jump to navigation

Leftism Is the Religion of Immoral People, Exhibit# 27,985,487 June 26, 2018

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, cultural marxism, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, Immigration, manhood, persecution, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, suicide, unadulterated evil.

With a knowing nod to commenter Michele Kerby, who certainly knows that there is a world of difference between a liberal with whom I disagree on various points but with whom dialogue is still possible, a la Carl Benjamin aka Sargon of Akkad, and a leftist.

As a case in point – and I know this is painting with a broad brush, but there are so many brush strokes the object is plainly obvious – Steven Crowder held one of his “Change My Mind” public discussion forums in Austin recently on the subject of whether there are more than two genders (Crowder taking the stand that, biologically and on numerous other fronts, there are not, and cannot be).  He actually had a quite civil discussion with a self-described transsexual, but a hard left activist at my alma mater, the University of Texas, took such exception to the idea even being discussed that she sent out tweets calling for Crowder and his crew to be firebombed.  Just to be certain she was not misunderstood, she included photos of their equipment van and repeated the call more than once.

Of course, the craven, cowardly, and self-seeking administration at UT took no action against this assault on the social fabric.  But in a twist of fate, Steven Crowder was a few days later engaged in some mild mannered and humorous trolling, as he often does, at a meeting of the Texas State Democratic party convention, and guess who happened to be there, but the very woman who had incited violence.  Crowder very bravely but with great tact and charity sought this woman out and confronted her. The record of that experience is below:

What adjectives would you use to describe the reaction of not just the woman encouraging violence, but the rest of those who showed up to try to shout down and shame Steven Crowder, denying him even the ability to defend himself from violent attack?  Some that come to mind – childish, narcissistic, soulless, cult-like, cruel, self-serving, defensive, ignorant, ideologically possessed…….Can you think of a single virtue evidenced by this crowd?  On the other side, do you know how hard it is to face that kind of group action and remain not only one’s composure, but humorous?  I’ve done it a few times before, and did not remain as cool as Crowder did. He is a strong man in more ways than one.

These are not rank and file democrats.  These are leaders and activists – agents of agitprop – in the Texas democrat party.  They are among some of the most well connected people in the entire state party apparatus.  These are not some weirdo extremists in a basement somewhere.  These people have influence, and not a small amount of it.

The actions on display here speak volumes about the present state of the democrat party and the left in this country.  It is little wonder major commentators on both sides of the aisle are speaking more and more openly of civil war.

I have been trying over the past several months to see things from the other side’s perspective.  I read and listen to an increasing variety of sources, some of them very contrary to my established beliefs.  But there are simply virtually no arguments on the other side.  It is all invective, scare-mongering, grasping at straws and creation of a fantasy land in which it is the right that is pushing towards “violence” (by saying things they don’t like – note the hypocrisy, leftists act like actual incitements to violence are innocuous, while merely opposing leftist policy on logical grounds constitutes violence – only a child could formulate such a narcissistic justification) and about to bring down the nightmare of fascism on this nation.  The evidence for this always remains fabricated, grossly exaggerated, mired in “what about-ism,” or just around the corner.  What in reality has happened is that the Left has lost all sense and perspective and is deeply ensconced in an ideological bubble where only things that align with pre-existing notions are allowed to enter.  That is why, in the face of massive electoral losses, at every level, over the past 8 years, the democrats have only been able to double-down and press ever further leftwards.

For goodness’ sake, how on earth can you even have a discussion or debate when one side – and it is always the same side, the “right,” to the extent such even exists in this country (in a traditional sense, one not infused with the parasite of enlightenment liberal thinking) – behaves like the most utterly spoiled, ill-mannered, screaming, flailing, out of control children you’ve ever seen?  The utter insolence and solipsism is simply beyond the pale.  Look at the face of that woman and her associates when confronted – no shame, no willingness to concede even the slightest humanity to the hated “other,” just blank stares and a quick degeneration into formulaic chants and mind-numbing rage once the realization that they were caught out and could say nothing in their defense sank in.

At the root of all this is the growing sense, among these apparatchiks and their masters, that the Left’s ideals, political, cultural, economic, etc., have been decisively rejected by this country.  A poll out today showed that even after the incredible vitriol and rhetoric from the Democrats and their propaganda arm, the corporate media (or perhaps because of it), nearly 3/4 of Americans still firmly believe that illegal immigrants and their children should be deported.  Should the flood of illegal Hispanic immigration be stopped or even significantly reduced, the Democrats, having turned hard left and growing ever more so as the years have passed, know they are politically finished at the national level, forever.  The US public has, for all its flaws, retained enough sense to decisively reject the democrat program.  Without, essentially, electing a new population to replace the “failed” incumbent one, the democrat’s political fortunes at the national level are exceedingly bleak, looking to pick up a few House seats, mostly on procedural grounds through jerrymandered redistricting in Pennsylvania and the practical collapse of the Republican party in California.

Thus this entire immigration debate is really about who shall rule, and has been for decades.  But you knew that already.

Couple that sense of impotence and failure with a twisted religious fervor and levels of immorality that would make a late 18th century Parisian madame blush, and you have a recipe for true disaster.  Leftists are already planning to “punish” the country for voting the wrong way if the democrats, as looks increasingly likely, get creamed in the midterms, by staging massive temper tantrums “days of rage.”  Where things go from there is anybody’s guess, but my fear is that things will continue to go downhill at an ever-accelerating rate.

Where is the figure on the Left who has the sense, the presence, and the influence to call the raging, stampeding herd (30 million nutjobs can do a whale of a lot of damage) back from the brink?  From what I can tell, virtually all the thought leaders and media/entertainment personalities on the Left only seem primed to go increasingly insane in their rhetoric and action.  Twitter and other social media have helped create a perfect storm of ideological bubbles, instant gratification/denial, and extreme emotionalism.

