The face of fanaticism

 

As shown here, a liberal supporter of Joe Biden explains why she believes Donald Trump is "dangerous" as she sports a Communist tattoo on her arm and wields a weapon - a pistol crossbow - at a political rally. When asked why she is carrying a weapon to a political rally she explains that she doesn't feel safe in that crowd. She neglects to explain why, if she feels so threatened,  she didn't just remain at home.

When asked about the assassination attempt against Trump, this unhappy soul declares that she's sorry the attempt failed because Donald Trump is "dangerous."

In his work of critical importance entitled "Man Against Mass Society," the French philosopher Gabriel Marcel writes, "..the fanatic never sees himself as a fanatic; it is only the non-fanatic who can recognize him as a fanatic; so that when this judgment, or this accusation, is made, the fanatic can always say that he is misunderstood and slandered...Fanaticism is essentially opinion pushed to paroxysm; with everything that the notion of opinion may imply of blinded ignorance as to its own nature....whatever ends the fanatic is aiming at or thinks he is aiming at, even if he wishes to gather men together, he can only in fact separate them; but as his own interests cannot lie in effecting this separation, he is led, as we have seen, to wish to wipe his opponents out. And when he is thinking of these opponents, he takes care to form the most degrading images of them possible - they are 'lubricious vipers' or 'hyenas and jackals with typewriters' - and the ones that reduce them to most grossly material terms. In fact, he no longer thinks of these opponents except as material obstacles to be overturned or smashed down. Having abandoned the behaviour of a thinking being, he has lost even the feeblest notion of what a thinking being, outside himself, could be. It is understandable therefore that he should make every effort to deny in advance the rights and qualifications of those whom he wishes to eliminate; and that he should regard all means to this end as fair. We are back here again at the techniques of degradation. It cannot be asserted too strongly or repeated too often that those the Nazis made use of in their camps - techniques for degrading their victims in their own eyes, for making mud and filth of them - and those which Soviet propagandists use to discredit their adversaries, are not essentially different though we should, in fairness, add that sadism, properly so called, is not to be found in the Russian camps." (pp. 135-136, 149).

Marcel explains that, "In fact, the greatest merit of the critical spirit is that it tends to cure fanaticism, and it is logical enough that in our own fanatical times the critical spirit should tend to disappear, should no longer even be paid lip service as a value."

I'm glad I wasn't at this same political rally. Witnessing my Ultra Maga shirt, this woman may have felt inclined to deliver an arrow into my chest to smash down my "dangerous" views.

Sacred Heart of Jesus, heal our troubled nation.

Eric Clapton and the critical spirit: Resisting the fanaticized consciousness

 As noted here, Eric Clapton says, "..he was duped into getting the mRNA jab by subliminal messaging in pharmaceutical advertising — and urged others not to fall for it.

'Whatever the memo was, it hadn’t reached me,' he said, referring to the 'mass formation hypnosis' theory.

Credited to Belgian psychologist Mattias Desmet, the theory essentially points to a sort of mind control that has taken over society, allowing for unscrupulous leaders to easily manipulate populations into, for example, accepting vaccines or wearing face masks.

'Then I started to realize there was really a memo, and a guy, Mattias Desmet [professor of clinical psychology at Ghent University in Belgium], talked about it,' Clapton continued. 'And it’s great. The theory of mass formation hypnosis. And I could see it then. Once I kind of started to look for it, I saw it everywhere.'

Clapton recalled 'seeing little things on YouTube which were like subliminal advertising,' he said.

The former Cream guitarist also talked about his efforts with fellow British songwriter Van Morrison to speak up on behalf of other artists against vaccine requirements.

'My career had almost gone anyway. At the point where I spoke out, it had been almost 18 months since I’d kind of been forcibly retired,' he said, as pandemic restrictions shut down live events for months.

