Fatima Conference: Failure of Conservatism

The Iceman Cometh
The Iceman Cometh to eradicate the Faith. One manly Priest stands for the Truth and is shunned by Conservative Catholics following their failed paradigm.

It’s on right now, just a few miles from here in the Anti-Church controlled Diocese of (Rotting) Orange. Having paid substantial sums, attendees will watch speakers will take the mic one after the other, hoping to learn, pray and contribute to a movement that will actually advance the interests of the Church. May their hopes be fulfilled. In fact, to its credit, this conference has put together many memorable gatherings in the past. But that was with the dearly departed Father Gruner and John Vennari’s leadership. This time around its leading lights like Cornelia Ferreira have expressed concern about the dis-invitation of Father Paul Kramer and the reasons stemming therefrom. These concerns are noteworthy and bespeak the possibility that yet another organization has been divided and conquered over Bergo the Vulgar, and had its leadership transform the operation into a typical instance of failed conservatism.

Why Are Father Kramer’s Efforts Vital?

Father Kramer is one of the first and very few priests (possibly the only one) who has gone public to accuse Bergoglio of his schism, apostasy, and false claim to the Chair of Peter. This priest is a scholar, deeply principled and, judging merely by his far-flung mission preaching, a genuine pastor of souls. (A Youtube search will yield an array of his edifying presentations.) He was one of the very first voices to publicly make the case, citing a reputable Italian Professor of Canon Law, that the delict in Benedict’s resignation has made it invalid. Father Kramer goes on to rightly accuse Bergoglio of heresy and apostasy. He has suffered alleged libel at the hands of so-called traditionalists (including one who supposedly abandoned freemasonry after descending to the depths of the 33rd degree), and most important of all, Father’s claims have never been refuted.  In brief, Father Kramer ought to be a key rallying point for the Church Militant, along with a sphere of exceptional and faithful micro-bloggers (Toronto Catholic Witness, RadTradThomist, the Eyewitness, Heresy Hunter, Traditional Catholic Priest + others, as well as the sites to which this blog regularly refers) that inflicts increasing damage on the 50+ year homo-junta ruling Rome.

So What’s The Problem Here?

The choke point afflicting us here is the wholly impotent, intellectually void and money/reader hungry racket known colloquially as Catholic conservatism.

These characters are so easy to spot that they don’t need to be named. They lock down com boxes when the peasants quit drinking their Kool-Aid and speak up, have low tolerance for new approaches to the battle, and studiously avoid investigating actual causes (cower in fear to mention that the Synagogue might actually be a bastion of anti-church). And with one big exception, the conservative movement never, ever, seems to have a stomach for an actual fight. What’s that exception? When a reader/commenter calls attention to their total failure to produce meaningful gains against the Revolution. Then the fangs and claws unsheathe. That’s right, concerned Catholic, if you question the conservative Catholic racketeers on anything, expect to be dealt with like a pine cone in a forest fire.

In this manner today’s ongoing Fatima Conference is a picture-perfect example of the failure of conservatism: Father Kramer, who ought to be an honored guest, is banned because his principles are bad for that one thing that matters most, a big donor list and its resultant good cash-flow. When truth opposes the conservative Catholic money racket, that truth has to take a hike. Welcome to the resistance. Please donate, think as you are told and SHUT THE HECK UP! Only the conservative pundits truly understand how to confront the Revolution: 50+ years of meaningless posturing is only the beginning!

Conservatism: Architecture of Impotence

What is the essence of conservatism?  Fundamentally, conservatism is an operation under the control of the Revolution, whose purpose is to superficially appear to retard the revolutionaries, all the while keeping would-be Restorationists penned into a narrow range of acceptable opinions about which (and only about which) discourse is permitted.

Does this mean that Catholic conservative outlets on the web are part of some sort of Bergoglian payola? Some perhaps, but others no. Conservatives don’t need to formally cooperate with the Revolution to come under its control. The key is that the conservative always accepts the illegitimate philosophical, political and practical assumptions of the Revolution, and then complains out loud when revolutionaries advance.  The Argentine Anti-Pope is a perfect example. Every day for going on five years now, Catholics have been presented with an in-your-face attempt to alter the nature of the papacy. What say the conservatives about that? Nothing, of course, because conservatism doesn’t fight the revolutionary locomotive, it just has its hand on a brake valve that doesn’t actually do anything. But this however, is convenient, because the conservative develops a monetized following with his unavailing gripes. Thus, therefore we hear conservatives complain that Bergoglio has departed from the plan of John Paul the Great (horrors!) But not one word about the glaring, outrageous, revolutionary premise by which Benedict attempted to spawn his pope mini-me. This is how conservatism has worked for centuries; lots of complaints, zero results, and keep the constituent herd grazing on the revolutionary reservation.

Just the two of us! -How’d they do that? Hollywood and Rome both replicate singular roles into two. Conservative Catholics consent with stony silence and censorship.

Catholic Conservatism: Hear No, Speak No, See No Synagogue

Let’s take a step out into a breath of fresh historiography, shall we? At the end of the Second World War, with the communist Trotskyites in America just having run out of Nazi enemies, a new paradigm was undertaken: anticommunism. Of course, these Trotskyites were indeed communists, but as E. Michael Jones observes in his The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, sometime around 1949, a switch was flipped, and communism became the enemy of Judeo-Masonic-Americanist Freedom (freedom to reject God, get rich, put the wife on the pill and ogle Playboy mag prostitutes). Meanwhile, the American Judeo-Communist-Trotskyites likewise flipped the switch and became Neo-Conservatives. Yes, just like that, the deeply rooted ideology of dialectical materialism, which had sprung from the mind of Marx and his Talmudic mentor Moses Hess, went poof! And like the magic of the Kabbala, mid-twentieth Century conservatism was born.