A key problem is that the Democrat party has been undergoing leftist ideological purity tests for the past 15 years or more, very quickly driving all but the most committed left-wing extremists from any participation in all but the most basic party activities (like voting).  Virtually all the old line conservative democrats and moderates have been driven from the party, and certainly from most all leadership positions.  Goodness, when Dianne Feinstein starts to sound like the voice of reason, you know things have gotten bad.

Where does this end up?  No one ever said the United States, as constituted since 1959 with the accession of Hawaii and Alaska to statehood, would last forever.  I increasingly agree with Ace, that an amicable divorce along state lines is the best possible solution at this point.  But even that could involve unbelievable violence, as those winding up on the wrong side of the line are “encouraged” to relocate a la the partition of the British Raj in 1948.  We shall see.  I see no solution to all this but prayer and penance, and more and more of both, but there are so few of us, and so many lost in the world and its false pleasures.  The number one leisure-time spend in this country is pornography. May God have mercy on our nation, and its people.


1. Joseph D'Hippolito - June 26, 2018

The loss of the United States as a nation would be a tragedy for the world. The United States has been synonymous with hope, opportunity and rule under law. What the neo-Marxists like Waters and her ilk in the Democratic Party is nothing less than treason. They want to destroy the social, political and ideological fabric on which this nation was based and replace it with a Third World dictatorship.

We should start calling the Democrats and their sympathizers what they are: traitors.

Tim - June 27, 2018

Most Republican, rinos and never Trumpers, are traitors as well. This nation was doomed from 7/4/1776 onward. Masonic revolution does not have God’s blessing. The American revolution was the precursor of the French revolution. Democracy is an abject failure because it gives equal voice to evil and good.

Joseph D'Hippolito - June 27, 2018

Oh, jeez, Tim, you’re not one of those romantic Catholic monarchists, are you? If you are, then why don’t you turn your attention to a Church that has gone full modernist to the point where it effectively denies the faith?

FL_Catholic - June 27, 2018

Tim is absolutely correct in what he says. The USA has absolutely no basis for its existence except for Lockean Enlightenment Masonry. Its a house built on sand. Search throughout the history of the world, anywhere you want to look. Monarchy is the system that naturally develops even among groups of people that have never been contacted by other civilizations. This is because mankind Is created in the image and likeness of the Lord, and the Lord is the King of Kings. We are designed to build on Earth the best system we can to lead souls to Heaven, and if monarchy is good enough for God, its good enough for humans. Its human pride that believes mankind has the right to choose who shall lead. As Catholics we believe that all authority comes from God, but democracy/republicanism believes that authority comes from the masses and that after mere humans decide who shall lead THEN we will ask God to ratify the choice we already made whether He agrees with it or not. Monarchy allows the Giver of Life to decide who will be the Leader, and allows the people to give glory to God by faithfully following His anointed King. Republics give us the Clintons. Monarchies give us King St. Louis. I’ll stick with St. Louis.

X-opher - June 27, 2018

Interesting…What am I to make of Samuel’s warning (from God) to the Israelites against the rule of a king? Also, is it untrue that there are also examples of evil monarchies? Finally, how do we reconcile the rule of a monarchy with the concept of subsidiarity? It would seem that a rule by monarch would negate the concept of subsidiarity entirely, unless the monarch were to distribute his authority among regional governors of some sort, which would seem to contradict the main point of a monarchy, particularly when contrasting a monarchy with a republic (federal republic, anyway).

Thanks for the discussion.

Joseph D'Hippolito - June 27, 2018

We are designed to build on Earth the best system we can to lead souls to Heaven…

Wrong. Systems do not lead souls to Heaven. Only Christ does. Christians are to lead people to Christ. Period.

When you emphasize a “system,” you effectively replace fidelity to God with loyalty to a “system” that claims to represent Him. That’s Catholic ecclesiology in a nutshell — and it contains the seeds of Catholicism’s own destruction, as we are seeing now with a Church that has effectively given itself over to Satan.

Emphasizing a “system” demands blind deference to the leaders and officials who run that “system.” Tell me, how is that any different from Communism or Nazism, outside of the secularism and hostility toward religion?

Monarchy allows the Giver of Life to decide who will be the Leader, and allows the people to give glory to God by faithfully following His anointed King.

And how do we know such a king is anointed by God? Whom are the subjects supposed to trust in such a decision? And how do we know that those making the decision don’t have political agendas of their own or personal greed to satisfy?

Most importantly, what happens when the “anointed King” becomes tyrannical or corrupt? Who or what holds that king accountable?

Republics give us the Clintons. Monarchies give us King St. Louis. I’ll stick with St. Louis.

Republics also gave us Lincoln, Washington and Reagan. Catholic monarchies gave us the ineffective Franz Josef of Austria-Hungary, as well as Louis XVI and the worldly Charles V of Spain.

Essentially, you expect a king to be a political version of a Pope. How can you justify that given the tenures of Paul VI, JPII, Benedict and Francis?

We know about Francis but what about the others?

— Paul VI was a known homosexual who quite likely ruled on “Humanae Vitae” as a sop to conservatives in return for support for his liturgical “renovations.”
— JPII fancied himself as a philosopher who arbitrarily torched centuries of Catholic teaching from Scripture and Tradition by advocating an abolitionist approach that has absolutely *no* support from either Scripture or Tradition. He also appeased Islam, refused to fight for Middle Eastern Christians and refused to hold clerical sexual predators and their episcopal enablers accountable.
— Benedict was a better Pope than JPII but caved in the face of violent reaction to his legitimate criticism of Islam. He also was ineffective in dealing with the clerical sex-abuse crisis and (like JPII) refused to discipline heterodox bishops. Benedict was far better suited to be a professor than a Pope.

