jump to navigation

Hare Krishna chants in Our Savior parish, NYC November 11, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, asshatery, damnable blasphemy, different religion, disaster, Ecumenism, episcopate, error, General Catholic, horror, paganism, pr stunts, Revolution, scandals, secularism, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

Boy, they are really desecrating Fr. Rutler’s old home in NYC.  The original video has been pulled, but someone got a copy of it and uploaded a video that combines two great affronts against proper divine worship, the “Gaia” hymn that was sung at the end of a Mass for shut-ins broadcast by the Archdiocese of Toronto (which I blogged on here), and now this “hare krishna” worship in Our Savior parish in NYC.  Both excerpts are combined in the video below, the hare krishna part starts at 4:00 (I would limit myself to watching the portions from 1:12 to 3:00 and 4:00 to 5:00):

More details:

The description of the video explains that the kirtan was filmed in ‘late September’ and organized and led by The Bhakti CenterAccording to the The American Conservative the kirtan was part of “an interfaith prayer vigil for action on climate change, as part of Pope Francis’ visit to New York.”

You see what they have done to the parish Fr. Rutler saved and totally revitalized.  In addition to stripping out much of the art he painstakingly adorned the church with (at great effort and expense), now they are promoting heretical religions of pagan gods.  Since Scripture tells us all the gods of the pagans are devils, this can be construed as support for devil worship within the sanctuary intended for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Calling it blasphemy doesn’t do justice.

But the Franciscans of the Immaculate must be crushed.  Different (an irredeemably hostile) religion, indeed.

OUTRAGEOUS: Still more persecution of the Franciscans of the Immaculate November 11, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disaster, episcopate, General Catholic, horror, Papa, persecution, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Spiritual Warfare, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, Virtue.
comments closed

Cardinal Bras de Aziz and his henchman Archbishop  Jose Rodriguez Carballo have ratcheted up the persecution against the Franciscans Abbadia4_810_500_55_s_c1of the Immaculate yet again.  Tancred has a translation of a long and difficult to follow post from Katholisches, but the gist is this: Pope Francis’ men in the Congregation for Religious have invented a new charge against the orthodox members of the Franciscans of the Immaculate (the vast majority, male and female), that they took a “secret vow” to the founder of the order, and that this vow somehow carries nefarious implications.  What is really at stake is further persecution of those who remain attached to Tradition and especially the Traditional Latin Franciscan-Sisters-of-the-ImmaculateMass.  Also involved is the cover-up of financial corruption in the Franciscan order (NOT the Immaculates) which culminated in the order declaring bankruptcy last year.  Bankruptcy proceedings have revealed the order dabbled in immoral investments, including drug trafficking.  The head of the General Curia of the Order when most of this financial activity occurred?: Jose Rodriguez Carballo.

Of course, behind all this persecution is strongly suspected the hand of Pope Francis, who apparently has a startling vendetta against the organization.

Key excerpts from the Katholicsches article:

The battle against the  Franciscans of the Immaculata continues…….With a confidential decree of 19. October 2015, the Roman Congregation for Religious reinforced its resolve to proceed further against the men’s and women’s branches of the Order. In his decree Pope Francis is obliging the women’s order to avoid a “special vow” or “solemn promise.” What this involves can be read herein.

[Decree from the Congregation of Religious follows] “Because of credible information about a private vow (or promise) of special obedience, which is reserved to some male and female religious to the founder, which has been placed above the general vows of obedience owed to the superior, has prompted this dicastry to bring this problem to the attention of the Holy Father, who has given a special mandate to deal specifically with this problem. [What is really implied here is loyalty to the “imprisoned” founder Fr. Stefano Manelli, instead of the leadership appointed by Pope Francis, and the few miscreants from the order who helped bring about the coup against the founder and former leadership]

Therefore, the Congregation for the Institute of Consecrated Life and for the Societies of Apostolic Life in enforcing this mandate for the good of the souls of all members of the Franciscans of the Immaculata, and all eventually bound to these institutions, by private vows (or promises) of a special nature to founders or foundresses.

In consequence it will be necessary that in future this vow or promise in future is not practiced either in its current or any future form.


