A Sober Look At The Rosary Weapon Screed

Fellow faithful Catholics, we've had our grins and chuckles since that article appeared in the Atlantic, but I think it's time to understand what's going on here.  In reality, this portends future dangers if we don't take this, and larger problems, seriously.

It seems that every time some tyrannical regime tries to ascend in power, they decide to target a demographic group to act as scapegoat.  The scapegoat group is often a minority group within the locality in which it finds itself.  The tyrants use the scapegoats as a rallying target at which most, if not all, the other groupings can unleash their mob-like hatred.  Of course the tyrants are mistakenly perceived to be champions, having duped the populace at large to target the scapegoats.

We saw this play out in the French Revolution, as bloodthirsty mobs lopped off the heads of their hated aristocrats and yes, Catholic clergy and religious.  Just a scant 85 years ago, Adolf Hitler riled the Nazis against Jews, eliminating 6 million of them (along with other "non-Aryans") before the end of World War II.

Would-be tyrants of our current times are now drawing bulls-eyes on the backs of their chosen targets - Catholics who are faithful to the traditions of the teachings of Jesus Christ that have been taught for centuries.  I think we saw that play out quite a bit after the Dobbs ruling was leaked, with the vandalism and even destruction of churches and pro-life pregnancy centers.  Some of those were operated by protestant, but by and large, it was Catholic institutions that were targeted.  They still are being targeted.

Now we see the bigotry being played out in once-reputable publications.  Yesterday the Atlantic magazine published an anti-Catholic screed entitled "How Extremist Gun Culture Is Trying To Co-Opt The Rosary".   The author, Daniel Panneton, is a Canadian who rails against "homophobia", "masculinist anxieties", "the hostility towards liberalism and secularism inherent in traditional Catholicism" and "far right fantasizing about killing activists".  Meanwhile, I detected nary a peep about all the destruction and vandalism against Catholic institutions of late, let alone the threats uttered by "Jane's Revenge".  Certainly he said nothing about the attempt on Justice Kavanaugh's life.

Frankly, I'd expect something like this coming from academia in Canada.  What concerns me is why Atlantic would choose to publish this.  Bear in mind that Nazi hatred against Jews began rather innocuously, with the publication of propaganda such as Panneton's article.  What the Nazis, and now Panneton, used was one of Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals", the 13th rule to be precise.  I quote: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)"

Panneton's article isn't just an isolated screed by one lone nutcase.  Look at it in historical context, even if that history is just in the last month.  I am somewhat dismayed by the cavalier and jocular attitudes that I am seeing among faithful Catholics.  Yes, the Rosary is powerful against evil, but we must not take pleasure in the attempts to demonize us.  If we as Americans fail to use our rights to insist that we not be the targets of religious bigotry, then we will see ourselves and our children consigned to social and even literal ghettos as it becomes increasingly dangerous to live our Faith and bring others to it.  Yes, I know that Christians in the very nascent Church did that, but they had no choice.  We do.  Will we fritter that away while we shoot off silly memes that actually affirm Panneton's statements?

What I suggested on Facebook is that we go to Atlantic's page and report the article as hate speech, for that is what it is.  Write a "letter to the editor" at theatlantic.com.  Fellow Catholics, please don't just engage in guffaws and bravado amongst yourselves.  Below is my letter to the Atlantic.

I am saddened that in this day and age a publication of your caliber would stoop to publishing such slanderous screed.  To portray Catholics faithful to their centuries-old traditions as "violent", "racist" and "paving the way for terrorist attacks" is nothing short of religious bigotry.  Indeed, it smacks of the propaganda that Nazis published against Jews as they were ramping up their attempts to marginalize and ultimately imprison and execute millions of them.  It wasn't long after those publications that the infamous Krystalnacht happened.  Now Catholics too are seeing their churches and buildings burnt and vandalized, with great escalation after the Dobbs ruling was leaked.

Would you publish any other such diatribe against Muslims?  Jews?  Hindus or other faiths?  Somehow I think not.  Why then would you publish such trash against Catholics?  Decent people demand an answer, and a repudiation of that article in your next issue.  Thank you for your time.

Please act now and be praying those Rosaries.

