass, the Vetus Ordo, is going back only two steps.  Never mind that the Vetus Ordo substantially goes back the time of St. Gregory the Great (+604).  So, going to to the roots is… beyond that?  I am minded of Pius XII and Mediator Dei 62 and the errors of the Council of Pistoia.

He is working from a false premise, namely, that those who desire the Vetus Ordo desire it because “it has always been done this way”, that they don’t want any change because change is bad.  That is, by the way, a deeply Roman point of view reflected in the fact that in Latin the word for new “novus” generally carries a negative connotation.  For example, res novae which literally is “new things” is the term for “revolution”, which is always negative in the Roman mind.  That does not mean nihil innovetur sic et simpliciter.  It means as Benedict XV said and Pius XII repeated in Si diligis, “We wish this maxim of our elders held in reverence: Nihil innovetur nisi quod traditum est (Let nothing new be introduced but only what has been handed down); it must be held as an inviolable law in matters of faith, and should also control those points which allow of change, though in these latter for the most part the rule holds: Non nova sed noviter (Not new things but in a new way).”  The NOVUS Ordo (not my term) was not “handed down”, it was “cobbled up”.  It does not reflect the mandates of the Council Fathers in the document of the Council Sacrosanctum Concilium.  Those who desire traditional liturgy want it because they perceive it to be richer, more spiritually nourishing in many respects, more accessible and less of a distraction away from that which is sacred because of its stability.

But, what’s it going to be?   Are those who want tradition just involved in a passing fad or are they just clinging to old stuff because they can’t stand change?  Which is it going to be?

The entire paragraph is incoherent.  However, he has several times gone off like this on traditional Catholics, with the name calling and vilification, the insulting insinuations about their motives and even intelligence.  He has coined a neologism as a club with which his agents can beat their opposition.  And their opposition are one of the only healthy and growing and obviously practicing demographics in a demographically dying Church.  Watch for more of this even as more dictates come from Rome down to what are now more and more branch managers requiring them to snuff out resistance.



But first, we must be honest with each other and with ourselves.

Too much of what’s happening in our country today is not normal. Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our Republic.  [No no.  This isn’t fearmongering at all.]

Now, I want to be very clear, very clear up front. Not every Republican, not even the majority of Republicans, are MAGA Republicans. Not every Republican embraces their extreme ideology. I know, because I’ve been able to work with these mainstream Republicans.  [Read: RINOs.]

But there’s no question that the Republican Party today is dominated, driven and intimidated by Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans. And that is a threat to this country.


And here, in my view, is what is true: MAGA Republicans [This moniker, which we are going to hear all the time now, is not like the jovially contemptuous “Brandon”.  This is something else entirely.] do not respect the Constitution. They do not believe in the rule of law. They do not recognize the will of the people. They refuse to accept the results of a free election, and they’re working right now as I speak in state after state to give power to decide elections in America to partisans and cronies, empowering election deniers to undermine democracy itself.

MAGA forces are determined to take this country backwards, backwards to an America where there is no right to choose, no right to privacy, no right to contraception, no right to marry who you love. They promote authoritarian leaders, and they fanned the flames of political violence that are a threat to our personal rights, to the pursuit of justice, to the rule of law, to the very soul of this country.

They look at the mob that stormed the United States Capitol on Jan. 6, brutally attacking law enforcement, [WHO attacked law enforcement?!?] not as insurrectionists who placed a dagger at the throat of our democracy, but they look at them as patriots. And they see their MAGA failure to stop a peaceful transfer of power after the 2020 election as preparation for the 2022 and 2024 elections.  [This is serious “fear of other” rhetoric.]

They tried everything last time to nullify the votes of 81 million people. [living and dead!  real and fictitious!] This time, they’re determined to succeed in thwarting the will of the people. That’s why respected conservatives like Federal Circuit Court Judge Michael Luttig has called Trump and the extreme MAGA Republicans “a clear and present danger” to our democracy[Mind you, as he said these things, he was standing in front of Independence Hall in Philly which was illuminated as blood red and there were two Marines standing behind him.  Implication?  To hell with posse comitatus when it comes to these dangerous MAGA Republicans.]