Released against anything to the contrary, from the Vatican, on 19th of October 2015.
Joao Braz Card. de Aviz
+ José Rodriguez Carballo OFM
Erzbischof Sekretär

…….The Order is made ​​by blending diverse elements under general suspicion. But telling signs can be seen Interspersed between.

The article refers back to a Franciscan  of the Immaculate, who wanted neither to be named  or photographed. He had stated:  without giving any reasons, that there are new efforts around the deposed Founder  Fr Stefano Maria Manelli and the Vatican in 2013,  to establish a new  Old Rite Order. [Heaven forbid a new order dedicated to the TLM!]“They do not want to acknowledge the Modern”,  the anonymous brother  who is against these efforts, allegedly told Corriere della SeraThe special vow (or promise) was linked to these aspirations for a new foundation and concerns those men and women religious, who have remained faithful to the Founder. [It sounds much more likely to me that a group of like-minded FIs have simply determined to do all they can to retain the order’s original charism, rather than the ineffectual and order-destroying post-conciliar model being imposed on them by the apostolic administration imposed by Pope Francis.]

The Decree by the Congregation of Religious which was in turn adopted with papal approval, says at the outset that there were “credible” reports. The decree itself reveals, however, that the Vatican has adopted it on the basis of conjecture, without having any concrete evidence. The decree thus sounds like a new shot across the bow, which clarifies that the religious congregation remains determined to disrupt  the order from recognition and to subject it to re-education.  Anyway, nothing should remain of  the actual charisma of the Order.

The fact is that there are, since the Autumn of 2013, efforts of monks and nuns to found a new religious in which the true charism lives. That charism of fidelity to tradition and the rediscovery of the traditional rite, which had led the Order to its heyday and was shattered by the raging actions of the apostolic administrator and now deceased Fr. Fidenzio Volpi, appointed in 2013.  So far, however, nothing is known about a “special vow.” [if it even exists. What does appear to exist is a continuing animus against the order in the Congregation of Religious even with Volpi’s sudden death.]

The Congregation appointed a new Commissar last June with  the Salesian Sabino Ardito, and there was hope that he would lead the Order with a calmer hand. However, the Congregation of Religious does not seem willing to grant such a rest. Above all, it seems to want to prevent the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate from carrying out a new religious foundation. Commissar Volpi had warned  Italian Bishops during the General Assembly of the Italian Bishops’ Conference not to take Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate in their dioceses.

As early as autumn 2013. dozens of brothers had applied to the Congregation of Religious to be released from their religious vows. The canonically compliant departure from  the altered Order should have given them the opportunity to ask for incardination in dioceses and free them up for the path to reestablishment of an Order. The Congregation has refused until today, however, such a dispensation. Cardinal Braz de Aviz and Pope Francis do not want the Order of Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate 2, since the Order of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate 1 have placed under provisional control ​​and broken. [Because this is about ideological opposition, not mere “problems” with the FIs]

Thus, the brothers are forced by the Congregation to remain in the Order, although this is no longer the same order since the provisional administration than the one which they were originally committed to…… [And amounts to a vicious persecution for no apparent reason other than ideological opposition]

The ordeal of  Father Manelli’s order, who was ousted from the Order until the summer of 2013, so continues. Reminder: The Order of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate was created after the Second Vatican Council. While other orders over abruptly “modernized”, Father Manelli went the opposite way and wanted to return to the roots of the Minorite Order, to which he belonged at the time. He joined an increasing number of young men and women, so in 1990 a new foundation was necessary for religious revival of the Order of Friars Minor of St. Francis of Assisi.

Under Pope Benedict XVI.   the young discovered, with the blessing of numerous vocations,  the traditional rite. The priests concelebrated it for reasons of pastoral care in both forms of the Roman Rite. Internally the Order underwent the change from the new rite to the traditional rite. The result was an even more rapid growth of the Order, which would then set up a number of new monasteries and take over  pastoral care in parishes and sanctuaries. [Which infuriated the orders who had to abandon those monasteries  years before due to their collapsing numbers. They also showed up quite plainly the fallacy of the post-conciliar changes, especially as regarded compelling practice of religious life (compelling enough to cause hundreds to join)]

The Order did not belong, because of its development, to the old ritual Ecclesia Dei -communities but was under the Congregation of Religious like all new rite communities.  That made ​​it an anomaly that was before 2013, an example to all the other new rite orders.