'I joined forces with Van and I got the tip Van was standing up to the measures and I thought, ‘Why is nobody else doing this?’ … so I contacted him.” He said Morrison, 76, complained that he wasn’t “allowed” to freely object to vaccine requirements.

'I was mystified, I seemed to be the only person that found it exciting or even appropriate. I’m cut from a cloth where if you tell me I can’t do something, I really want to know why.'

'My family and friends got scared, and I think they were scared on my behalf,' he added.

Clapton also admitted that he’d given up on recent news media, which he described as 'one-way traffic about following orders and obedience' — a decision that he said has helped him creatively and professionally."

______________________________________________

In his work of critical importance entitled "Man Against Mass Society," the French philosopher Gabriel Marcel writes, "..the fanatic never sees himself as a fanatic; it is only the non-fanatic who can recognize him as a fanatic; so that when this judgment, or this accusation, is made, the fanatic can always say that he is misunderstood and slandered...Fanaticism is essentially opinion pushed to paroxysm; with everything that the notion of opinion may imply of blinded ignorance as to its own nature....whatever ends the fanatic is aiming at or thinks he is aiming at, even if he wishes to gather men together, he can only in fact separate them; but as his own interests cannot lie in effecting this separation, he is led, as we have seen, to wish to wipe his opponents out. And when he is thinking of these opponents, he takes care to form the most degrading images of them possible - they are 'lubricious vipers' or 'hyenas and jackals with typewriters' - and the ones that reduce them to most grossly material terms. In fact, he no longer thinks of these opponents except as material obstacles to be overturned or smashed down. Having abandoned the behaviour of a thinking being, he has lost even the feeblest notion of what a thinking being, outside himself, could be. It is understandable therefore that he should make every effort to deny in advance the rights and qualifications of those whom he wishes to eliminate; and that he should regard all means to this end as fair. We are back here again at the techniques of degradation. It cannot be asserted too strongly or repeated too often that those the Nazis made use of in their camps - techniques for degrading their victims in their own eyes, for making mud and filth of them - and those which Soviet propagandists use to discredit their adversaries, are not essentially different though we should, in fairness, add that sadism, properly so called, is not to be found in the Russian camps." (pp. 135-136, 149).

Marcel explains that, "In fact, the greatest merit of the critical spirit is that it tends to cure fanaticism, and it is logical enough that in our own fanatical times the critical spirit should tend to disappear, should no longer even be paid lip service as a value."

But why is this? Why is our own time marked by the fanaticized consciousness? Dusty Sklar addresses the problem in his book "The Nazis and the Occult" in a Chapter entitled "Making an Obedient Mass." He writes, "Since World War II, several books have appeared which, while not dealing directly with the Nazis, are of invaluable aid in explaining how ordinary people can be transformed into automata, devoid of conscience or reason. They help us to understand, not only the Nazis, but millions of disciples of movements in Western countries today, who, almost overnight, are weaned from their customary behavior and attachments and indoctrinated with irrational beliefs. They are The True Believer by Eric Hoffer, The Mind Possessed by William Sargant, and The Rape of the Mind by Joost Meerloo. What is the formula for producing pliant followers? Take people, not wholly preoccupied with subsistence, who despair of being happy either in the present or in the future. They feel the sharp cutting edge of frustration. Either through some personal defect or because external conditions do not permit growth, they are eager to renounce themselves, since the self is insupportable. Many German men were in this position at the end of World War I. They came home to a civilian life without purpose, in which they had no part. In the chaos and collapse, vast armies of uprooted people felt threatened by the war's economic and social aftermath. National Socialism gave them a chance for a fresh start. As Eric Hoffer points out:

'People who see their lives as irremediably spoiled cannot find a worth-while purpose in self-advancement. The prospect of an individual career cannot stir them to a mighty effort, nor can it evoke in them faith and a singleminded dedication. They look on self-interest as on something tainted and evil; something unclean and unlucky. Anything undertaken under the auspices of the self seems to them foredoomed. Nothing that has its roots and reasons in the self can be good and noble. Their innermost craving is for anew life - a rebirth - or, failing this, a chance to acquire new elements of pride, confidence, hope, a sense of purpose and worth by an identification with a holy cause. An active mass movement offers them opportunities for both. If they join the movement as full converts they are reborn to a new life in its close-knit collective body, or if attracted as sympathizers they find elements of pride, confidence and purpose by identifying themselves with the efforts, achievements and prospects of the movement. To the frustrated a mass movement offers substitutes either for the whole self or for the elements which make life bearable and which they cannot evoke out of their individual resources.'