But while the threat to American democracy is real, I want to say as clearly as we can, we are not powerless in the face of these threats. We are not bystanders in this ongoing attack on democracy. There are far more Americans, far more Americans from every background and belief, who reject the extreme MAGA ideology than those that accept it. And folks, it’s within our power, it’s in our hands, yours and mine, to stop the assault on American democracy.

I believe America is at an inflection point, one of those moments that determine the shape of everything that’s to come after. And now, America must choose to move forward or to move backwards, to build a future or obsess about the past, [“obsess about the past”] to be a nation of hope and unity and optimism or a nation of fear, division and of darkness.

MAGA Republicans have made their choice. They embrace anger. They thrive on chaos. They live, not in the light of truth but in the shadow of lies. But together, together, we can choose a different path. We can choose a better path forward to the future, a future of possibility, a future to build a dream and hope, and we’re on that path moving ahead. [And how is that going with his administration?]

I know this nation. I know you, the American people. I know your courage, I know your hearts, and I know our history. This is a nation that honors our Constitution. We do not reject it. This is a nation that believes in the rule of law. We do not repudiate it. This is a nation that respects free and fair elections. We honor the will of the people. We do not deny it. And this is a nation that rejects violence as a political tool. We do not encourage violence. We are still an America that believes in honesty and decency and respect for others. Patriotism, liberty, justice for all, hope, possibilities — we are still at our core a democracy.  [When he says they/we do not deny the rule of law or promote violence, it means that they are going to deny the rule of law and promote violence.]


The picture he has painted here, against the bloody background, is fearmongering fantasy.  The speech was labeled by C-SPAN as “remarks on democracy”.  Instead it could have been called “remarks on ‘the MAGA Republican’ question'”.  Two months out from the midterms, his numbers tanking, his handlers have created the talking points for distribution to the MSM and have crafted a snappy nickname for his opponents for constant vilification.  As I mentioned, this is not jovially contemptuous “Brandon”.  This is something else and it is aimed at – literally – millions of Americans.  Anyone who didn’t vote for him or who won’t vote for dems in the future are un-American.  They are threats to democracy, the rule of law, and to contraception.  Anyway, this means for the time being a constant rhetorical blitzkrieg in the MSM and securing victory in the midterms by whatever means necessary.  Make America MAGA-REIN.

I am reminded of the fact that on 1 September 1939 a speech was made to the Reichstag which effectively blamed every other nation for the need for a military build up to protect German interests.  They forced us to invade Poland!

As Ben Shapiro remarked about Biden’s speech, “It was better in the original German.”

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Francis, Our Catholic Identity, Pò sì jiù, SESSIUNCULA, The Coming Storm, The Drill, The future and our choices, What are they REALLY saying? and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. thomistking says:

    “We see this popping up in publications like Hell’s Bible where nutty religion writer opined that right now being a traditional Catholic is chic, fashionable, like being in a cool club.”

    I don’t think this is quite accurate. Julia Yost (who wrote the piece) is an editor for first things.

    It’s also ironic that someone is arguing against “backwardsism” in defense of the Novus Ordo, since it is itself the result of a false antiquarianism.

  2. Lurker 59 says:

    Translate “backwardsing” as ressourcement.

    It should be recalled that in the civil war between the aggiornamento and ressourcement wings of the Nouvelle théologie movement (which Ratzinger mistook to be limited to an academic discussion regulated to the journals Communione e Liberazione and Communio), the ressourcement wing is really and truly hated. It is not so much the neo-Thomists that they are after (TLM/Thomism/Scholasticism/ICKSP/FSSP/SSPX/etc) but the wojtyla/ratzinger/ressourcement wing that is being gone after. Neo-Thomism is in the cross-hairs because of how much it has “corrupted” the Ressourcement wing after Summorum Pontificum but it is only a stepping stone to go after what remains of Tradition in the NO and post VII Church.