Thus arose also a violent resistance within the Order. The resistance of a small internal minority, who would not  tolerate the traditional rite. [Which, by all accounts (and I’ve spoken with several FIs), did not amount to more than a bare handful of disaffected members. Those prepared to act numbered just 5 or 6. The vast majority strongly preferred the direction the order was taking towards Tradition]For the same reason there was also resistance from among other church circles who believed they recognized a hazard in the Order. The Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate had a thriving community, and were viewed enviously by the other orders. Above all, it seemed to be the living proof that the often prostrate  nature of religious orders can be revived even in Europe through the stern austerity, tradition and the traditional rite.……

……..With the unexpected resignation of Benedict and the election of Pope Francis, the situation had changed radically in one fell swoop. The Argentinian Pope was soon repeatedly recognized for his dislike of the representatives of tradition and also that he retained the traditional rite as  a passing “fad.” Now things happened in quick succession. Citing and in cooperation with the small band of five brothers who complained to the Congregation of Religious, Father Manelli and the entire Order leadership were deposed and replaced by an Apostolic Commissar, the said Father Volpi, and he also no friend of the traditional rite. The Order now lacked the protection afforded by the Ecclesia Dei ‘s own communities.

To this day, the Vatican has offered no reasons for this serious interference………[those offered heretofore having been shown to be demonstrably false, except for that hated “drift”]

……..Pope Francis withdrew the possibility from the astonished friars the right to appeal against the decree in opposition to the Congregation of Religious. The case would have ultimately landed before the judgment seat of Cardinal Raymond Burke, the then Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, an incorruptible Canon Law expert and declared friend of the traditional rite. This simply could be allowed to happen. Since a potentially favorable judgment from the Apostolic Signatura must be avoided, means of redress were blocked by direct papal action, and the re-education campaign commenced in force. [But even with Burke gone and a Francis man appointed in his place, the order remains.  It is a most cruel order, giving the FIs a poisonous choice: leave religious life (and, for many, the priesthood) entirely, or suffer continued persecution with no end in sight.  Amazingly, many have remained, a testament to their faith.]

Pope Francis has dedicated his pontificate to the theme of mercy. Yet he has showed the Franciscans of the Immaculate anything but mercy.

OK so the “excerpts” turned into almost everything. Sorry, Tancred.

I’m afraid it will wait for a future pope to lift the draconian measures against the Franciscans of the Immaculate, male and female.  This has seemed to me an ideological vendetta from the start.  The FIs could not be sisters (1)allowed to remain as they were, because they were too traditional, too successful, and, possibly more than anything, they committed the unpardonable sin of critically examining Vatican II in the light of tradition, just as every other ecumenical council has been analyzed. But since the problematic aspects of Vatican II cannot stand scrutiny (of grounds of logic and prudence, let alone Tradition), that simply cannot be allowed.

Better to make up charges of Lefebvrism and be done with them.  Which charge reveals the degree of orchestrated sistersdemonization which has been directed at the SSPX for decades, and which continues to afflict the entire traditional movement to this day, as Fr. Romanowski’s comments this past weekend made clear.  Think on how much mercy and patience the Church since Vatican II has showered on protestant heretics and the fallen, sinful world!  But there is no mercy for those in the Church who even question aspects of the documents of Vatican II!

Pray for the Franciscans of the Immaculate and poor Fr. Manelli! Pray they remain strong!  This persecution shall not last forever.  They are true sons and daughters of St. Francis, some of the very few remaining, and are deserving of being held up as exemplars rather than persecuted out of existence!  I do believe that the order will one day, after this pontificate, be exonerated and allowed to return to its former practices.  I believe it is an order pleasing to God, and thus nothing human can stop it, ultimately.  But the interim will surely be one of those times that tries the poor, pious, afflicted souls of the order.


Oh yeah, this just has to be stopped.  So pre-conciliar! Haven't they heard about the new pentecost?  Don't they know the Church started in 1962?!?

Oh yeah, this just has to be stopped. So pre-conciliar! Haven’t they heard about the new pentecost? Don’t they know the Church started in 1962?!?