Now, pray tell me, who held these people accountable in any practical way? What “systems” exist in Canon Law to prevent Popes from doing the wrong thing? If they exist, why aren’t they followed?

Just look at the whole situation with Francis and the Dubia. He can ignore it until he dies — which he probably plans to do — and nobody can make him do otherwise. Do you seriously expect a Catholic monarch to behave any differently — especially since Catholicism itself is a religious monarchy?

BTW, I can substantiate my claims about JPII:


Joseph D'Hippolito - June 27, 2018

One more thing, FL-Catholic: *This* republic made it possible for millions of Catholics to come here, begin new lives and fulfill dreams they could not achieve in their homelands. Your romantic desire for Catholic monarchy would essentially keep peasants as peasants while isolating the rulers from the ruled. That’s the kind of system that breeds revolution, regardless of the monarch’s religion.

And if you believe that a *Catholic* monarch would be an inherently better person than a Protestant or Orthodox monarch, then you know absolutely nothing about history — and even less about sinful human nature, which crosses *all* religious (and irreligious) frontiers.

FL_Catholic - June 28, 2018

Joe, you set up so many straw-man arguments in your rambling replies to Tim and I throughout this thread, that is hard to keep track of them. First, you have intentionally twisted what I wrote into a deranged form of State-worship. Systems of government are set up by man, run by man, and rule over man. Depending upon how well they are modeled upon Natural Law and the guidance of the Church, will change how Blessed they are by God. Does the Lord bless governments that are opposed to Him and His Rights? The question answers itself. The Lord set up the Church to guide humanity towards salvation.

The rulers of government are put in power to make sure the liberties of the Church are secure so She can be free to fulfilled Her Great Commission. The Rulers are also there to guide the people as well as being models for right government and right living. Repeatedly we are told in Scripture to honor and obey the King, or to render unto Ceaser, etc. No where in the Bible did the Most Holy Spirit feel the need to inspire the writers to notate that people have the right to rebel against their King and set up a Republic. Look throughout Catholic history and writings and you will not find it either. St. Thomas scorns the idea of revolution in the Summa. Why? Because revolutions are inherently destructive of the ends for which we are created. The revolution always destroys its own. Its been that way since the revolution in Heaven by the devil and his minions and will be until the end of time.

You cite the examples of a few recent Popes and somehow try to equate them with secular Kings. Apples and Oranges. The Pope is not an Absolute Monarch. He rules no lands, commands no armies. He is the spiritual leader of the Lord’s Flock on Earth. The secular Monarch is the temporal leader of the Flock. They work in tandem within their own spheres of influence. Just as Bishops should not be leading protests about immigration policy, Princes should not be interfering with the judgments of the local Bishops. Each has their own sphere, and they co-exist to the benefit of all. Altar and Throne, united but separate. If you recall your history, which you claim I am oh so ignorant of, there were more than a few Ecumenical Councils called and heresies crushed because of the Emperor using his God-given authority to call together everyone and force them to work out what the Truth was. The Monarch is the Father of the people. It is his responsibility to lead and guide the people entrusted to him. Now, you ask what happens when a Monarch turns towards evil and who will judge him? God judges. Just as God judged the Kings of the Old Testament when they sinner, so He judges now. He may decide to manifest His decisions with spectacular miracles now, or He will wait until after the King dies. But it is HIS decision to make, not the decision of the masses.

Look for instance at France. The King of dethroned, the English ruled, the Dauphin was hidden away. Did God call St. Joan of Arc to lead an army to establish the First French Republic? NO. He guided her armies to crush the English and reestablish the Catholic Monarchy. What happened a few hundred years later when He asked that France be consecrated to His Sacred Heart? He promised that if it wasn’t done, he would punish both the King and France itself for the disobedience. What happened? 100 years TO THE DAY later the French Revolution began, the Royal family was brutally murdered by REPUBLICANS and the First French MASONIC Republic was created. God didn’t turn France in a tyrannical monarchy as punishment. He turned it into a Republic and it did what all Republics do: it watered its “tree of liberty” in the blood of the martyrs of the Vendee.

Bad Kings, like bad Popes, are God’s way of punishing His people. They are to be endured, and the sufferings offered up in reparation for sins. Its not for man to rebel against the Crosses they have been given and to tell the Lord that they know better, which is what a revolution is. That’s the sin of Pride, society wide.

So am I a Catholic Monarchist? Yes. Am I ignorant of history or theology? No. To be a true Catholic is to be a Monarchist, and to trust that God knows what he is doing when He decides who will be born as Monarch. Long Live the King.

X-opher - June 28, 2018

Long live which King?

Notwithstanding the morality of revolution in favor of a republic, we live in a republic now over 200 years old. What should be done about it? What should we be doing? Does lamenting the lack of monarchy help our nation improve its spiritual state?

What good is accomplished by arguing about which system of government is better when we do not have it within our power to change it? Especially when it leads to ad hominem attacks between otherwise charitable Catholics? The debate itself is divisive and unproductive, it seems, which I hate to say because I do enjoy a healthy debate…but wowza. That’s not to say I haven’t done my own mud slinging before, because I most certainly have, but I’m getting better…I think

Practically speaking, what can WE do about the state of our nation? THAT is what I would like to see addressed here in this civil discourse.

Also, stay armed and alert…Leftist meltdown in 3…WATCH OUT!