    With Pope Francis’ speech, it seems to me that what he is talking about is not limited to neo-Thomistic Traditionalists but he is talking about those who are resourcement traditionalists – that is those who are interested in correcting Catholic liturgical, moral, spiritual, cultural practice according to the perennial teachings of the Church Fathers/Tradition/Scripture/Apostolic Liturgy — and abhor conforming practice to the zeitgeist.

  3. Greg Hlatky says:

    Biden’s speech sounded better in the original German.

  4. Biden, in front of that background, looked like he was addressing the nation from hell.

  5. TheCavalierHatherly says:

    @Lurker 59

    A fascinating bit of information I did not know, but after reading your description of the internal tension of the Nouvelle Theologie movement this distinction of different parties helps to actually makes sense of some things I was previously puzzled by.

    It does seem to me, however, that even the stricter of the neothomists were heavily involved in antiquarian research and liturgical restoration at an early date. St. Pius X, for example. The split occurs at a philosophical level, since the phenomenonoligists are inheriting their philosophical framework (I would strongly conjecture) from the French ecclesiastical revival of kantism in the mid 19th century, the neo-scholastics deriving impetus from the rejection of modern philosophy by Sanseverino and his subsequent followers in the same period.

    But Pope Francis and his comitas don’t strike me as philosophers. I do think that both, or any, type of traditionalist is rather indiscriminately under fire at this time. And while we think of liturgy as life, the fight as far as they can see is about liturgy as instrument. Simply put, the Vetus Ordo is an unfit instrument to accomplish the bringing about of their goals for the transformation of church and state.

  6. matt from az says:

    @Lurker 59 wrote:
    “It should be recalled that in the civil war between the aggiornamento and ressourcement wings of the Nouvelle théologie movement”

    This reminds me of the Bolsheviks vs Mensheviks.

    The analogue is probably too accurate for most people’s comfort.
    Francis is a Bolshevik, with all the death and destruction that implies.

  7. summorumpontificum777 says:

    It seems to me that the Holy Father is always coming at the liturgical issue from the point of view that it’s the most obvious thing in the world that Paul VI’s Novus Ordo reform has been an unparalleled success and a quantum-leap-level improvement over the Tridentine liturgy that preceded it. To him, the whole matter is apparently so obvious and axiomatic that it require essentially nothing in the way of a logical defense of the Novus Ordo or an explanation of its superiority. It’s tautological. The Novus Ordo is better because it’s the Novus Ordo. The Vetus Ordo is bad because it’s the Vetus Ordo. It’s amazing that Paul VI who allegedly got things so wrong in Humanae Vitae that it should be relitigated 54 years later while simultaneously got things so right with the Novus Ordo that you’d have to be mentally ill to even question it.

    [I am not sure Francis would say that Paul VI was “wrong” in Humanae vitae. He was right … then. However, this is now. It’s like his theological hero Walter Kasper suggested before the first (rigged family Synod (“walking together”). Christ was not “wrong” in His teaching about divorce. However, this is now. We have to seek reinterpretations for our time. That’s what is going on with using V2 as the lens through which everything in the past must be reinterpreted.]

  8. Maximillian says:

    “They look at the mob that stormed the United States Capitol on Jan. 6, brutally attacking law enforcement, [WHO attacked law enforcement?!?]”

    Who attacked law enforcement???? Those responsible for the deaths of the police officers!

  9. Cornelius says:

    As a retired US Marine I am particularly offended by Biden’s use of two Marines as stageprops for his blatantly partisan attacks on his political opponents.

  10. DvdH says:

    I was at our local NO Mass on Friday morning. The Gospel was about not putting new wine into old skins, so I don’t know what to make of the prayer at 9:45. The prayers of the faithful start at around 9:20.
    This priest, from Uganda, joined our parish recently.

  11. MissBee says:

    I was going about my daily duties yesterday, wondering when Francis would “pull a Biden” on traditional Catholics. On reading the above, it appears he is to an extent, taking advantage of the (I hate to say “ignorance”) of a couple of generations of poorly catechized Catholics.

  12. OldProfK says:

    I could be off base, but from the context the sense I take away from “backwardising” is revanchist. The sense I get from the “Triumph of the Pill” speech is revanchism coupled with ressentiment.

