Fr Velimir is an elderly priest who has a little difficulty with his legs. That did not stop him from offering Mass in the Extraordinary Rite (the Old Latin Rite) on Passion Sunday (yesterday).
For most people unfamiliar with the theory, one can recognise a Marxist by the social and political issues he supports and pushes. The vehemence of his beliefs and the abusive intolerance he displays is a secondary indication. These are the some of the causes he supports.
Abortion – sacrificing the innocence for convenience and demographic control, and killing the culture
Gay culture – same-sex union foremost, but any sort of union
Gender fluidity – destroying the idea of female and male
Transgenderism – surrender of reason to ideological conformism
Feminism – female ascendance and misandry
Identity politics – racist and class fragmenting of society
Open borders – destroying the culture
Multiculturalism – the fragmenting of the nation and establishment of tribal areas
Diversity – the elimination of the national culture and the imposition of a leftist conformism
Aboriginal separatism – establishing a superior political class on the basis of race
Destruction of Christianity, especially the Catholic Church who he sees as the originator and guardian of capitalist society
Elimination of the nuclear family which is a breeding ground for sexism, patriarchy and female oppression
Anti-white racism – eliminating the (perceived) originators of capitalism
Dismantling of Western Civilization – eliminating the great Oppressor
There are two fundamental elements to the Marxist justification of these causes. The first is a (metaphysical) materialism. Materialism is the doctrine that there is nothing above or beyond the material world. Thus there are no objective moral standards, no preordained structure in the world. There is no God. But what separates materialist Marxism from a liberal materialism is the dialectic which Marx borrowed from Georg Hegel’s idealist philosophy. Dialectical theory is rather involved but in brief it is the idea that reality is conflictual and in continual flux. There are contradictions within the concepts that constitute our thinking. These contradictions gradually work themselves out, that is, evolve from a lower to higher order of understanding. In Marxism’s materialist dialectic, the conflict occurs preeminently between classes, between the perceived oppressor and oppressed. The clash of classes will lead to a higher order of material existence and eventually to some sort of utopian society. The ravage of established society with its enduring norms is of no account in the ineluctable progression of the dialectic. The most cherished beliefs of our Western culture are doomed.
The great opponent of Marxism is a philosophical conservatism with his realist metaphysics and epistemology. There are things out there over which a transcendent order prevails. The mind can recognise in the particulars of sense perception an intelligible order of abstract essences and necessary relations prior to particular things and contingent events. This explains why the ABC and the educational sector, both controlled by Marxists, will not tolerate a hint of conservatism, especially the conserving of Western Society. A stable world governed by a transcendent order is a hindrance to mass (Marxist) manipulation.
The so-called ‘hiatus’ is the critical element in the prosecution’s case against Cardinal Pell. It refers to a time framework during which the sacristy where Cardinal is alleged to have abuse two choirboys was unattended, allowing Pell to have free unimpeded use. Anybody who knows anything about serving Mass – not just at St Patrick’s Cathedral – knows that people are everywhere active after Mass. It is especially the case at St Patrick’s Cathedral when it is a Solemn High Mass for a special occasion.
It’s just embarrassing nonsense for the state prosecutors and the majority in the appeal to seriously maintain there were five to six minutes when the fully robed archbishop, unimpeded, could take two 13-year-old boys and force them to engage in three sex acts as if in some miraculous way the priest’s sacristy with Pell and the choirboys had warped into another dimension. Indeed, that’s what it would have taken – warping into another dimension. The prosecution and majority had to execute some tricky ballet moves to get what they wanted but only ended up tripping themselves into a farcical tangle. It would make a great Monty Python sketch if it wasn’t for the appalling injustice.
Chris Friel takes up the impossibility of the five to six minutes to focus on the lack of principle in the prosecutions’ fancy footwork to make the free-time proposition credible.
It Only Takes Five Minutes
Chris S Friel
‘What I shall do, though, is show just how unprincipled the case against Pell is, indeed, sneaky.‘
The Crown has been check-mated by the hiatus. According to the prosecution the complainant was assaulted during an interval of five to six minutes in a normally busy sacristy. It can be shown,however, that no opportunity existed for such an assault to occur undetected. The Crown suggest that a hiatus arose within the hive of activity. But a breakdown of the cases shows that this is impossible.
For either the hiatus was early, that is, before the processing altar servers returned to the sacristy or else it was late, that is, just after the servers returned. It can’t have been early for the room was locked, and besides, the errant choristers could not have got to the room before the servers. It can’t have been late for the court heard evidence that the activity of clearing up the sacristy began immediately, and besides, concelebrating priests were also part of the procession and when they arrived at the sacristy they stayed to chat.
The game is over.
Along with others, I have argued this point in fine detail over many pages.i However, in this paper I shall spell out the unprincipled way in which the prosecutors tried to have it both ways. Sometimes they painted a picture of an early hiatus; sometimes they painted a late hiatus. It’s the lack of principle that I wish to spell out.
In what follows, then, I shall try locate the contentions, first for an early, and then for a late hiatus.Individually, these arguments cannot be sustained but I shall not dwell on the point here as elsewhere I have already attended to the issues with some care. What I shall do, though, is show just how unprincipled the case against Pell is, indeed, sneaky. Let’s begin with the early hiatus.
Paul Collits has worked in regional economic development analysis, policy and practice for over 20 years, in universities, State parliament, local and State government and in consulting. His longer career of 30 years has also included working in research and analysis in government at national level, industry and politics. This article, considered too hot for publication by some, is explosive. It gives the background to the most shocking episode in Australia in my lifetime – to Australia’s greatest case of justice miscarried.