Tim - June 28, 2018

Long live the King!

Joseph D'Hippolito - June 28, 2018

Now, you ask what happens when a Monarch turns towards evil and who will judge him? God judges. Just as God judged the Kings of the Old Testament when they sinner, so He judges now. He may decide to manifest His decisions with spectacular miracles now, or He will wait until after the King dies. But it is HIS decision to make, not the decision of the masses.

And how do people know what that decision is? Who interprets God’s will? Which Samuel will anoint the king? And who serves that prophetic role in your Catholic monarchy?

You claim that it’s mankind’s duty to create a system to lead souls to Heaven but you offer no means to discern the divine will in such a system.

Besides, you make a fundamental error when you cite the OT. Yahweh has a unique relationship with the Israelites: They were to be His oracle people on Earth. So what Samuel did with Saul and David does not apply to modern society.

Bad Kings, like bad Popes, are God’s way of punishing His people. They are to be endured, and the sufferings offered up in reparation for sins. Its not for man to rebel against the Crosses they have been given and to tell the Lord that they know better, which is what a revolution is. That’s the sin of Pride, society wide.

First, Christ offered up the only reparation for sin acceptable to God: His own death on the cross as the ultimate sacrifice for all sin for all time. Any attempt by mankind to enhance that work, ultimately, degrades and insults it.

Second, the idea of “bearing one’s cross” has to do with “crucifying the flesh” and being gradually transformed into the image of Christ. It has nothing to do unjust victimization, which you seem to seem to support.

Third, the attitudes you hold are one of the major reasons for secular revolution. Your “solution” wouldn’t solve the situation; it would replay history in ways that would diminish what you claim to hold dear.

Fourth, the Catholic Church is the home of the sin of Pride. It claims to have brought the Bible to the world yet it disregards its teachings. Its insistence on blind deference to authority has fostered corruption in the highest clerical circles, and has for centuries (just do some research on the Papal Pornocracy). That blind deference not only creates institutional arrogance but treats the average believer as a peasant.

But you are right about one thing: Francis is God’s way of punishing the Catholic Church. I suggest you look at the conversation Christ had with Satan in Pope Leo XIII’s vision, the one that motivated him to write the Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel. Then ask yourself this question:

If St. Michael is a loyal subordinate to the Triune God, and the Second Person of that Triune God gives Satan permission to destroy anything, let alone the Catholic Church, do you seriously believe that archangel will have the temerity to ask the Second Person to countermand that permission — especially since that Second Person embodies all the righteousness, holiness and justice of the First and Third Persons?

No amount of “offering it up” or “bearing one’s cross” will dissuade a holy, righteous God from sparing the Catholic hierarchy from the divine judgement it has stored up for itself.

Tim - June 28, 2018

Hey Joe,
What heretical protestant sect do you belong to? You have yourself away with your latest rant.

X-opher - June 29, 2018

What did the Prefect of the Holy Office say to his Doberman when it jumped up on the Pope?

Tim - June 27, 2018

Where do you get the impression that I am or support the modernists? There’s a reason I attend an SSPX chapel after the modernists in Indianapolis drove the FSSP out of town and then gave us a married with children former anglican priest who ended up kidnapping and beating his wife in the sanctuary. Yeah, modernists and their novelties are right up my alley, Joe.


Modernism and americanism go hand in hand, Joe.

Yes I believe that the best form of government is Catholic Monarchy. With that said, there are no perfect forms of human govenment.

X-opher - June 27, 2018

Deep breath, everybody. Deep breath.

Joseph D'Hippolito - June 27, 2018

I never said you were a modernist. I said that if you want to clean up corruption, start with the Church — which long ago sacrificed its Petrine patrimony on the altar of wealth, power, political influence, secular prestige and institutional arrogance. That’s what the Church is in the state it’s in.

Camper - June 28, 2018

Ouch. If that priest is convicted, his ministry is done.

Tim - June 27, 2018

Are you a freemason?

X-opher - June 27, 2018

So much for that deep breath…

Tim - June 27, 2018

I am not angry at Joseph, I am simply looking for answers that explain his position. He did imply that since I recognize the flaws in the founding of our nation(yes, I have love of country, I was born here, I live here and in all likelihood will be burried here. But that does not mean my love of country is so blind as to not recognize its faults.) I somehow give a pass to modernisim. That makes no sense.

X-opher - June 27, 2018

Noted, Tim.

To me, it just seemed like a bit of a leap to what seemed like an accusation of being a freemason. I wouldn’t say I’m extremely well educated on the various political systems, but I had the same questions that Joe did in regard to the apparent faults with monarchy, theoretically and historically, as well as a healthy appreciation of the potential benefits of a federal constitutional republic, but I’m not a freemason. I, like anyone watching, can also see the faults of our political system playing out before our eyes over the last few years…er…decades..er…Well, you know…

But, having not had to worry too terribly much about our life as a nation taking a radical shift on the whim of a single figurehead, precisely because of the federal and powers-separated system of our governing bodies (regardless of what all left-wingers seemed to think would happen when Trump was elected), I really appreciate this mode of government. Was it designed by questionably Christian men likely holding anti-Catholic sentiments? So it seems. Has it turned out poorly for unborn babies? Very. Could it be turned back by the uprising of a passionate Christian plurality working together to take advantage of the federal system to elect local, state, and federal leaders that will align the nation’s governing systems more closely with Natural and Divine Laws? I believe it could, more easily than if we were ruled by a dynasty of evil men. It just takes communication and follow-through, as we have already seen happen…on the Left.

But…I admit that’s all hypothetical and could quite easily be far more difficult than I imagine. It could well be that the system is rigged by its very nature to lead down an evil road and I just can’t quite see how.