  13. The Masked Chicken says:

    To me, these are complicated issues because they result from an intermixing of politics, which is mostly prudential judgments, and religion, which is revealed or derived truth. They have become so blended together that the truth has become a mishmash of a little bit of this and a little bit of that.

    To take Pope Francis’s comments, first, does he not realize that, “going back to the roots,” known as Restorationism, is a Protestant invention so that they could ignore the traditions of Catholicism? The whole restorationist mentality flourished in countries that were heavily influenced by Protestantism, such as Germany and parts of France, and it was this mentality that lead to La Nouvelle Theologie notion of ressourcement, which co-opted Vatican II. The idea of going back to the roots can be useful, but only is the entire tree is rotten. Is that what Pope Francis is saying?

    Any arborist and any mathematician knows that if you have a diseased part of a tree or a mistake in a proof, you only cut off that branch or go back to the last correct step in the proof and go on from there. You never go back to the roots unless you are willing to say that the whole enterprise was wrong from the start. Is that what Pope Francis is suggesting, because that is what many steams of Protestantism have been saying about the Catholic Church for five hundred years.

    What traditionalists are saying is that the current stage of development of the liturgy leads to a contradiction between Faith and praxis and that it is reasonable to rewind the proof to the last correct entry and proceed from there – in other words, go back to something we know to be correct, the TLM, and re-work the proof from there – in other words, do what Vatican II actually asked for regarding the liturgy. Who is, after all, ignoring the Holy Spirit: those who want Vatican II to be properly implement or those who think it already has, despite massive evidence, within the documents themselves, that it has not been? The TLM is not the final word in the Mass. It can be improved. The Novus Ordo Mass is not that improvement wanted by the Council Fathers.

    As for Biden’s speech, that is a complicated issue. It was the Republican strategist, Paul Weyrich, in 1979, in an attempt to defeat Jimmy Carter, who combined politics and religion in a way not seen since 1860, by equating Republicanism with anti-abortionism, thereby conflating politics and religion. Many people have lost sight of the boundaries between the two. I am working on an article that explains why both political parties have been messed up by the improper equating of religion and politics as if both politics and religion contain equal measures of the truth. Without giving away the point of the article, it is important to remember that Christ asked for love of God and love of Neighbor. This two-fold commandment, improperly carried out by both political parties, has lead to the sort of polarization we are seeing, today. Biden is not completely wrong; Trump is not completely right. They both have their deficiencies. The problem is that they can only complain about the other side without being critical of their own positions. Apparently, soul-searching is not a habit encouraged among politicians.

    There is a lot more to say, but I fear I run the risk of starting a food fight, so I will stop.

    The Chicken

  14. Lurker 59 says:


    In regards to Humanae vitae, the document reads as if it is going to permit contraception but ends up not. How I was taught was that Card. Ottaviani modified the final draft and sort of “slipped it through”. Now if we recall with the liturgy, there are a lot of stories of Paul VI saying “How did this change happen?” with the reply being “You changed it.” So there is precedence for things getting slipped into Pope Paul VI’s official pronouncements and then him not fixing things. A divergence between intent, actuality, and not correcting the divergence.

    Thus the way the progressivists treat HV is the way traditionalists want to treat the Liturgy — getting back to the “original intent”. HV isn’t as much of an obstacle as traditionalists think it is (they are relying too much on a sort of papal positivism) because all one really has to do is to advance the arguments in HV that lead to the permission of contraception and then actually reach that conclusion. Call that development of doctrine not reinterpretation. Tie that off to the reordering of the ends of marriage that is in post VII/ wojtylian theology that elevates the unitive end while degrading the procreative end. Bring in some Pope Francis comments about rabbits. The task is much less Heraclean than people think it is.

    Then of course utilize a correctly concluded HV to allow homosexuality in a few years.

  15. ChiaraDiAssisi says:

    Jeremiah 6:16

  16. Lurker 59 says:


    Good points. Let me unpack what I know a bit more.