The Uvalde Massacre - More To This Than Meets The Eye

A conservative podcaster, Erick Erickson, put out a video that asks a lot of questions: questions that I've seen elsewhere regarding the Robb School situation.

So here is the chronology of the situation, as far as I can tell.  First, 18-year-old Salvador Ramos lived with his mother who was, probably still is, a drug addict.  There is absolutely no mention of his father, or any other man who might have been a father-figure to him.  Right there we have a breeding ground for disaster.

He was frequently bullied in school for his economic status and had only a few temporary friendships.  He acted out, causing him to have scuffles with the police.  That is to say that the police were quite familiar with him.   After his relationship with his mother further deteriorated, he lived with his grandmother.

His behavior, which he posted on social media, became increasingly dark, with him dressing all in black and voicing an interest in guns.  His financial status was still poor, with his job at Wendy's helping only a little.

Then, somehow, he managed to get a hold of two AR-15 rifles and ammunition, all costing about $5,000.00.  How did that happen?  First, why would he not have immediately failed background checks, owing to previous scuffles with the law?  Second, how could this impoverished kid afford it?  I'd ask who gave him the money, but again he would have failed the necessary screening.  Did someone give him the firearms?  If so, why?

On May 24 Tuesday, he shot his grandmother (who survived), then drove towards the school.  Somehow his truck wound up in a ditch.  He got out of the truck and went towards the school, firing his gun at various people along the way.  He walked into an unattended entrance, a door propped open, and eventually barricaded himself into a classroom and there shot and murdered the majority of his victims.  Here's a million-dollar question: did that open door lead to a classroom?  Is it the same classroom in which Ramos barricaded himself with his victims?

Meanwhile, local police arrived on the scene.  They stood outside the school and did absolutely nothing.  Parents were screaming at the police to do something.  Several of the parents received police ire for their protest.  Now who gave the police orders to essentially stand down and do absolutely nothing while Ramos proceeded to slaughter children?  They could hear the gunfire, and still they sucked thumb and bullied parents.  After an hour or so, it was a lone Border Control agent who finally took Ramos out.  Tucker Carlson asks many of the questions that were posed by Erickson above. 

Carlson appears to believe that these police were incompetent and were trying to save face.  I am not at all certain that it was mere incompetence, especially when one considers the almost magical ease with which a money-strapped kid obtained very expensive firearms.  Who gave Ramos those firearms?  Is there any connection between that and the order to the police to stand down?  Why was the school's main entrance unattended?  Why were no school police officers present?  Why was that door on the west side propped open?  Remember - this is a school that locked down quite a few times that year owing to human trafficking chases (being on a border town) so it's not like they didn't know safety practices.

Earning the most outrage was the behavior of the Uvalde police department.  At one point, they did enter the building, but then exited.  They then waited outside for an hour, while they could hear Ramos firing his gun.  Parents pleaded with them to go in, to no avail.  Some parents tried to take action, only to be put in handcuffs, pepper-sprayed, tackled to the ground.  One mother was arrested but was released.  She broke away from the cops, darted into the building and removed her children.  One off-duty Border Patrol agent, whose wife and daughter were in the school, received a text from his wife while at his barber's.  He borrowed the barber's shotgun, hurried to the school and evacuated his family and others from the building.

We are approaching an election cycle.  Certain Democrats would very much appreciate a crisis like this to take the public's eyes away from the utter mess that Biden et al are making of the country.  Saul Alinsky, in his book "Rules for Radicals", said "never let a crisis go to waste".  The Democrats are excellent students of Alinsky, and they would chomp at the bit to exploit such a crisis like Uvalde, perhaps even to the point of contriving one.

Each oddity about this situation, by itself, might raise an eyebrow and not much more.  But when so many oddities are apparent, their combination is much too coincidental:

• That a cash-strapped kid obtained two rifles, ammunition, body armor, etc
• That no school police officer was present that day
• That a door was propped open for Ramos's entry
• The strange stand-down behavior by local police
• The refusal to allow parents near the school

The whole thing stinks not of cowardice and incompetence, but of outright corruption.  The Texas Department of Safety is investigating the incident, but Uvalde Police and the school district are not cooperating. Why the stonewalling?