But I’m not a freemason…I’m just trying simultaneously to be a good Catholic and believe in the possible good of what God has allowed us to have in this country.

End ramble.

For my education, as I admit to being ignorant of this, what principles of the founding were precisely “masonic”, and such that they cannot be reconciled with or which directly contradict Natural Law or Divine Law? I hear often that the US is “founded by masons” or “…on masonic principles,” but I’m never quite sure exactly what that means, nor how such principles themselves directly violate either of these laws by virtue of being masonic.

Thanks for your patience.

c matt - June 27, 2018

our life as a nation taking a radical shift on the whim of a single figurehead

Instead, it takes the whim of five. I suppose that is improvement.

Tantumblogo - June 27, 2018

I’ve been reading today how Kennedy’s entire career pointed towards Obergfell and declaring sodomitical “unions,” such as they are, marriage. From some language in Casey (people defining their own reality) through Lawrence v Texas and on, it appears this may have been his primary judicial ambition all along.

Now, I pray the fortitude exists to undo it. I actually think Roe stands a better chance of repeal than fake sodo-marriage, at least returning the matter to the states, but we’ll see.

If either were overturned, it would go a long way towards that national divorce I spoke of yesterday. Most hardcore leftists would not stay in a state that denied them such essential libertinism.

Joseph D'Hippolito - June 27, 2018

No, I am not a Freemason. I’m also not a lifetime member of the Society for Creative Anachronisms.

Camper - June 28, 2018

Hi Xopher. Why not Christopher? Anyways, democracy is a REALLY bad form of government because it always turns into tyranny, at least when it is not balanced by a body that is traditional, like a traditional king. The most masonic aspect of 1776 was probably the disestablishment of religion. This was very radical for its time and placed the American government and constitution very squarely on the left of the international spectrum of the time, even though taxes and other economic burdens were probably lower than in almost all of Europe. Today Americans are glad that they do not have the “Chinese Catholic Patriotic Assocation” or something similar shoved down their throats, but this is far from the system supported by the Catholic Church. That’s one of the main reasons the SSPX broke with Rome after Vatican II. Vatican II supported government saying “whatever” on religion, which was always understood to be very evil by several popes and which position was actually investigated by the Holy Office prior to Vatican II.

Joseph D'Hippolito - June 28, 2018

When you say that this government was based on Masonic principles, you ignore the fact that many of the people who came here as colonists came here escaping persecution from religious monarchies. I’m talking about English Catholics, for example.

If a non-Catholic monarchy can persecute Catholics, then a Catholic monarchy can persecute non-Catholics. Just look at England under the reigns of Mary I and Elizabeth I. Outside of their religious beliefs, there was essentially no moral difference between them.

Now, if you believe that Catholic monarchies should persecute non-Catholic worship to the point of death, then you’re no different than either of the two monarchs I cited.

X-opher - June 28, 2018

Camper–I forgot to answer your question.

I decided a couple of years ago to use “X-opher” on online accounts to reclaim the use of the Chi to represent Christ. It seemed to me at the time that secularists were using “X-mas” to remove “Christ” from CHRISTmas, so I decided to reclaim it. Outside the Matrix, I go by “Christopher”.

Camper - June 28, 2018

By the way, Mr. D’Hippolito, Catholic tradition states that non-Catholics can be executed for heathen worship. Not saying it is going to be prudent any time soon, but there it is. Mary I was not equal to Protestants because she was enforcing the true religion. Whether or not it is prudent to do so is something else entirely.

Joseph D'Hippolito - June 29, 2018

Mary I was not equal to Protestants because she was enforcing the true religion. Whether or not it is prudent to do so is something else entirely.

So if the situation were reversed, and Elizabeth I were persecuting Protestants and Mary I were persecuting Catholics, you would say the same thing about Elizabeth I?

Catholic tradition states that non-Catholics can be executed for heathen worship.

So where does that leave Protestants, Eastern Orthodox and Jews?

What makes you any different than the Muslims who persecute “infidels”? What makes you any different than the Communists who persecuted “enemies of the people” or the Nazis who persecuted Jews?

The name of God is blasphemed among the non-believers because of the views that you, Tim and FL-Catholic have.

Tim - June 27, 2018

Hey Joe,
YES or NO…..does setting up a nation based on masonic principles please God?……YES or NO.

Joseph D'Hippolito - June 28, 2018

“Hey Joe,
YES or NO…..does setting up a nation based on masonic principles please God?……YES or NO.”

Hey Tim,
YES or NO. … Does setting up a nation in which innocent people are imprisoned or murdered by the state merely for not adhering to the state religion please God? ……. YES or NO?”

Tim - June 28, 2018

Hey Joe….NO.
NOW, answer my question,
if you have the guts.

Camper - June 28, 2018

Come on, Tim. Stop questioning his integrity. He may be misguided, but at least he’s trying to be a very good guy, and he already has very good instincts.

Tim - June 28, 2018

Sorry Camper, I posed the 1st question and he responded with his own. I answered it. It is now time for him to put up or shut up as they say.

Camper - June 28, 2018

Fine, Tim. Maybe I’m not paying enough attention but you really come off as crazy and far too strong, and you know I agree with you on 99% of everything. Insist on tradition, monarchy, and the syllabus of Errors and assume the man is trying his best.

Tim - June 28, 2018

Crazy, perhaps….my wife would agree with you. Joe’s the one making himself look crazy. He refuses to answer a simple question and then insists tbat I answer his. So be it, done. He got this ball rolling by implying that I give modernism a pass and attacking others. I simply want a straightforward answer to a straightforward question. I don’t think he’s a bad guy, but when you publicly make insinuations about me, I will confront you until the matter is clarified.