    What binds the Nouvelle Theologie is a rejection of scholasticism/neo-Thomism as the sole hermeneutical lens by which to interpret/implement doctrine/praxis. The neo-Thomist (the “Old Guard” at VII) wanted the Church to officially use the Thomistic/scholastic hermeneutic in the plumbing the depths of antiquarian research and liturgical restoration but also argue against the Nouvelle Theologie ahistorical thought and historicism that is in the Nouvelle Theologie presuppositions (especially progressivists/aggiornamento). On one hand, the neo-Thomists are correct about the flaws in the Nouvelle Theologie, on the other neo-Thomism had become dominant to the point of hegemony not allowing other hermeneutics to breathe. It is on the last point that will cause the Eastern Catholic Bishops to with the German-French-Latin American axis against the neo-Thomists at VII as they have always, and still do, bristled at Thomistim being foisted upon the Eastern Churches and the “Latinizations” that followed behind.

    “But Pope Francis and his comitas don’t strike me as philosophers.” — Pope Francis and his core group, yes. Philosophy as means to action/power, if anything – not at all about wisdom. Those that installed him, are philosophical but I cannot imagine that they are pleased by how politically ambitious he is.

    “Simply put, the Vetus Ordo is an unfit instrument to accomplish the bringing about of their goals for the transformation of church and state.” — More than that. I have to hammer that it is the NO not the VO that is the problem for them. In progressivist circles, the VO is something that is long dead and buried. To the extent that it is on their radar, it is there because of how it “infects” the NO traditionalists pulling them away from the frog boil of the NO. The absolute desire is to jettison the last vestiges of Tradition and Apostolicity from the NO and postVII theology so that the Springtime of the “Spirit of VII” can finally happen.

  17. Benedict Joseph says:

    The mirroring going on between the personalities in our Church and in left-wing secular society here in the United States is so perfect as to be disorienting. Frequently I must shake my head and remind myself that what is transpiring is not a fiction but a grotesque reality. Recently I made the analogy that it is as if we are observing a herd of adolescents raising hell while their mom and pop are off for a long weekend. My confessor acknowledged that I was not alone in that perception. Protracted adolescent comportment in the geriatric set is grounds for twenty-four hour observation, while those engaged in it regard themselves as astute, edgy and avant garde.
    Rather it is pathetic.

  18. AA Cunningham says:

    “Cornelius says:
    3 September 2022 at 5:29 AM

    As a retired US Marine I am particularly offended by Biden’s use of two Marines as stageprops for his blatantly partisan attacks on his political opponents.”

    The OIC at Eighth & I who gave the imprimatur – along with allowing the President’s Own to make the trip – for those two Marines to take part in that Charlie Foxtrot fiasco should be RIF’d.

  19. hilltop says:

    Lurker 59’s last paragraph nails it.
    The VO must go in order that it no longer presents the superior alternative that it is. This is not so the NO may be exalted, but so that it may be itself replaced with a yet a NEW mass.
    My fear is that latter mass is coming and that the looked-for springtime will prove a desolation…indeed, an abomination.

  20. josephaloisius says:

    My 16-year old son and I are just about to begin reading the Windswept House by Malachi Martin. What I’ve heard of it, it sounds prescient. I hate where things stand now in the Church. I feel like I am among those about whom it was said, “they long to be among the dead” or something of the sort. I long to be living during a time of truth. I have crossed over and come to believe that B16 remains Pope. He obviously thinks he’s papal in *some sense*, as if he can’t stop being so, therefore I can’t see how his resignation is valid if he believed it would only be in form and not in whole, leaving an indelible mark on him. It’s an uncomfortable place to be. But I mean, it has also become uncomfortably obvious that Bergoglio enjoys ZERO charsm. He is not protected by anything.

  21. Fulco One Eye says:

    The close parallel between our Pontiff and our national fuhrer is indeed disconcerting.

    As someone who lives in Wyoming I must add that we have been hearing the same balderdash for months, nearly word for word, from our recently un-elected representative, Mrs. Cheney and her pathetic father.

    Her loss by more than two to one would have been even wider if state regulations had prohibited last minute party switching. Those amounted to nearly one half of the votes she received.