This rediscovered inner freedom was just great for the Revolution, because whatever crazy ideas the left would hatch and act upon, the Revolution’s allies controlling the right would dictate exactly what the right was allowed to say about it. Note the imbalanced dichotomy there: the left takes swift action, and the right is told what it may not say about said activity. Take a look at events from then until today, both within the culture and the Church. Leftist demolition squads have run one operation after the other, grinding diocesan Sees, families and individuals, nations, and functioning economies into powder. Meanwhile all conservatives have done is give the play-by-play, and keep their followers in the stands, as it were, idly jawing on their popcorn.

Buckley, Neuhaus, Novak: Conservative, Catholic and Captured

The late Messrs. William F. Buckley, Michael Novak, and Fr. Richard J. Neuhaus  were all Catholic writers, publishers and opinion shapers of the second half of the Twentieth Century, who helped to both salve and beguile the consciences of Catholic Americans into conflating the political aims of Judeo-Masonic anticommunists with principles of sound Catholicism.  Author E. Michael Jones (Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, 845-846) cites National Review as nothing less than a CIA front, in turn part of a larger agenda to kill off rival conservatisms. Founded in 1955 by Catholic William F. Buckley, National Review’s money man was former Trotskyite-turned-father of neo-conservativism Irving Kristol (whose son William {not Billy!} can be seen on Fox Snooze cheerleading every opportunity to kill and maim American sons, Middle Eastern Catholic Civilians, and potential convert-Saracens by ripping up the middle east for the sake of the Greater Israel).

What about Novak and Fr. Neuhaus?

In 1990 they founded First Things, a journal whose premise included the idea of bringing the Faith into the public square. However, with neo-con Judaic Norman Podhoretz writing the checks, First Things found out that faith in the public square meant editorial support of unjust wars, illegal immigration, and publishing articles of bamboozling, Teilhardian psychobabble against capital punishment. In years past I’ve even seen articles written by novus ordo clerics who cite (try not to throw up in your mouth) that demonic suborner of child molestation Alfred Kinsey as an authoritative source in discussing sexual morality. Of course, when a publication arrogates to itself the sanctimonious purpose of Faith in the Public Square, what they conceal is the fact that whatever topic they deem out of bounds (Catholic, Restorationist, supreme and immediate claims of Christ the King on all men and all nations) is an issue that will never see the light of day.

What Buckley, Neuhaus and Novak have done is highly instructive regarding conservatism in general, and Catholic conservatism in particular. The conservative is often a controlled opponent, funded by the Revolution itself. This control via money power has created a lock on the market of Catholic thought which has long ago been obtained by institutionalized Zio-control, to such a degree that otherwise genuine Catholic internet operations today (even with no identifiable under-the-table neo con sponsors) have to cater to the warped thinking of their readers and donors, in order to keep them reading and donating.  Thus by its very nature, and for the sake of human respect, Catholic conservatism concedes crucial ground to the Revolution, and angrily crushes upstart voices who see the Bee-Ess being carted about and dumped forth as if it were actually a defense of the Faith.

Revolution Shoves Clerical Sodomy in Conservative Faces: Premise Duly Accepted

Now we discover that in a certain homo Archbishop’s not so-subtle treatise on clerical oral-genital and oral-rectal copulation, which when set side by side with Amoris Laetitia, shows a great deal of affinity with the latter. By the way, as Randi Engel has explained, the term amoris is a long standing, effete term for faggotry. That’s right, lions of Catholic Conservatism, the Antipope wrote a so-called apostolic exhortation with a gossamer thin veiling of the term “the joy of unnatural vice.” Thanks for leading the charge!

This sort of in-your-Catholic-face means of insult has a name. In particular, the type of mockery over which Catholic sensibilities ought to be most outraged is perpetrated right in front of our faces, the kind in which they know it and we know it. This tactic is a nasty little psychological warfare stratagem used by the Lodge. Crass perversion goes on parade; and remember, they know that we know! They call it the Revelation of the Method; showing us what they are doing to the Faith, while they do it. What is the conservative response? Crush dissenters, close the com-box, and publish resentful screeds against Catholics who have had enough.

Conservatism’s Failure Comes Full Circle

Is this why Father Kramer was dis-invited to today’s conference, because his principled, militant, restorationist stance got in the way of preconceived notions of acceptable, revenue-generating opinions?

Does Catholic Conservatism play a role in making mental geldings out of Catholic men who will absolutely square every last heretical circle of the Conciliar religion by way of a supposed Catholic hermeneutic?

Does Catholic Conservatism stay in business by refusing to question the ridiculously blatant attempt at a papal diarchy? Do they excuse themselves from stating the crucial and undeniable reality of two men in white both calling each other Pope, because they’d otherwise lose support?

Thus, the death rattle of Conservatism takes place, huddled in that last corner that has not yet been ceded to the enemy, railing against dissenters. Having spent all their intellectual capital in decades of attempting to follow the conservative parade from the front, and to set the marching cadence of (in)action from behind, their supporters cry foul and move on.

The terms of the discussion need to be reset.
The aging and toothless plough horse of Catholic conservatism needs to be taken behind the barn and receive a .45 between the eyes.

Useless, conservative Catholic donation farmers are the ones who need to shut up and get in line.

One thought on “Fatima Conference: Failure of Conservatism

  1. Neo-con Catholics are insufferable! They are the Catholic equivalent to the…McConnell, Ryan, Rubio, Graham and McCain’s of the “conservative” establishment.

    I use to admire these guys when I was journeying into the Church. Now I simultaneously loath and pity these deluded souls.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s