Joseph D'Hippolito - June 28, 2018

Tim, your question is dishonest. You know that this government was not based exclusively on Masonic principles. Yes, Washington and Franklin were Masons. Yes, Paine was an atheist. But the founders of colonial Maryland and Pennsylvania were devout Christians who founded their colonies to provide places where fellow believers could worship without interference from the Crown.

You deliberately ignore the main principle the Constitution embodies: the protection of inalienable rights granted by God, Who is the only one who can take them away by due process against unwarranted government intrusion. How in the Hell is that “Masonic”?

Now I have another question for you: How would your Catholic monarchy protect individual freedom? How would your Catholic monarch be held accountable in case of corruption? How would your Catholic monarchy protect itself and its citizen against cabals inside that government?

By the way, regarding your “long live the King” sentiments: The North Koreans say the same thing about each member of the Kim family who rules them. In effect, you are no better than they, Catholicism aside.

Camper - June 28, 2018

Come on you two. This is really degenerating. I think Mr. D’Hippolito is a Catholic, so that means both of you are. Give each other some credit and, like Xopher recommended, take a couple of deep breaths.

In the Middle Ages, kings were deposed by the Pope for bad behavior. That wouldn’t help now, unfortunately, but now is not a normal time. Usually, it would be a big help. America is not Christian nation because America was founded by Protestants who, it must emphatically be stated, are not Christians. The Constitution is Masonic and incompetent, the first because it is officially secular, even if Protestantism was understood at the time to be critical to the nation, and the latter because it allows basically only the masses to vote. There is no room for traditional elites in the American Constitution, and it is a devastating drawback. The Founding Fathers were overwhelmingly Masonic and were strong believers in the secularism promoted by Locke and Hobbes. Locke and Hobbes were deists, which in their cases they promoted because they hated both Christianity and Protestantism. Yes, it is better in America that we have toleration than the Chinese Communist Party in charge, but it is still vastly inferior to having Catholicism be the official religion, or even a muscular, Wisconsin-synod Lutheranism be in charge.

Mr. D’Hippolito, it is very important that you agree with the Syllabus of Errors, which basically condemned democracy and all of the innovations of the 18th and 19th centuries. Otherwise, politically, you will be like a man on a raft in the open sea. If you have not read Plato’s Republic, you need to eat a big piece of humble pie. Said in all charity. Please read my three messages written just before the comment labeled #2. Now it’s your turn.

Camper - June 28, 2018

Mr. D’Hippolito, are you sure you are trying to be charitable? I’m not sure Tim has trouble being nice to people, even though he does have a very strong personality. I just want you two to get along. We can set a good example for pagans by our civility and charity.

Camper - June 28, 2018

Mr. D’Hippolito, I would like to suggest that by saying Tim is deliberately ignoring something, you now are the one who is going overboard. Let’s let charity reign. Forgive slights and be ready to make amends. Maybe both of you went overboard in this discussion once or twice. It takes two to fight.

Tim - June 28, 2018

“Freedom of religion” is a masonic heresy and is the bedrock principle of the founders. They were a radical, revolutionary pack of masonic diests and atheists. We’re a masonic nation alright.

Just answer the question….YES or NO.
I answered yours. Now answer mine and come clean.

Tim - June 27, 2018

Hey Joseph, here’s “gone full modernist” for ya. I doubt anyone who frequents this blog would be okie dokie with any of it.


Camper - June 28, 2018

Hi Joseph. Thanks for your input. Support for monarchy is not romantic but is based on hard-headed wisdom. No system involving sinful man will ever be flawless but some are far better than others. In the Middle Ages, a monarchical age, there were not any communist or near communist states of which I know. The same cannot be said for the democratic age. Democracy kills morality by appealing to the lowest common denominator. If you haven’t read Plato’s Republic, dear Joseph, you need to eat a very big dose of humble pie.

Camper - June 28, 2018

It deserves to be said, though, that there are many different types of monarchies. Most tyrannies are monarchies. There is Saudi Arabia, which is an absolute monarchy. There were the governments in the Middle Ages, which were so small they were like anarchy compared to what we have now. There is everything in between.

Camper - June 28, 2018

Catholics tend to be a little too warm on monarchies without understanding general political philosophy. Austria under the Hapsburgs, for instance, had many flaws in the last 130 years of its existence: police state, welfare state, terrible bureaucracy, and other problems.

Camper - June 28, 2018

Mr. D’Hippolito, you do indeed sound exactly like a Protestant.

Joseph D'Hippolito - June 29, 2018

I find it humorous that a Catholic monarchist who essentially worships the Church as God rather than God as God has the temerity to call anyone a heretic.

Why do you read about the vision that caused Pope Leo XIII to write his Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel. Was Pope Leo a heretic?

More to the point: If Christ founded the Church and gives Satan permission to destroy it within a century, does that make Christ a heretic?

Joseph D'Hippolito - June 29, 2018

“Freedom of religion” is a masonic heresy and is the bedrock principle of the founders. They were a radical, revolutionary pack of masonic deists and atheists. We’re a masonic nation alright.

That “heresy” enabled English Catholics to found their own colony, Maryland, before the Revolutionary War and the Constitution. That “heresy” enabled Jews (God’s chosen people, I’ll have you know) to escape persecution from “Catholic” countries like France. That “heresy” enabled Irish Catholics to leave a Britain that persecuted them until they founded the Irish Republic.

But you would rather have them “carry their crosses” and “offer up their burdens” by staying in their homelands rather than move somewhere where they can live without fear and with the ability to improve their lives.