The movement, in turn, encourages self-renunciation. It does not attract the individual who believes in himself, nor does it care to; on the contrary, he is precisely the individual whom it ridicules." (pp. 149-150).

 

Liberals like Joy Behar want to demonize Christians as the Nazis demonized Jews

Scott Whitlock, writing for Newsbusters, notes that:


"It didn't take long for The View's new co-hosts to start slamming Christians and conservatives. On the season premiere, Tuesday, Michelle Collins mocked the appearance of Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk jailed for refusing to issue gay marriage licenses. The recently-added host sneered that Davis is "my top candidate for 'this bitch got a man?'"

Calling out the woman for her multiple marriages, Collins snarled, "Have you seen the lady?... I'm serious. She's a monster. " This prompted gasps from the audience. Bitch? Monster? Seems more than a little anti-woman to attack Davis for her looks."

In Man Against Mass Society, Gabriel Marcel writes, "In spite of everything that can be said to the contrary, is not the real and deep purpose of propaganda after all that of reducing men to a condition in which they lose all capacity for individual reaction? In other words, whether the men in control of propaganda intend this or not, is it not of the very nature of propaganda to degrade those whose attitudes it seeks to shape? And is it possible to be unaware of the fact that propaganda presupposes, in these men in control, a fundamental contempt for the rest of the human race? If we really attach any value at all to what a man is in himself, to his authentic nature, how can we assume the responsibility of passing him through the flattening-out machinery of propaganda?

What we ought to enquire into, however, is the nature of this contempt. There are, of course, fine shades of distinction that analysis ought to bring out: but is there any essential difference between the attitude of someone like Goebbels, for instance, and that of a chief of Communist propaganda? In both cases we are faced with a radical and cynical refusal to recognize the competence of individual judgment, an impatience with what appears, from this point of view, the intolerable presumptuousness of the individual. It is also broadly noteworthy that even the sense of truth cannot fail gradually and unconsciously to be destroyed in those who assume the task of manipulating opinion. It would require a very uncommon degree of simple-mindedness in a professional propagandist for him to remain very long convinced that his truth was the whole truth. Such simple-mindedness is only conceivable in a fanatic." (pp. 50-51).

We witness such a fanaticism in Rudolf Hess, who became deputy leader of the Third Reich, and who said: "It was granted to me for many years of my life to live and work under the greatest son whom my nation has produced in the thousand years of its history. Even if I could I would not expunge this period from my existence. I regret nothing. If I were standing once more at the beginning I should act once again as I did then, even if I knew that at the end I should be burnt at the stake. No matter what men do, I shall one day stand before the judgment seat of the Almighty. I shall answer to him, and I know that he will acquit me."

For such a fanatic, the State is beyond criticism. Its realm is utterly sacred. And even if one should have convictions which run counter to those of the State, these must be subordinated to the State. Hermann Goring expressed this belief when he said, "I have no conscience! Adolf Hitler is my conscience!" and "It is not I who live, but the Fuhrer who lives in me."

As Dusty Sklar notes, "In the suggestible state, the proselyte may attribute divine powers to his leader and accept dogmas which he might have rejected in a more normal state [see here for example]. Some of the men closest to Hitler, for example, acknowledged that they believed in his divinity. Himmler's masseur, Felix Kersten, relates that he once answered the phone and heard Hitler's voice before passing the phone on to Himmler, who exclaimed" 'You have been listening to the voice of the Fuhrer, you're a very lucky man.' Himmler told Kersten that Hitler's commands came 'from a world transcending this one.' and that they should be 'saved' by 'a figure of the greatest brilliance' which had 'become incarnate' in Hitler's person." (The Nazis and the Occult, p. 157).