Is college any place for a faithful Catholic? November 11, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disaster, disconcerting, error, family, General Catholic, horror, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, Spiritual Warfare.
comments closed

It has been almost impossible over the past two weeks to ignore the insane goings on at a number of universities around the country.  At Yale and Missouri in particular, student agitators have more or less taken over the place, demanding – and getting – heads on the platter from college presidents and others for not kow-towing to the social justice warriors who have seized power, and who determine just how much groveling one must do both to them and the sick sexular pagan agenda they seek to advance.

Another example revealed itself in the past few weeks when faithful young Catholics – members of TFP Student Action – visited the University of Louisville.  Anyone with a modicum of sense knows that the “tolerance” long espoused by leftists was just a means to an end – the end being their power – and now that they have it they are clamping down on free speech and the discourse of ideas like the loyal sons of Goebbels and Lavrenti Beria they are.  TFP, as is their wont, fearlessly proclaimed the Truth of Jesus Christ on the campus in Louisville.  They were accosted by satanists and sexular pagans of all stripes in the most brazen manner possible, short of simply walking up and wailing on them:

On Oct. 23, TFP Student Action members visited the University of Louisville to encourage students to defend true marriage. To the characteristic sounds of the bagpipes, TFP volunteers chanted slogans, distributed leaflets and held signs asking drivers to honk in support of natural marriage.

Everything happened as usual.  Some students warmly received the TFP flyer, while others refused.  Some accepted it just to rip it up.  The majority of cars that drove by reacted with friendly honking.

However, about 45 minutes into the peaceful demonstration, several students, representing the homosexual movement on campus, began to react. First, a male student attempting to look like a woman approached, walking his dog, and wearing a shirt with the word “pride” printed on it in rainbow colors.  He attempted to block one of the TFP volunteers’ signs with his body and became the day’s first example of pro-homosexual hypocrisy: preach tolerance, but never practice it………

……The student then attempted to rip the sign out of his hands. After failing to do so, TFP volunteer John Miller politely demanded the student answer whether the TFP volunteers had the right to express their own opinions, even if it differed from his own.

TFP member: “You’re not willing to let us speak our minds?”
Student: “No.”
Member: “You’re not open-minded enough for that?”
Student: “Nope.”
Member: “So it’s actually a one-way street?”
Student: “Yeah. I’m fine with that.”
Member: “So you are a hypocrite?”
Student: “Yeah. I’m fine with that…”
Member: “You can’t even live with a little opposition?”
Student: “Not when the opposition has existed for the past 2,000 years.  [I hope you believe me when I tell you that much of leftism, and virtually the entire radical fringe, is motivated by anti-Christian hatred, at least in part. The sexual revolutionaries are motivated almost entirely by such hatred]

……..Here are some of the sound bites from the liberal students:

“You’re spreading hate! Get off our campus!” [Remember, leftists always project]
“I hate you and everything you stand for!”  [see what I mean?]
“Lay that flag on the ground so I can stomp on it!”
“If people like you are going to heaven, I would rather go to hell!”
“If God exists, let Him strike me down now!” [“They know not what they do”]

The TFP members not only received verbal aggression from the pro-homosexual activists but also moral aggression.  One pro-homosexual student attempted to “hug” a TFP volunteer from behind, but was thankfully stopped by a fellow volunteer.  Another activist got very close to one of the TFP members, acting in a lewd and indecent way.  Yet another acted in a similar manner with a dog that was present……. [the tranny with his own dog?]

…….A female student approached a TFP member:
“I hope satan stomps on you,” she said while recording the exchange on her iPhone. “Hail satan! Hail satan!”
The TFP member calmly replied:  “Record this for your friends, the Immaculate Virgin Mary, Mother of God, is going to crush the head of the devil!”

The student became visibly bothered by the response and began to repeat her chant to the devil, to which the TFP member repeated his prayer to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Folks, this is not Columbia, or UC-San Francisco, or Berkeley, or UW-Madison…..this is Louisville!  A middle of the road Midwest college!  The inmates are running the asylum at virtually all of these places.  The few faithful Catholic colleges probably lack enough space to even begin to accept all those who would have an interest.

There are other options, however.  Go to a commuter college close to home while avoiding all the leftist agitprop on campus.  Go to college online.  Skip 4 year college and go to a vocational school.  Etc.

Dennis Prager brings up a trenchant point:


What would be the purpose of homeschooling your kids, bringing them up in the Faith, traveling miles to attend at the only orthodox parish in the Diocese, only to let your kids be brain-washed by hate-filled leftists at Notre Dame, De Paul, MIT, or Florida State when they hit 18?!?  Sure, some kids come through OK…….I met my wife at UT, thank God……but that was in spite of the environment, certainly not because of it.  The vast majority fall away.

Then again, that’s exactly what the leftist revolutionaries want. They want conservatives entirely blocked from college education, and turned into a despises second-tier class.  But you can’t risk a child’s faith to fight a cultural battle.  Maybe delay college education a few years until they are grown up enough to be sure in the Faith.  I know a lot of vets starting college in their early-mid 20s are almost impervious to the indoctrination.

Que dices?

Analysis of the errors of Vatican II, part II November 11, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, catachesis, different religion, disaster, episcopate, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

Picking up from Monday’s post (sorry about not posting yesterday, couldn’t be helped) excerpting HJA Sire’s book Phoenix From The Ashes, concluding his 5 page analysis of the progressive domination of Vatican II, and the gravely disordered – even heretical, according to Sire – documents that resulted.  Key also below is the unmistakable role the conciliar popes played in how the Council played out, with their backing of the progressive faction at almost every key juncture.  In point of fact, with regard to Paul VI in particular, the connection with the situation with the pontificate of today is unavoidable (if you don’t want to read the whole long post, at least read the last paragraph; my emphasis and comments):

Looking at the council documents as a whole, we see the prevalence of the “only one theological school” with which the progressives had charged the preparatory schemas.  Although the liberated countries [a term Sire uses for the countries of Western Europe who fell to the Nazis in WWII, and then subsequently seemed to embrace a very liberal ecclesiastical view]  did not get their way in everything, it would not be right to say that the council documents show a balance between the modernizing and traditional views. What we find is a text written by the progressives, with an occasional bleat of caution from the conservatives, weakening its force without providing any balance of doctrine. [In some small areas, yes.  For the most part, the documents of Vatican II read like a “he said, she said” to me, with a statement of relative orthodoxy followed by a BUT clause that obliterates or greatly weakens what came before. In the worst parts, Sire is right, there is a statement of great novelty followed by a slightly moderating statement of orthodoxy.  Frequently, the documents of VII seem at war with themselves]  The question may then be asked why one can go through long sections of the Council’s documents without the sense that one is reading anything new. part of the reason is that the progressives were not in fact very original. Since on many topics they had nothing in particular to say, large tracts of the documents consist in unimpeachable statements of the Church’s traditional teaching. This fact is used by some to rebut accusations that the Council innovated in doctrine.  In most of its teaching, indeed, it did not, but the question hinges on the parts in which it did. 

In a similar line, there are the efforts of some traditionalists [I don’t often see traditionalists doing this, though it is the hallmark of conservative “neo-Catholics”] to distinguish between the Council itself and the wave of heresy that later overwhelmed the Church.  That position has a great deal of truth in it; the appeal made to the Council to justify the subsequent demolition of the Church cannot be justified by its real teaching. [I’m not as certain. Certainly the progressives took what they got at VII and ran with it, but they were broadcasting their intent to do so even while the Council was still in process.  The elements of the Council – “time bombs” – suitable for misinterpretation and abuse were broad enough to permit most of what came later to be at least distantly attributed to the Council.  You and I may agree with the interpretations the liberals put on things to achieve their revolution, but there is no denying much of the confusing, contradictory verbiage they needed to work their revolution was contained within the conciliar texts]  Nevertheless, the Council cannot be wholly acquitted, as pious Catholics would wish.  The bias shown in it was directly responsible for the movement that followed, however much this outstripped the intentions of the council fathers at that time. The bishops who permitted the collapse of the Church in the sixties and seventies were the same ones who had initiated the process in Rome. Some did so because they were too much compromised with the original assault on tradition to reverse their course; others because they lacked the strength to resist the tide. 

Leaving aside the question of orthodoxy, there is also that of the Council as a practical blunder. As with any council, one may look not merely at the doctrine declared but at the wisdom of its policy, a historical question to be judged by effective consequences. The most obvious mistake of the Second Vatican Council must be the failure of the modernizers, in their self-assurance, to foresee the collapse that followed it. [Did they fail to foresee this? Or did they intend it all along?  Is attributing such dark intent to them unfair?]  The greatest share of the blame must fall on Paul VI, and on the partisanship he showed in his direction of the Council. One reason for it may stem from his very tentativeness.  He shrank from the idea of himself as one invested with power, one whose actions would be decisive in the Church, and it did not seem to strike him how shamelessly he was loading the dice in the progressive’s favor. Thus the pope who had proposed a serene reassessment of the Church’s doctrine in fact arranged a three-year turkey shoot of curialists and traditionalists.  Instead of insuring balance, with perhaps some benign encouragement to the liberal side, he handed over absolute control to the modernizers, and then had to intervene from time to time to counter the results of his own policy; the only effect of this was to incur unpopularity and weaken his authority.  It was thus due to Paul VI more than any individual that the Council was fundamentally flawed. [I think it was simpler: these men messed with primal forces far beyond their understanding.  More prudent, holy souls at the Council could easily foresee the disaster that would follow. Regarding Paul VI, however, this is a man who deliberately and purposefully changed in immemorial Rite. He directed – and was heavily involved in – the production of the Novus Ordo a “banal on the spot manufactured product.” Anyone with sufficient hubris to do that is capable of anything.]

The one-sided nature of the Council’s proceedings has been amply documented since R. M. Wiltgren wrote his account of it, but it makes little headway against the line that the Council represented a great dawn of enlightenment in the Church.  Any objections are dismissed on the assumption that the progressive party was triumphantly in the right. This resembles the position of the infallibilists in the First Vatican Council who dismissed criticism of their methods on the simple plea that they were right and their opponents wrong. On pastoral grounds, if we look at the Church’s progress in the following ninety years, it would be hard to argue that history gave them the lie. [And yet I think there is significant evidence that the papalotry encouraged by VI helped make VII possible]

With the Second Vatican Council, the case is very different; the verdict on it is pronounced by the history of the Church in the next half-century.  IN the light of the invasion of secularism, of the atrophy of the spiritual life, of the drying up of vocations, of the vast loss of influence and respect suffered by the Church, the conclusion on practical grounds must be that the modernizers were wrong.  They were wrong because of the aggressive imposition of their policy; they were wrong because of the promotion of their ideological priorities at the expense of genuine pastoral concerns; they were wrong because their reformism was reckless of orthodoxy and tradition; they were wrong in their pseudo-ecumenism which ignored the Eastern tradition of Christianity; and they were wrong above all in their determination to blur the line between the Catholic Faith and the protestant denial of it.  The fact needs to be clearly stated: the Second Vatican Council was a betrayal of the Church’s faith.  Its consequences cannot be put right until that betrayal has been recognized and reversed. 

———End Quote———

I agree.  I fully agree.  But it appears it will be a very long time before a consensus among the Church’s leadership emerges to even begin contemplating rolling back the Vatican II supercouncil that trumps all others. There probably are not a full dozen prelates in the Church today who would accept that last paragraph quoted above without significant reservations – they have been propagandized since seminary that VII was an unalloyed good and absolutely necessary “revitalization” of the Faith.  Will it take generations of prelates coming up through Tradition to eventually deal with Vatican II?

I don’t know.  At best, we’re in the beginning stages of recovery, at worse, we haven’t reached bottom, yet.  All I know to do is as much prayer and penance as possible and to stay close to Our Lady at the foot of the cross, while we try to reach as many souls as possible. It’s going to be a long, hard fight.

Well now this is just too rich: 1986 scientists “sure” sea level would rise one foot by 2016 November 11, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, asshatery, Basics, disaster, error, foolishness, paganism, rank stupidity, Revolution, scandals, secularism, Society, technology.
comments closed

Total real sea level rise: zero to three inches, which if even occurring is according to one skeptic.  Via the New York Times in 1986, scientists predicting with metaphysical certitude – like an article of faith! – that sea levels would rise dangerously between 1986 and 2016.  Well, we’re less than two months from 2016 and the evidence for the rise is essentially non-existent:


Climate “skeptic” – more like realist – Steve McIntyre notes this is just another in a long string of apocalyptic claims from the false religion of sciencism that has turned out to be completely false:

In 1986, scientists were “sure” that sea level would rise one foot on the East Coast in 30-40 years, and destroy beaches and buildings, receding shorelines by 1,000 feet.