Tim - June 29, 2018

Answer the question you protestant coward.

X-opher - June 29, 2018


Tim - June 29, 2018

What am I, your Golden Retriever?

X-opher - June 29, 2018

Haha! No, Tim, I’m sorry…I just used that as an opportunity to answer the question to the riddle I posed above, since the conversation was taking another rather heated turn. Just an attempt at timing the humor to hopefully deescalate the situation. No offense intended, but I’m sorry if I offended.

X-opher - June 29, 2018

Note to self: I guess that means the comedic timing DIDN’T work…

Tim - June 29, 2018

I was being sarcastic, not angry. I’m just weary of Joe’s refusal to answer a straightforward question when I gave him a YES or NO answer.

X-opher - June 29, 2018

Sure, you’re frustrated because you’re passionate about standing against the reality of the masonic threads woven into the founding and governance of the nation, which threaten to call down hellfire upon us all from Almighty God.

Meanwhile, there are lots of Catholics who are less familiar with this idea, who are also less familiar with monarchy and less comfortable with it because of their education and life experience, who would feel quite cornered and threatened by being intimidated into answering a question that they’re not sure exactly how to answer for those reasons.

I have been one of those people, and largely still am: as I mentioned (or, at least, implied), I’m still not comfortable with the idea of monarchy, and I try to hope that the opportunity still exists to leverage the system that we now have (despite the philosophy of those who found it) to the greater Glory of God and salvation of souls. It doesn’t seem to be working at the moment, to my limited eye, but I try to hope and pray that God will continue to bring good out of what certainly may have been an objectively immoral start.

By the way, what Warp Factor are we at, now? Still at 4? Oops, wrong thread.

Tim - June 29, 2018

“Meanwhile, there are lots of Catholics who are less familiar with this idea, who are also less familiar with monarchy and less comfortable with it because of their education and life experience, who would feel quite cornered and threatened by being intimidated into answering a question that they’re not sure exactly how to answer for those reasons. ”

Then they should note create situations that would lead to those questions. He’s attacked multiple people on this thread and uttered protestant and masonic heresy on a Catholic blog. Does he think we’re a bunch of wall flowers who won’t stand up to his garbage rants against’s God’s Holy Faith? Maybe in the Novus Ordo world but not amongst Catholics who want to be truly Catholic.

X-opher - June 29, 2018

Fair enough. Question for all: what’s wrong with assuming the best of intentions of people who–intentionally or unintentionally–state what might amount to heresy?

What is the most effective means of digital fraternal correction?

Tim - June 29, 2018

Nothing’s wrong with that. But once they start attacking others and spewing outright heresy, it’s time to push back.
This man has shown himself to be disingenuous by his own posts. I can be quite assertive, I know, but I will never lie down for attacks on Holy Mother Church and my fellow authentic Catholic brethren. I wish no ill will to Joseph, but he won’t get away with his shenanigans with me without being questioned. I do wish at times I had a similiar demeanor as Camper, but I don’t, at least not yet.

Best means? Reward me with a bone after “sit” command!
Ha, ha……humor……

X-opher - June 29, 2018

‘Attaboy, have an Indulgence…(badoom boom. I’ll be here all eternity, God willing!)

2. Baseballmomof8 - June 27, 2018

What continues to amaze me is that constitutionalists continue to be successful at SCOTUS. Had the election gone differently this country would be completely gone by now.

X-opher - June 27, 2018

“Had the election gone differently…” The fact that the election went the way it did and that decent moral values now still have SOME hope in this nation of ours leads me to wonder whether it is actually true that God does not look favorably on the USofA. He apparently sees something worth continuing and blessing with this hope, whatever its true magnitude–whether great or fleetingly small–may be. God could have let the USA divide itself in the Civil War, and yet–albeit through horrific violence–the Union continued. God has had ample opportunities to let the US tear itself apart, and yet it continues. Since all power on Earth comes from Him, we must believe that God wills that the US continue…But why, if our nation’s construction and principles are so abhorrent?

I agree that democracy is horrible, but that’s why our nation is constructed as a Constitutional Republic–to temper the whims of majority. Were the founders all Masonic and anti-Catholic? Perhaps–of that I have no real knowledge. However, does God bring good out of evil? Undoubtedly, as we know from history and revelation, and as we also seem to have witnessed throughout the course of US history.

X-opher - June 27, 2018

Talking to myself (hijacking the conversation):

Me: God also allows communist and horrific totalitarian regimes to exist: Do you, then, believe that he also sanctions those governments?

Me, too: He certainly does not approve of any immoral practices conducted by those governments, but he certainly allows them to exist since, as Our Lord said to Pilate, they would not have any power unless it came from Above. Therefore, God allows even evil, corrupt governments to exist. Therefore again, God’s allowance of such governments to exist cannot be used to conclude that he agrees with their values or actions.

Me: I just realized that I’m wavering a bit in my argument–am I arguing about nations or their governments? They are not identical.

Me, too: True. Governments govern a nation, but they are not identical to the nation itself. The nation can more appropriately be said to be defined as the people who exist in a geographic or jurisdictional area and subject to the same jurisdiction (my definition). Does God’s approval of a nation, then, depend on the form of government or its actions? On the values of the people (perhaps as evidenced by their actions)? And, how can we evaluate God’s approval? Finally, considering the possibility that God allows nations to exist regardless of these factors (as he apparently does, currently), what practical conclusions can we reach with regard to what to do about our current nation?

Me: Overload. Too much to handle at the moment. Be back later…Someone help.

Tim - June 27, 2018

I like your style!