The promos for Victorian Tourism and Destination Melbourne told us with considerable joy and pride that Roger Federer and Tiger Woods were visiting the southernmost mainland capital this summer.
So was one Ken Jones, who was visiting Victoria from the United Kingdom and not likely to be sighted anywhere near a tennis court or golf course. Jones’ visit is likely to have caused much more of a stir than that of the other two.Continue reading Keystone cops and clownish courts
Chilton Williamson Jr writes about two of Grahame Greene’s most powerful titles in the genre of the Catholic novel
The novelist Graham Greene belonged to a grand era in English Catholicism that began with Newman and ended around 1960. According to the author, his many books fall into two general categories: those works of fiction he described as “entertainments,” and the others he called simply “novels.” The latter reflect the degree to which Greene—a convert and later a self-described “Catholic agnostic” with a disordered private life—was haunted by the Faith he neither could nor wished to abandon, while persisting in his idiosyncratic understanding of it.
This, of course, is the intellectual and spiritual condition of many modern Catholics. No one, however, has explored that condition more consistently, poignantly, and dramatically than Greene did. His friend and admirer Evelyn Waugh, in a lengthy review essay of The Heart of the Matter, observed that only a Catholic could have written the book, and only a Catholic could understand it. Greene chose aptly when he took for his epigraph several lines from Charles Péguy: “Le pécheur est au coeur même de chrétienté… Nul n’est aussi compétent que le pécheur en matière de chrétienté. Nul, si c’est le saint.” (“The sinner is at the heart of Christianity… No one is as competent as the sinner in matters concerning Christianity. No one, unless it is the saint.”)
By Cicero Bruce|February 6th, 2020
Dickens and the Social Order, by Myron Magnet (266 pages, ISI Books, 2004)
Critics have well acquainted us with Dickens the sentimentalist—lover of the oppressed, defender of childhood innocence, decrier of England’s industrial sweatshops. But seldom have they given readers a glimpse of the Dickens with whom Myron Magnet deals in his study of Britain’s preeminent fictionist, the Dickens who had an “almost fanatical devotion to the Metropolitan Police,” who reproved his government’s failure to punish sufficiently the hardened violators of its laws, supported Governor Eyre’s notoriously violent quelling of the 1864 Negro uprising in Jamaica, and called the proverbial noble savage and annoying “superstition” that “ought to be civilized off the face of the earth.” In short, critics have said far too little about the philosophical traditionalist reconsidered in Dickens and the Social Order.
Yes, Dickens was a reformer, a radical one at that, but his reforming spirit, as Dr. Magnet carefully reveals, was checked by the intrinsic conservatism by no means shared by his present-day enthusiasts, who, for the sake of validating generally liberal aims and assumptions, prefer to focus on the sanguine aspects of his achievement. True, Dickens may have been qualitatively liberal, at least by the standards of nineteenth-century English liberalism. But he was neither a liberal per se nor a conservative liberal of any sort. He was, to make an important semantic distinction, a liberal conservative.
A Facebook page supporting Cardinal Pell claimed:
‘The man who accused George Pell of abuse at a camp in 2002 was a convicted drug felon. The men who accused Pell of inappropriate behavior at the pool were convicted drug felons. The deceased choir boy whose name has been dragged into the sordid tale by the latest accuser was a convicted drug felon (heroin dealer, in his case).‘
They could have added that the accuser has serious psychological difficulties. Despite the suppression order on the accuser’s identity and background, that much at least has become known.
It’s inevitable that more will come out. The state apparatus preventing unpleasant information about the whole Pell case cannot cover it up indefinitely. Like the Dreyfus case, the sordid story of injustice will become known even if it takes some years.
Some of us will never rest until it is all out in the open.
Michael Matt comments on the increasing collusion of Pope Francis and the Vatican with the population-control guru Jeffrey Sachs (read abortionist). It’s clear enough that Francis and his fellow apostates in the Vatican plan to work with Sachs and his one-world Marxist coterie to ensure President Donald Trump is not re-elected.
There is some chilling stuff in this video, in particular the glimpse into the mind of Jeffrey Sachs who seems entirely unaware of how frighteningly naked he and his plans appear to those who have not succumbed to his class’s indoctrination. And pay attenton to the Vatican prelate sitting next to Sachs. What could he be thinking to conduct himself in such an obnoxious manner? See this powerful video HERE.
Chris S Friel destroys the prosecution case that resulted in the greatest miscarriage of justice in Australia’s history, demonstrating to what extent Australian state and society have been degraded.
There are many problems with the Crown’s submission to the High Court,i but here I shall spell outsome difficulties with the way that they now maintain howPell’s assault was possible.
A first point is that under cross-examination the complainant insisted that both assaults happened immediately after Mass.ii The defence, however, at the trial and in appeal, countered that this was impossible as what was done could not have gone undetected in that busy place. Tacitly, this is now conceded by the Crown. The difficulty with the “immediately after Mass” theory is that immediately after Mass the choirboys would have been in a procession.
That procession would have included altar servers who made up the front and the rear – two acolytes at the end being deputed to return the Archbishop’s mitre and crozier while he remained at the West Door. As the Crown no doubt realises, it has been demonstrated that the servers would have reached the sacristy first (because the boys took a circuitous route to the place where th eassault took place).iii It was not physically possible to get to the scene of the crime before them and also endure a five minute assault.