    Alas, the electorate in the country as a whole is not as likely to recognize their sort of rhetoric as the bravo sierra that it is.

  22. Kathleen10 says:

    I have been pondering for nine years now how it could be a coincidence that in America, our nation and our church could deteriorate at the same exact moment in history. Seems too farfetched, it couldn’t even be a Hollywood script, it’s too corny. But here it is. And Fr. Z., both of them using the same talking point, backwardism, is very odd, but then, we’ve watched the entire globe suddenly spout the same exact words since Covid began. Every WEF leader belched “Build Back Better” at the same moment in time as well. No way it was coincidence. All from the same playbook, and nobody questioned them on it of course. It has long been observed that whatever buzzword makes the rounds, the media use it at the same moment in time, many of them in the same news cycle. Someone plans these things.
    We have run out of conspiracy theories, did you know that? They all came true, now there’s a shortage. So for these two monsters to emit the same talking point, gaslighting all and sundry? And on September 1st, which I did not know what the anniversary of a third human nightmare, that is interesting, but not an amazing coincidence. Scripture shows that dates and numbers have meaning in the divine plan. Satan is a copycat, not original, he no doubt uses dates as well, in his demonic plan.
    Francis is gaslighting Catholic dummies. I don’t know who is paying attention to him, but they would probably all fit in my little car. Who has had one moment of being impressed with his ability to discuss history or theology. His line of thinking is never interesting. He’s no Thomas Aquinas, to say the least. He can say whatever he wants about roots, trees, going backwards.
    Lord, maranatha, come soon.

  23. JonPatrick says:

    I suspect that Biden’s speech is the result of the success of the Trump wing of the GOP in recent primaries as well as looking ahead to 2024. With the economy in shambles, the only weapon left in the Democrat arsenal is to make it all about Trump. This will be aided by his upcoming indictment after the midterms are over so that the next 2 years can be spent with that as the primary subject for the MSM talking heads as it winds slowly through the judicial process (if in truth it can be called that). This speech painting Trump supporters as extremists also helps peel off any of those that voted for him in 2020 as the lesser of 2 evils and who may shy away from identifying with the MAGA hat wearing die hards.

  24. Gab says:

    All this animosity towards Traditional Catholics who only make up less than 1% of the Faithful. Why are they so terrified to the extent they want to get rid of any aspect of tradition?

  25. Grabski says:

    A very Argentinian way of thinking

    In 1945 Argentina was the world’s 5th largest economy. Just 30 years later, an economic and societal disaster.

    They had invented a convoluted “import substitution” model, where they spent huge sums to create expensive, technologically backward industries.

    They ran inflation to the tens of percent per month

    They invented the word “dis-development” for that process.

    Yet for decades, they thought they were on the right track.

    All the while, Buenos Aires the most personal therapists per capita in the world.

  26. JesusFreak84 says:

    September 1st is also the liturgical new year for many eastern Catholics, including Ukrainians and Russians…

  27. Pingback: MONDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit

  28. GregB says:

    The 2020 “Summer of Love” riots preceded Jan 6. The book is being thrown at the Jan 6 rioters. VP Kamala Harris was involved in arraigning bail for the 2020 “Summer of Love” rioters. The 2020 “Summer of Love” riots were far worse than the Jan. 6 riot. I don’t remember Biden having much to say about the 2020 “Summer of Love” riots.

  29. GregB says:

    The Masked Chicken:
    Many Catholic Social Teaching advocates appear to have a preferential option for governmental solutions. They also appear to act like the government is all powerful, all knowing, with limitless resources. The government, Caesar, as god. The abortion issue in particular makes one wonder how much incense are they willing to burn to Caesar.
    The Founding Fathers tried to decentralize power with a system of checks and balances to counteract the corrupting influence of the centralized concentration of power. When I look at the ruling class establishment elites their role model appears to be the CCP. What kind of voting rights do the citizens of the world have in the globalist world order? To me the Trump voters are reacting to the prospect of serfdom in the globalist world order. Only serfs are expected to take a knee.

Comments are closed.