3. Tim - June 27, 2018

This pretty much sums it up:

X-opher - June 27, 2018

Well, now that it looks like Trump is going to have the opportunity to fill Anthony Kennedy’s soon-to-be-vacant seat on the Supreme Court, we might just see how desperate they can get.

4. Tim - June 27, 2018
5. Tim - June 27, 2018

This dude is pure common sense:

6. Michele Kerby - June 28, 2018

Tantumblogo, I watched the video and, believe it or not, I found it quite as distressing as you did, and for the same reasons. And you know what? I’ve seen videos on liberal sites very much like this one, except it was right-wingers doing the screaming.I’m acquainted with a number of liberals, and they, just like the many conservatives I know, are sane, reasonable people. Problem is, for all our differences liberals and conservatives have one thing very much in common. We all have our extremists who can’t or won’t listen to any voices but their own, trying to drown out all others with violence. Unfortunately, being a nutjob isn’t a Democratic or a Republican thing. It’s a human thing, and all races, religions, all parties, all groups have them. It’s the job of the rest of us to treat all with love and respect, even the nuts, and show that there is a better, more Christian way.

Tim - June 28, 2018

Please define “treat all with love and respect”.
Thank you.

7. Michele Kerby - June 28, 2018

Basically,to be kind to others, and to treat them as you would wish to be treated, to love your neighbor as yourself. It’s easy to say but much more difficult to do.

Tim - June 28, 2018

Ok, thank you. Many libs define that as “acceptance”. I.E., embrace perversity and sins of others.

8. Camper - June 28, 2018

Hi Michele. I think I’ve seen you on here before, but I just thought I would welcome you. So, are you a Catholic who believes in, say, the Syllabus of Errors? Do you believe in government handouts? Why do you call yourself a leftist? Do you think murderers, duly convicted by the testimony of two or more witnesses, should be executed by the judgment of a court of law if they are not sorry? I am scrupulous about being polite and charitable, so I think we could be sure to have a civil discussion. I asked you a barrage of questions and I hope you could answer them all, if only briefly.

Michele Kerby - June 29, 2018

Sorry about taking so long to reply. Yesterday was a rough day and if I had replied then it would have been even more incoherent than usual, so I waited.

Okay, here goes. I really don’t know a great deal about the syllabus. I’ve read parts of it, but much of my knowledge of it consists in accusations of modernism. I do know that it contains many references to prior documents, and that knowledge of these documents is rather essential to understanding the original intent of the writing of the Syllabus. Very few people have this knowledge, and “modernism” is so used of so many things that it has nearly lost all meaning. The Syllabus is also very much a product of the time in which it was created. For these causes, I don’t think it’s a very useful document to us now.

I’ll take your third question next because it sheds some light on your second question. The short(er) answer is I’m from a lower middle-class background, but the man I married soon became disabled. I was already pregnant with our first child. Even with my salary to help we’ve always been well below the poverty level. We live in a rural area, where being poor is both constantly humbling and very different from what I had imagined. One of the many hard lessons I’ve learned is that poverty is seldom “deserved”. Most poor are honest people who work as hard as they possibly can. And they made no more bad choices than anyone else. But many have physical and/or mental disabilities, and in this country you get what you can pay for in both areas. Many poor persons, including my husband, could work and contribute to society if they had anything close to the level of support available to the middle class.

It also helped that I grew up in the ’60’s and ’70’s, in what was a somewhat liberal parish for the times. The progressive people there were much more devoted to Christ and the Church than many others I knew, who attended Mass solely out of a fear of hell.

As for capital punishment, I have the same objections as most other liberals. In addition, I believe that each method of execution has virtually insurmountable practical issues, so it’s just not a good thing.

Sorry for the length. There’s more, but I did try to make it as short as I could while giving an adequate account of myself. God’s blessings to everyone.

Tim - June 30, 2018

“The Syllabus is also very much a product of the time in which it was created. For these causes, I don’t think it’s a very useful document to us now.”

Text book modernism. You need to convert to the Catholic Faith to save ypur soul. Stop clinging to the fslse religion of novusordoism.

Liberalism will be your undoing and cost you eternity. Please change your ways before it’s too late. You will be in my prayers, this is a serious matter, please treat it as such.
God bless you.

Michele Kerby - June 30, 2018

Thank you very much for your prayers. I’m always in need of all the prayers I can get.

I didn’t mean to imply that I’m completely opposed to the Syllabus. It contains much wisdom and is well worth studying. But I do believe it was written to address certain problems as they existed in the time in which it was written. Examples of this would include the rise of Communism, and the waning of monarchies which supported Catholicism. Many things have changed since then and I believe that more recent church documents do a better job of addressing the situations we have now.

I haven’t mentioned it here because no one has asked, but I pray the rosary, the Chaplet of Divine Mercy, and use many other traditional Catholic devotions.

For both financial and medical reasons I’m unable to attend either a TLM or the Ordinary Form of the Mass, and will remain so for the foreseeable future. It causes me great spiritual suffering not be able to receive the Eucharist.

My activism, if you could call it that, is pretty much limited to my immediately family, forums such as this one, and occasionally Facebook. I learn a great deal from forums like this one, and if I write it’s only to give others something to think about or perhaps broaden minds a little.

The particular shape of my beliefs comes from my life experiences, but I do try to stay open to whatever God has in store for me.

Thank you again, and may God bless you.

9. Tim - June 28, 2018

10. Camper - June 29, 2018

I think many of the criticisms Tim was making of Mr. D’Hippolito deserve to stick. Charity, folks.

11. Camper - July 1, 2018

Tim, I have to hand it to you. It looks like he wasn’t ever going to answer your question.

12. Tim - July 6, 2018

Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: