Who are the real Neo-Gnostics?

It often happens, at least to me, that when Pope Francis starts swinging pejorative labels around like so many clubs, it’s hard to know just whom he means to lather.

That said, when Pope Francis uttered the epithet about Self-Absorbed Promethean Neo-Pelagians, I knew right away that that meant catholic libs.

Some years later, he is talking again about “Pelagians” and about new “Gnostics”, though not in the ancient and technical sense of the terms.

At The Catholic Thing, Fr. Thomas G. Weinandy, OFM, Cap. – bane of libs – has set his pen to electronic page to scribe a comment about whom the Pope is really labeling.

The first part describes who Gnostics and what Gnosticism really was/is.  Let’s jump in medias res with some of my usual treatments:

[…]

They live and are saved not by “faith” but by “knowledge.”

Compared to ancient Gnosticism, what is now being proposed as neo-Gnosticism within contemporary Catholicism appears confused and ambiguous, as well as misdirected. Some Catholics are accused of neo-Gnosticism because they allegedly believe that they are saved because they adhere to inflexible and lifeless “doctrines” and strictly observe a rigid and merciless “moral code.”  [Libs in general do this.  They justify their aberrations by claiming to be “spirit-filled” or “prophetic” over and against those people who cling to their dogmas and their laws and the “institutional Church.  You know the type.] They claim to “know” the truth and, thus, demand that it must be held and, most importantly, obeyed.  These “neo-Gnostic Catholics” are supposedly not open to the fresh movement of the Spirit within the contemporary Church.  The latter is often referred to as “the new paradigm.”

Admittedly, we all know Catholics who act superior to others, who flaunt their fuller understanding of dogmatic or moral theology to accuse others of laxity.  There is nothing new about such righteous judgmentalism.  This sinful superiority, however, falls squarely under the category of pride and is not in itself a form of Gnosticism.

It would be right to call this neo-Gnosticism only if those so accused were proposing a “new salvific knowledge,” a new enlightenment that differs from Scripture as traditionally understood, and from what is authentically taught by the living magisterial tradition [And who might they be?]

Such a claim cannot be made against “doctrines” that, far from being lifeless and abstract truths, are the marvelous expressions of the central realities of Catholic faith – the Trinity, Incarnation, the Holy Spirit, the real substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Jesus’ law of love for God and neighbor reflected in the Ten Commandments, etc.  These “doctrines” define what the Church was, is, and always will be.  They are the doctrines that make her one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. [Doctrines and dogmas are not “lifeless”.]

Moreover, these doctrines and commandments are not some esoteric way of life that enslaves one to irrational and merciless laws, imposed from without by a tyrannical authority.  Rather, these very “commandments” were given by God, in his merciful love, to humankind in order to ensure a holy god-like life.  [Doctrine is not “esoteric”.  It is promulgated and explained.  However, there are those who claim to have insight into things which is superior to that of the Church, expressed in her laws and teachings.  They see new and amazing things about, say, 2+2 or the homosexuality, that no one has ever thought of before!]

[…]

Those who mistakenly accuse others of neo-Gnosticism propose – when confronted with the nitty-gritty of real-life doctrinal and moral issues – the need to seek out what God would have them do, personally. [What GOD would have them do!] People are encouraged to discern, on their own, the best course of action, given the moral dilemma they face in their own existential context – what they are capable of doing at this moment in time.  In this way, the individual’s own conscience, his or her personal communion with the divine, determines what the moral requirements are in the individual’s personal circumstances.  What Scripture teaches, what Jesus stated, what the Church conveys through her living magisterial tradition are superseded by a higher “knowledge,” an advanced “illumination.”  [Who’s the Gnostic now?]

If there is any new Gnostic paradigm in the Church today, it would seem to be found here.  To propose this new paradigm is to claim to be truly “in-the-know,” to have special access to what God is saying to us as individuals here and now even if it goes beyond and may even contradict what He has revealed to everyone else in Scripture and tradition.

At the very least, no one claiming this knowledge should ridicule as neo-Gnostics those who live merely by “faith” in God’s revelation as brought forward by the Church’s tradition.

[…]

Good work, Fr. Weinandy.

Posted in Liberals, The Drill | Tagged , ,
15 Comments

8 June: Our Lady, Seat of Wisdom

Today is, of course, the Feast of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus. It is also – as it is 8 June – the Feast Our Lady, Sedes Sapientiae… Seat of Wisdom.