So how did they do? There has been less than three inches of apparent sea level rise, most of which is due to land subsidence rather than actual sea level rise.

I’m very hard on scientific claims of this kind for two primary reasons: one, they represent what amounts to the prophetic arm of the religion of sexular paganism, constantly forecasting divine vengeance from an afflicted Gaia for our terrible sins against……..leftism.  Yes, leftism, because all the prognostications of doom are really oriented towards one thing, not saving the planet, not stopping global warming, but towards crushing all opposition to the leftist-sexular-pagan agenda. My other prime reason for vilifying these kinds of false claims is due to their role in undermining public respect and acceptance for real science, science not at the service of a political-religious agenda.

Unfortunately, a great deal of “science” has been deliberately oriented towards a political-cultural agenda going back two hundred years or more.  It is reported by Diane Mozcar and others (Warren Carroll) that Darwin was not the perfectly unbiased naif casting about for pure truth he is portrayed as being in the supportive (left-leaning) media and histories.  He had a long familial history of being adherents to more radical elements of enlightenment thinking and reducing God to a deist interpretation – sort of a cosmic starter gun who set things in motion and then had no involvement whatsoever. Darwin himself admitted, some time after publishing On the Origin of Species, that his theory definitely had anti-Christian connotations, and that those connotations were not accidental. He set out looking not simply for data, but to confirm a highly dubious hypothesis.  Only the data that supported the hypothesis was accepted, for the most part.

After publishing Origin, Darwin then went on a literal world tour giving speeches and writing books attacking traditional Christian piety.  His basis for deciding that God didn’t direct the development of life on earth was his high Victorian sensibility that “God wouldn’t do things such and such a way” when he saw what he perceived as “waste” or “uselessness” in various attributes of creatures.  Thus his biases colored his conclusions at least as much as his research. Many of Darwin’s more specific claims have had to be set aside by subsequent evolutionary science as untenable.  Once again, agendized science as a vehicle of social revolution gets to cover up its false claims and disproven theories, while continuing to insist upon basically an assent of faith from its adherents to whatever it is claiming this week.

We have to bear in mind how much of the sexular pagan agenda has been advanced by ostensible scientific claims.  Scientific hysteria regarding overpopulation helped contribute to the legalization of both contraception and abortion.  People are very likely much fatter and sicker (intentionally so?) due to false claims of scienticians regarding proper diet, stressing high carbs and low fat.  There are a plethora of other examples.

Mind, I’m an actual design engineer. I have been so for over 20 years. I’m not an English major turned science cultist, hanging pictures of Neil de Grasse Tyson on the walls of my house to appear all sciencey. I say that because such a cult has become very prevalent among the left in recent years.  Contrary to the cultists, I have performed computational fluid dynamics for twenty years, and I know the incredible limitations inherent in this analytical technology.  Even in a simple closed system with a tiny fraction of the variables encompassing something so complex as the world, if you can get data accurate to within 5% of reality you’re doing very well.  With the climatologists forecasting temperature changes on the order of 2-3 degrees per century, I would be astonished not to find that their results are well within the margin of error of the analytical models.  One of the principle complaints regarding these CFD models upon which all the global warming hysteria hangs has been the refusal of many of the most extreme proponents of doom to share vital details of their models with others for independent review.  And then we have the scandal of the manipulation of ground-based temperature sensors, always forcing the alleged “temperature record” up.

So, yes, I take a very dim view of much of “science” at this time. I feel very strongly science has been irrevocably compromised by the introduction of massive government funding starting in the 50s.  Whatever government touches inevitably becomes politicized. I feel it no accident that since this politicization has begun, we have seen more and more headline-seeking, outrageous claims from science, which are often later contradicted.  This is really a huge problem, for a technologically-based society.

But that’s enough of that for today.