Meanwhile the typical progressive screeching for more gun confiscation sounded far and abroad.   I suppose they ignored some other news, like how a West Virginia woman shot down a maniac who was shooting into a crowd.  Also this weekend, an Ohio homeowner who was dragged outside of his home was rescued by his neighbor who shot the assailant dead.  Of course there is the aforementioned Border Control agent who borrowed his barber's shotgun and used that in his rescue mission.

The citizens of Uvalde include parents of children who lost their lives last week at Robb Elementary.  Some of those children might have been spared had the police actually done their jobs.  They need not wait until Texas has completed its investigation.  They need only wait till their local election day, when they can jettison the negligent city officials out of their offices, as well as those calling for the suspension of their Second Amendment rights.

Saul Alinsky, Vatican II, And Cancel Culture

 I will be posting a number of videos that may seem somewhat disjointed, but they are really examinations on what has been happening in the Church lately.  The mess started decades ago, quite some time before the obviously turbulent 1960s.

In the first video, Taylor Marshall exposes the friendship that existed between Saul Alinsky and Cardinal Montini in the late 1950s.  Cardinal Montini, a few years after their conversations, became Pope Paul VI.  Doesn't that put Vatican II in a different light?

So it seems that these troubling occurrences of highly-placed prelates hobnobbing and even taking cues from progressive anti-God subversives is nothing new.  It goes back over sixty years and involves the sitting pope at the time.  Could this be one reason why Pope Francis desired to canonize Paul VI?  At Vatican II, the New World Order's war on Christianity was significantly advanced, and continues to this day, with greater momentum.

In this video, Michael Matt talks of the "encouraging" letter that Pope Francis wrote to heretic Fr James Martin, carrying on the dubious tradtion established with the Montini-Alinsky gabfests.

So Father Martin, owing to his dissidence, is one priest who was not canceled at the behest of the New World Order demagogues.  But plenty were.  Several days ago, Steve Bannon interviewed Liz Yore on his War Room podcast, discussing the various "cancellations".  She pointed out two things.  First, the progressives are coming out of hiding and are doing their mischief quite blatantly.  Second, more and  more good people are waking up and are starting to stand up to the nonsense.  My prayer is that this is not "too little, too late".  Here's that video.

Let's be praying our Rosaries.

Alinsky, Covid, And The Riots

That was the topic of last Friday's webcast from Lepanto Institute.  Due to technical difficulties, the presentation appeared in two videos.  They are worth an audience nontheless.

Be Innocent As Doves And Wise As Serpents

It is possible to take Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" and use at least some of them to our advantage.  I say "some" because that "some" are not intrinsically evil.  For instance, the rule called "make your opponents live by their own rules" cannot be considered evil.  It's high time we stop playing the "Clark Kent" nice guys and take on the agents of death head-on.  As Voris explains, Donald Trump has learned how to do that.  Some of us in the Catholic blogosphere have likewise learned.  All faithful Catholics must do the same.

SinNod's Grande Finale - Part 2 Of 2, With A Nod To Saul Alinsky

In this second part, I'll now deal with the final relatio that was released today - except for the English version.  Many secular sites are kvetching and moaning that the paragraphs regarding homosexuals, found in the interim report, did not make the vote to be included in the final report.

So they were rejected.  However, Rorate Caeli has reason to believe that those three paragraphs will  be included in the English version (that's supposed to be released next week).  Correction - in all languages.  I'm not certain of their information source so we'll have to see.  I'd be interested to hear from those of other languages.

Even if the relatio is clear of the foul language, the damage has been done and deliberately so.  The bug has been put in the ears of the Catholics in the pews that perhaps there is "virtue to sodomy" and that de facto adulterers can receive Holy Communion without committing sacrilege.

Ladies and gentlemen, with that in mind, may I introduce to Rule #8 of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals?  It's summed up nicely here.  In essence, it suggests that the change agent (dissidents in the Church who put in those horrible paragraphs) should "keep the pressure on; never let up".  We can be very certain that we have not heard the last of these heresies.  I think the removal of those paragraphs was damage-control.  No doubt they were surprised by internet scrutiny and the spinal fortitude shown by Cardinals Burke, Pell and Muller.  I suspect this was just a temporary retreat so they can regroup and try again later.

I'll have more to say on this later, but it is getting late here.  For now, I'll close with the latest Vortex report on all this.