Seat of Wisdom is an ancient title of the Blessed Mother. Christ is Incarnate Wisdom. She herself is, of all wise virgins, the wisest.

In sacred art you will find Mary protrayed as the Seat of Wisdom: she is seated upon a throne and her lap forms the throne or seat for her Son.

One of my favorite depictions of Sedes Sapientiae is in the Met in NYC: in limestone, polychrome and gilding, c. 1415-17, Poligny, Burgundy.

The inscription on the side from Ecclesiastes 24 reads: “Ab initio et ante saecula creata sum, et usque ad futurum saeculum non desinam: et in habitatione sancta coram ipso ministravi….From the beginning, and before the world, was I created, and unto the world to come I shall not cease to be, and in the holy dwelling place I have ministered before him.”

One of the things I like about this is the tender exchange here between Mary and Christ.  In this version He is not portrayed as a spiritualized homunculus.

Who is teaching Whom?

Another at the Met is French, 1157-1200 in wood and paint.

Mary’s large hands draw attention to her Son, who would be holding a book.  Christ is depicted as a small adult: the aforementioned homunculus.

In any event, there are many versions.  Sometimes, He will have a book and at other times, His hand or hands may be outstretched.   Another variation gives Him an orb, etc., and she will be the throne of His Majesty.

John Paul II concluded his Fides et ratio with a prayer to Mary, Seat of Wisdom, saying:

May Mary, Seat of Wisdom, be a sure haven for all who devote their lives to the search for wisdom. May their journey into wisdom, sure and final goal of all true knowing, be freed of every hindrance by the intercession of the one who, in giving birth to the Truth and treasuring it in her heart, has shared it forever with all the world.

 

Posted in Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Our Catholic Identity, Our Solitary Boast | Tagged
2 Comments

Abbey to become a Harry Potter theme park

Holy Catholic Church is indefectible.  Christ promised that He would be with us always and that the Church would prevail over all the attacks of Hell.

He didn’t promise that the Church would survive where you live.

Keep that mind as you consider your own vocation and your own participation in the life of the Church.

From the site of the SSPX:

A Cistercian Abbey in Quebec Transformed into a Harry Potter Theme Park

The abbey of Notre-Dame du Lac was a Trappist abbey near the Lake of Two Mountains in the Laurentides. Founded by French Trappists expelled from France by the Republican laws of 1880, it was once home to 177 monks who lived their lives at the pace of the Divine Office, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and manual labor.

But since that time, the abbey has been emptied, another victim to the crisis of vocations, the conciliar reforms of the liturgy, and the adaptation of religious life to the world. As a result, the huge building that once housed an agricultural school was sold in 2007 to be transformed into an educational, cultural, and tourist center. The last monk, Brother John, left the abbey on March 28, 2009.

The former abbey is now about to be turned into a Harry Potter theme park, based on the series of novels that tell of the adventures of the young sorcerer.

For the tidy sum of $80, visitors can “experience a full-scale immersion class in sorcery. People will really have the impression that they have entered into the universe of Hogwarts and Harry Potter,” announced the Journal de Montréal in its May 26, 2018 issue. The sinister inauguration is scheduled for August 4.

 

Posted in Pò sì jiù, Si vis pacem para bellum!, The Coming Storm, The future and our choices | Tagged
14 Comments

AUSTRALIA: Law change requires priests to break the #SealofConfession

Every once in a while, like the occasional blooming of the giant Amorphophallus titanum, or corpse flower, some government entity attempts to criminalize the practice of our Faith.

The latest rotting-flesh blossom occurred inCanberra, Australia.  On 7 June the Australian Capital Territory’s Legislative Assembly passed a bill which in effect would require priests to break the Seal of Confession and report abuse of children to law enforcement.

CRUX has a story HERE.  Canberra Times HERE.

Priests can’t and won’t break the Seal.

Priests can’t and won’t break the Seal.

Priests can’t and won’t break the Seal.

GO TO CONFESSION.

Posted in Be The Maquis, GO TO CONFESSION, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000 | Tagged
13 Comments

Esolen’s observations on boys and men and what women cannot give them

This last week I saw the new and well-done Masterpiece Theatre issue of the classic Little Women by Louisa May Alcott (US HERE – UK HERE).

I wonder if the short series wasn’t in part an inspiration to Anthony Esolen to pen his (latest) super essay at Public Discourse. Esolen wrote about making sure that boys can be proper boys so that they can become proper men: “What Mothers Cannot Give to Their Sons”

Some mothers might be objecting that they give “everything” to their sons. Well, maybe so.  And maybe not.  Nemo dat quod non habet, as they say, or to put it another way nemo dat quod non ‘got’… no one can give what she doesn’t have.

Our sexes are different, with differing needs and abilities to receive and to give.

Esolen points out what always was and today ought to still be obvious but has been obfuscated.  Biology matters.  That’s the starting point for his considerations.

In revving up his presentation, he draws from The Twilight Zone (perhaps an analogy for our times) to George Gilder’s Sexual Suicide (US HERE – UK HERE), to Saint Jose Maria de Escriva’s “Esto vir! Be a man!”, to Kipling’s Captains Courageous, and (here it is at the end) Little Women.

Samples:

[…]

The boy does not simply grow into manhood, for manhood is a cultural reality built on a biological foundation. Womanhood, by contrast, is a biological reality with cultural expression.

I must insist upon the distinction here. Saint Jose Maria de Escriva could understandably say to each of his male followers, Esto vir! Be a man, and we know what the exhortation implies. Even feminists know, and tremble. It implies that at any moment of a man’s life, his manhood is subject to trial, to be won, again and again, to be confirmed or to be canceled. A man can lose forever his right to stand beside other men. He can fall to being no man at all.

Be a man! An analogous command would strike a woman as otiose; a woman may call another woman a bad woman, but her womanhood itself is not in question, not in the public arena to be tested to see if it is real or counterfeit.

[…]

For the sake of boys and the families they must eventually lead, we must open our hearts and quit attempting to thrust upon them an unnatural and uninspiring commitment to sexual indifference. What they need, they need. Their needs are grounded in ages upon ages of human development, both physical and intellectual. They are attested to by every culture known to man, and by common observation. There is only one word for those who, for the sake of an ideology, whatever it may be, would consciously deny to either boys or girls what they need to be healthy members of their sex. That word is wicked.

So many ills in our society are born of this indifference.  And not indifference only: there has been for decades now a suicidal society-debilitating war on boys and men.

Just watch the differences in the treatment of men and women in entertainment, such as movies and TV.   Just watch the reduction of men to passivity and effeminacy and the rise of the nasty feminist on the back of the homosexualist activist.  Just watch the effect of fatherless homes.

Esolen’s piece is a good starting point for thinking about society as a whole.  More importantly and immediately, however, it is a tonic for our family homes and for our parishes… indeed our sanctuaries.

Fr. Z kudos.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, The Coming Storm, The future and our choices | Tagged , ,
28 Comments

ASK FATHER: I’m afraid that my mobile phone addiction will put me in Hell.

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

I’m appealing to you since you’re technologically adept and understand how easy it is to get attached to electronics.

When I got my first iPhone back in 2009, I wasn’t attached to it. I used to lose it because I never had it on me. Nine years later, here I am unable to put it down. I get sucked in to YouTube, Facebook videos, Googling random and useless things, or get sucked into playing Candy Crush for hours. I can’t even go to the washroom without it. Now I’m so attached/addicted to it that I can’t seem to put it down. I waste so much time every day that it’s starting to have a negative effect on my spiritual/prayer life and I’m scared I’ll wind up in Hell because of its deteriorating effect its causing, but I’m not scared enough that it’s sufficient to simply break my attachment/addiction by giving it up.

Do you have any practical advice in overcoming this?

First, consider that some people become addicted more easily than others.  Hence, they can substitute one addiction with another.  If you are like that, then you also need professional help.

You might try leaving your phone at home when you run errands, leaving it turned off for certain periods of the day.    Delete the apps that you are using too much.   Cutting an app out of your phone is easier than cutting an eye out of your head or chopping your texting hand off.

Some people live as if their phones were another limb.

In Matthew 5 the Lord Himself says, in the context of his instruction about marriage and adultery:

if thy right eye scandalize thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee. For it is expedient for thee that one of thy members should perish, rather than that thy whole body be cast into hell. And if thy right hand scandalize thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is expedient for thee that one of thy members should perish, rather than that thy whole body be cast into hell.

Next, as I have often written, saying “No” to yourself will result in suffering.  You have to be willing to stay up on this cross that you have been offered.

You have to have some other planned activities, too.  Reading is good!  Physical work can help.  Have a plan.

Of course, along with your own efforts on the human level, you should also ask the angels and saints for help.  I would say in particular your Guardian Angel.  I’ve been told by exorcists that demons are really good at working in and through electronics.

Also… GO TO CONFESSION.

Staying close to the sacraments is important for all of us, but especially those with serious, ongoing problems.

As with anything endeavor in life, we must begin with Mass and go back to Mass.  Bring your problem to the Lord at His altar.  Put your issues into that chalice as it is being prepared.   When you’ve had a good day, go back to thank the Lord in some time before the Blessed Sacrament.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ACTION ITEM! | Tagged
18 Comments

Italian Left in a melt-down

Andrea Grillo, giving the Church the finger from his blog.

Here’s something interesting from Italy.

The Italian Left is having a spittle-flecked nutty about the new coalition government that was formed… admittedly strange.  It’s Italy after all.    Beans is beside himself.

I also saw at the blog of Marco Tosatti and at Messa in Latino that tradition hating, finger-giving Mr. Cricket, Andrea Grillo, has melted down entirely.

The new Minister for the Family, Lorenzo Fontana, has expressed his view that children belong in families with a man and a woman.  He thinks life should be defended from conception to natural death.   And… get this… he participates in the Traditional Latin Mass!

Hence, Cricket’s melt-down.  Thus, Cricket:

“One of the conditions of the fascism of Fontana is Summorum Pontificum. Remember!…”

And also…

“The legitimization that Summorum Pontificum ensures for the political reactionary drift must be reported. Not only in Italy.”

I’m conflicted.

First, out of concern for him, I think someone should be sure he is taking his meds.

On the other hand, I am delighted that he is up on his hind legs like this.  His crazy blurbs do more to de-legitimize his crowd than many blog posts we could write in favor of Summorum Pontificum.

Of course, Summorum Pontificum was one of the greatest gifts to the whole Church that any modern Pope has bequeathed.

Posted in Blatteroons, Green Inkers, Liberals, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM | Tagged ,
15 Comments

Priest uses a Communion dispenser

So I conclude a brief pastoral nap and open my mail. BAMMO I’m instantly awake at the sight of

“Priest uses a Communion dispenser”

Clicking through I find….

What goes on inside the head of such a priest?

I wrote about this thing back in 2009. HERE

Posted in Liberals, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, You must be joking! | Tagged
55 Comments

ASK FATHER: “take” Communion instead of “receive”? Wherein Fr. Z rants.

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

In light of your recent question about “First Eucharist ” I was wondering about something else heard frequently. When referring to reception of the Blessed Sacrament some people say they are going to “take” Communion. When I first ran in to this I thought it was little kid misspeak, as the children would tell me how they are going to “take First Communion,” but then I noticed more and more people using the phrase. I was taught we “receive” Communion (kneeling, on the tongue) out of respect for Our Lord and Creator who is giving Himself to us in the most Blessed Sacrament. ”Take” seems like wildly inappropriate terminology conjuring up images of buffet Communion etc.

I’m guessing the origin of “take” is Matthew 26:26 “take and eat,” which seems like a misunderstanding of the passages and another attempt to undermine the Real Presence. Is my worry in this misplaced?

Yes, this is a problem.

No, I don’t think that most people who say “take” are up to something nefarious.

Most Catholics these days have dreadful language skills and can barely make distinctions anymore.  Furthermore, they have been poorly catechized and their catechesis may have included all manner of sloppy though and language.

Our Catholic language, common parlance, has been massively eroded over the decades.

The erosion has been caused by a plethora of forces, including declining quality of basic education in both secular and Catholic schools, the melting of the brain by constant exposure to what is artificial, etc.

This is across the board.

We are in serious trouble.

Libs have pretty much won, by taking over education (as Gramsci advocated).  Schools now churn out waves of – well- dummies, who haven’t been taught how to learn, how to think, how to speak, how to write.  They are the perfect golems for the libs overarching projects to tear down the pillars and bonds of society and remake something different, some lib utopia.   For example, is what was called “civics” taught any more?  Nope.  Hence, the young “skulls full of mush” get out of school and become the hapless prey of those who know and control the processes by which things get down.  And for their social and political thoughts… no, that’s too precise… notions, they line up like lemming on the pre-defined paths trodden in sit-coms and comedic rants.  Off to the cliffs they dash… dragging the rest of us along.

Am I wrong?

Back to “take”.

In my previous post, I wrote about how the meanings of words can drift and change over time.  Words acquire new meanings while loosing others.  It is a pretty much inexorable process in living, vernacular languages.  It is interesting to note that immigrant communities, separated from their motherland, will often preserve older accents and what come to be archaic usages when compared to how the language is shifting back in the motherland.  I have in mind, for example, some pockets of German speakers in Minnesota or Russians and Ukrainians in Canada.  The French speakers of Quebec have an accent that hearkens to France of the 18th c.  Creoles like Gullah are found all over.  But I digress.

Let’s think about “take”.   Look it up in a dictionary and you will find some 127 possible applications, including common idioms.  However, an archaic use of “take”, still perhaps used in some circles, is “eat”.  “Will you take something?” is “Will you eat something?”    Also, in British and American usage, “take” can mean “to receive”.

When we look at Matthew 26:26 (and Synoptics and Corinthians) we find that the verbs are “take” and “eat”.  In Greek, that “take” is from lambano: which in Biblical usage also has quite a few possible meanings, which include, as you might guess, “to receive”.  In some sense it means, “make something one’s own”.

That’s the fancy stuff.

However, in modern common parlance, “take” means something more like, “reach out and grasp something”, if you – ehem – take my meaning.  See how “receive… grasp… understand” can all fit into that “take”?  “Get it”?

Hearing certain language and seeing certain gestures go… ehem… hand in hand.

Gestures mean something too.  If for decades people have heard “take take take” and seen their fellows stick their hands out in a taking manner (even though they are receiving) their understanding of what is being “taken” is going to shift.  Who knows what most Catholics “grasp” of the Eucharist?

I’m not sanguine.  Most Catholics today are, I think, unwitting immanentists.  If pressed, they would admit of the transcendent dimension of worship – if it were explained to them.  But they would never think of it on their own.  That’s what our “worship” and preaching and teaching has produced, in tandem with the prevailing pressures of the world, the flesh and the Devil.

Going on…

Gestures and words have meanings that change because they are signs of something.  That is going to apply to the Blessed Sacrament as well: the words we use and the gestures we apply in regard to the Eucharist will affect what people believe.   Lex orandi – Lex Credendi.  The way we pray and the liturgical gestures we make have a reciprocal relationship with what we believe.

If we believe a certain thing about the Eucharist, we will pray and treat It in a certain way.  If our prayers change, our handling of the Eucharist will modify.  Vice versa.

Of course libs want to change our terms and our gestures!

We should insist on clear terms and clear gestures.

We should insist on “receive” and “reception” of Communion.

We should promote the recovery of reception of Holy Communion directly on the tongue while kneeling.

We should move to ad orientem worship.

We need more Latin, which has more precision that can be explained.

We need more traditional devotional prayers of yore, which are rich in meaningful vocabulary and concepts.

All our gestures and words during Holy Mass have their transformative meanings.  The whole package is our heritage and patrimony, which includes the story – like the family history – of who we are as Catholics, our Catholic identity.

We must reclaim and renew are Catholic identity.

 

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Hard-Identity Catholicism, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Our Catholic Identity, Pò sì jiù, The future and our choices, Wherein Fr. Z Rants | Tagged , , ,
13 Comments

How the Left wins.

One thing’s for sure: conservatives and traditionalists are lousy at organizing and fighting back in the public square. In fact, too many times they turn on each other, which makes the Enemy cheer us on.

The Left is good at setting aside small differences for the sake of a larger goal – which usually has to do with destroying something good, true and beautiful. They even can work with enemies, as in the case of the inexplicable alliance the Left seems to have with radical Islam (cf. Andrew McCarthy’s book US HERE – UK HERE).

One of the things one learns from a) coming from a state where a caucus system is in place, or b) working within an organization that follows rules of order, is that c) to govern you have to show up and that d) to take control you have to use – or change – the rules.

I read a piece at PJ Media by J. Christian Adams which was disturbing, because it is dead on target.   This concerns mostly secular politics, but try to imagine this dynamic with the Church, universal and local.

The Left Transforms America [the Church] by Transforming the Rules

Others have used the term “post-constitutional” to describe the current era in which we live.  Most of us remember a time not long ago when the Constitution and the Rule of Law weren’t under open attack by so many institutions.

What do I mean by post-constitutional? There are couple of characteristics.

Law is used by those in power – often bureaucrats – to advance their ideological views through their power.  Law is no longer a fixed, largely agreed upon principle.  Instead it is becoming something elastic, subjective, defined by the latest best argument cooked up at Harvard Law School or Yale.

In the good old days, law was the great leveler.  We could all agree on the basics.  Everybody essentially agreed that election law, my field, was designed to ensure the integrity of the process.  [Think of A Man For All Seasons and More’s speech to Roper about law and the Devil.]

If we learned that large number of noncitizens, aliens, for example, were registering to vote – something I’ll discuss shortly – then all sides, Democrat, independent and Republican, would look for fixes.  Nobody would cook up excuses to defend the practice, excuse the practice or preserve alien voting.  It would be confronted and fixed.

But now, law professors and the academy view law as a means to keep and enhance power.

Law schools and law professors sometimes seem busier dismantling the Constitution because of their dislike of it and the people who wrote it, than they are teaching what it actually says.  After all, why teach what it actually says when you aim to replace it?

Do I overstate the case? Is this fanciful? Is it a conspiratorial fantasy that enemies of the Constitution are seeking to replace it and Machiavellian bureaucrats and lawyers manipulate the law to achieve partisan ends?

In 2010 when I left the Justice Department, I thought such a claim might have been hard to swallow.  But the perpetrators of these views have obliged us by being very explicit in the last few years.

Enemies of the Constitution are now hiding in plain sight.  Let me briefly note two examples (there are many, many others).

Who can forget the editorial by Georgetown Law Professor Louis Seidman in the New York Times called “Let’s Give Up on the Constitution.”  After all, as he put it, “a group of white propertied men who have been dead for two centuries and knew nothing of our present situation and thought it was ok to own slaves disagreed” with what progressives want to do.  This is in the New York Times by a Georgetown Law professor.

Then, getting closer to my area of expertise – election law – there was a law review article in the Stanford Law and Policy Review by an election law professor — University of Michigan’s Ellen D. Katz — “Democrats at DOJ: Why Partisan Use of the Voting Rights Act Might Not Be So Bad After All.”

When I say they hide in plain sight, these are the things I mean.  There are many more examples of outright hostility to the Constitution becoming mainstream.

These are threats to our Constitutional order against which, I will submit, our old means of defense are largely ineffective.

We have entered a new battlespace between left and right.  No longer do we have gentle disagreements about public policy.  Instead, the Left has sought to criminalize many disagreements, has weaponized the law to attack their foes – both personally and substantively – and is pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into a multi-front war to transform the remaining institutions that they have not already transformed.  They seek to silence their opposition [This is what writers such as Michael Sean Winters of the Fishwrap doe.  Like a member of the New catholic Red Guard, he points and jumps up and down and blows a whistle when he imagines that someone has transgressed against the content of his prized Little Red Book.  Thus, he tries to aim those with power at his targets.  This is what he did to Prof. Chad Pecknold the other day.  This was his tactic in a green-inked hit against Catholic University of America just as the board of CUA was about to meet.]

I am afraid that the scholarly voice is no longer an effective rebuttal – and hence I believe you can explain one reason why President Trump was elected.  The American public, who believe in the Constitution, who believe in the Rule of Law, saw it under attack from so many places.

Let me turn to a few examples where this is happening in my own field of expertise: election law.

The transformative Left understands that process drives policy.

[NB – He gets into all important PROCESS.]Process means the rules, the boring things, if you will.  Conservatives are focused on ideas, policies, reasoned debate.  Naturally so, as they care about the issues. Whereas the left is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to destroy your policies through the transformation of process.

What are example of process issues in election law?

I mean the rules that govern elections.  The rules that govern speech.  Control over the institutions.

[…]

Read the rest there.

Process… process… process.

Keep bashing away and wearing down your opponent through insistence on process.  (“Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” … “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”)   Endless court cases… endless accusations and filings and complaints and indictments….  Fight every law, decision, election, finding and drive it back into the courts.  Keep asserting the same referenda over and over and over, until they drive through.

On a positive note: perhaps traditionalists could make use of this dedication in a parish by being always the ones to show up for parish events, being the first to volunteer for something to be handled, making themselves indispensable to the pastor, the choir director, the religious ed coordinator.  Show up and transform.

Yeah… that‘s gonna happen.   Too often, people show up for “their Mass” and then disappear, having even ignored or undernourished the collection basket.

I think that has to change.

But back to the more secular application of these tactics.

This fellow has made a strong case.  It is disturbing.

Si vis pacem para bellum! v. ¡Hagan lío!

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Si vis pacem para bellum!, The Coming Storm, The Drill, The future and our choices | Tagged
11 Comments