Even intelligent people are not immune from the desire to conform. As Sklar notes, "We 'catch' ideas, too, because we want to be like others, particularly when we want not to be our despised selves. If we're satisfied, we don't need to conform, but if we're not, we imitate people whom we admire for having greater judgment, taste, or good fortune than we do. Obedience itself is a kind of imitation. Through conformity, the person who feels inferior is in no danger of being exposed. He's indistinguishable from the others. No one can single him out and examine his unique being. Conformity, in turn, sets him up to be further canceled out as an individual, to have no life apart from his collective purpose. This gives a movement tremendous power over the individual...Hoffer [Eric Hoffer] observes: 'Above all, he [the true believer] must never feel alone. Though stranded on a desert island, he must still feel that he is under the eyes of the group. To be cast out from the group should be equivalent to being cut off from life. This is undoubtedly a primitive state of being, and its most perfect examples are found among primitive tribes. Mass movements strive to approximate this primitive perfection, and we are not imagining things when the anti-individual bias of contemporary mass movements strikes us as a throwback to the primitive.'" (Dusty Sklar, The Nazis and the Occult, citing Eric Hoffer, p. 158).
What is a Christian to do when faced with a mass movement which seeks to subjugate the individual to the collective? A movement which "refuses to recognize the competence of individual judgment" and to enslave all in a prison of absolute conformity to the State? The Christian must prepare himself or herself by relinquishing the fear of public opinion and to pray for the Holy Spirit's gift of Fortitude.
It was the Cure of Ars [St. Jean Vianney, patron saint of parish priests] who said: "Do not try to please everybody. Try to please God, the angels, and the saints - they are your public." To which he added: "If you are afraid of other people's opinion, you should not have become a Christian."
There is always a price to be paid for following Jesus. Those committed to their Christian faith must expect a certain amount of unpopularity. God knows I live with this unpopularity every day. So be it. What difference does this make? It was St. Gerard Majella who asked, "Who except God can give you peace? Has the world ever been able to satisfy the heart?" To which I would add: look closely at the photograph at the top of this post. Think of the masses who succumbed to Hitler's propaganda of a "thousand year Reich" which would transform the world. Were these throngs of people any happier at the end of the war? Did the world satisfy their hearts? Were these people not left with the bitter and empty taste of defeat?
What is the absolute worse the world can do to us? Why do we fear the world so much? We must recall the words of Blessed Miguel Pro, S.J., as he faced his firing squad: Viva Christo Rey! Long live Christ the King! For, as St. Paul of the Cross has told us, "The aversions that you experience, the ridicule, the scorn, the jokes, etc., should be received with great gratitude toward God. These serve as the pyre of love on which the victim of love is burned..."

The soul that gives itself completely to God can expect to be persecuted. Even killed. But what of it? We should remember the words of Jesus: "I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body but after that can do no more. I shall show you whom to fear. Be afraid of the one who after killing has the power to cast into Gehenna; yes, I tell you, be afraid of that one. Are not five sparrows sold for two small coins? Yet not one of them has escaped the notice of God. Even the hairs of your head have all been counted. Do not be afraid. You are worth more than many sparrows." (Luke 12: 4-7).

Before the Nazis began their genocide against the Jewish People, they first demonized them, comparing them (among other things) to rats emerging from a sewer.  The Jews were painted as disease-ridden vermin.

Today, Christians who oppose same-sex "marriage" are portrayed as "backward," as mentally ill or "homophobic," as "hypocrites," and even as "monsters."

It is necessary to place us in a ghetto before relegating us to the death camps and the firing squads.

Kasper the-not-so-friendly ghost attempts to justify Pope Francis' condemnation of the Curia

Religion News Service is reporting that: "Cardinal Walter Kasper, one of Pope Francis’ closest advisers, has sought to downplay the pontiff’s scathing critique of the Curia earlier this week.

Kasper, who previously led the Vatican body responsible for promoting Christian unity, said the pope was asking the Curia, or Vatican administration, to examine their conscience in a bid to promote spiritual renewal.

The German cardinal, joined by Argentine Cardinal Leonardo Sandri, said Francis was asking the Curia to set an example.

'The fundamental thing is he wants spiritual reform of the Curia,' Kasper told the Italian daily Corriere della Sera on Wednesday (Dec. 24).

Certainly also reform of the structures is important and he is working on that. But the basis of the problem is spiritual.”  See here.

Cardinal Kasper wants us to believe that the hate-filled pre-Christmas rant leveled at the Curia by Pope Francis was merely an exercise in constructive criticism with an eye toward encouraging self-examination which will lead to spiritual renewal.

But the techniques of degradation will never stir others to authentic reform. What is constructive criticism and how does it differ from condemnation?

Dr. Montague Brown, professor of philosophy at Saint Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire, explains the difference between the two nicely: “Criticism is the honest appraisal of the value of ideas or actions…Pursued in the right spirit, it is a positive undertaking whose purpose is to gain an accurate understanding for the sake of growing in wisdom and virtue….Condemnation goes beyond evaluation of an idea or action to a declaration of the worthlessness of a human being. It is never fair and is a wholly negative judgment, referring only to weaknesses. Because condemnation is unreasonable, it serves no purpose in our quest for wisdom and virtue.” (The One-Minute Philosopher, pp. 28,29).

Can it honestly be said that the pope's referring to his brothers in the Episcopate as "sick," "spiritually and mentally hardened," "enslaved to idols," "boastful and arrogant," "cowardly," "indifferent," "gloomy," and "sterile," not to mention a litany of other charges, in a public forum, is merely an exercise in fraternal constructive criticism?

Related reading here

Demonizing Christianity on Facebook

By Kirsten Anderson Image


Writing for LifeSiteNews, Kirsten Anderson reports that, "The head of a Christian ministry that succeeded in having an anti-Christian hate page removed from Facebook last year is taking action once again after discovering the page has been reinstated.

Cary Bogue, CEO of Project Wildfire and owner of the 'Catholics & Protestants United Against Christian Discrimination' Facebook page, objects to a page called 'Virgin Mary Should’ve Aborted,' (WARNING: obscene content) which depicts as its cover image the unborn Jesus as an abortion victim wearing a crown of thorns, while the Virgin Mary smokes a marijuana cigar with a satisfied smirk. The page’s profile image is similarly offensive, featuring a cartoon image of the Virgin looking down at her swollen belly and muttering an expletive.

The page’s description reads, 'People have rights, ideas do not. No beliefs are above criticism. Organized religion is AIDS and we desperately need a cure.'

Bogue argues the page violates Facebook’s Community Standards, which state: 'While we encourage you to challenge ideas, institutions, events, and practices, we do not permit individuals or groups to attack others based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, disability or medical condition.'

'If this is not the exact definition of hate speech directed at a religion, I am not sure what is,' Bogue said. 'We all know Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg is an avowed atheist, pro-abortion and a strong advocate for the LGBT, but that does not excuse him from continuing to allow this page to remain. It also does not excuse the apparent lack of integrity and bias this shows. I challenge him or anyone at Facebook to explain to the Christians across America how this isn’t hate speech directed against Christianity.'

Last summer, Bogue succeeded in having the offensive page temporarily taken down after a Tweetfest featuring the hashtag '#StopFBAntiChristianBias.' A concurrent petition drive urging Facebook to remove the page garnered more than 20,000 signatures.

When the women who run the page immediately put up a second page, 'Virgin Mary STILL Should Have Aborted,' Bogue urged Facebook to remove that one, too.

Facebook did remove the spin-off page and notified Bogue by e-mail. But within two days, the page owners successfully appealed the ban, and the original page was back up and running – unbeknownst to Bogue.

'When I first got the e-mail I thought they had reconsidered on the original page,' said Bogue. 'While it had about 2,300 fans it has a much smaller impact than Virgin Mary Should’ve Aborted (VMSA). There is no logic in Facebook removing one without the other. A quick perusal of the page makes that obvious.'

Most of what is posted on the VMSA page cannot be reprinted here due to its obscenity, but the posts mainly fall into one of three categories: anti-Christian, pro-abortion, or pro-LGBT. None of those sentiments are exactly uncommon among Facebook’s 1.3 billion users, but it is the sheer virulence of the posts that would seem to violate Facebook’s Community Standards. The page’s administrators wear their hatred for religious people on their sleeve, often calling them 'religtards' or 'God-botherers,' but more frequently referring to them with obscene euphemisms for genitalia and immoral sex acts.

Explaining why she started the VMSA page in a recent post, one of the page’s administrators wrote, 'Nothing tickled me more than the squirming image of a right-wing conservative receiving the notification ‘Virgin Mary Should've Aborted likes your post!’ I relished this [discomfort] and it made me realize that these kind of extreme religious interactions will only be available in this time period, for a few more years. This is the age of technology and science, and one day religion will be a scarcity; a laughable stain on our past.'

As Bogue renewed the effort to have the page shut down, the administrators taunted him, writing, 'Sorry, dudebro, but we were unpublished before, but Facebook backed us. We came back harder than before, and look at us now.'

But Bogue, who says he has received death threats and had Facebook pages put up attacking him and his family by fans of VMSA, is undaunted.

'I expect lots of nasty personal attacks and pages to be put up,' he said. 'But I am a servant of Christ. So bring it on!'

'"Remember the word that I said to you, the servant is not greater than his Lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you,'" he added, quoting John 15:20.

Bogue is calling on Facebook users who are offended by VMSA’s content to report it to the company as hate speech....
Bogue filed a police report, as well, on Tuesday with the Milwaukee County Sheriff, saying a car followed his wife in and out of traffic, snapping pictures of her. 'I found it concerning when one of the VMSA admins denied it and in the denial stated she lived exactly 1,414 miles from me,” he told LifeSiteNews. “She obviously knew exactly where I live.'"

Just a couple of years ago, students at Clark University's "Freethought Society" were demonizing Christian belief and practice.  Because I have posted two photos over the years of aborted babies, I was referred to as a "delusional nutter."  See here: http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/2012/01/is-clark-university-really-committed-to.html

Facebook warned me to cease posting photos of aborted babies.  But this forum, owned by an avowed atheist, routinely tolerates (and perhaps even encourages) those who oppose religious belief and who engage in what the French philosopher Gabriel Marcel labelled the "techniques of degradation."


In his work of critical importance entitled "Man Against Mass Society," Marcel explains, "I understand by 'techniques of degradation' a whole body of methods deliberately put into operation in order to attack and destroy in human persons belonging to some definite class or other their self-respect, and in order to transform them little by little into mere human waste products, conscious of themselves as such, and in the end forced to despair of themselves, not merely at an intellectual level, but in the very depths of their souls.." (p. 42).

Through the fanatical employment of such techniques, radical homosexual activists hope to smash down their opponents, to categorize them as mentally ill (suffering from a "phobia"), as hate-filled "bigots" who cling to "worn out arguments" based upon an "archaic morality" which is rooted in Divine Revelation and Natural Law, as superstitious and backward people who need to be re-educated in order to fit into the new Culture of Sodomy.

Marcel writes, "Having abandoned the behaviour of a thinking being, he [the fanatic of any stripe who seeks to impose rather than propose] has lost even the feeblest notion of what a thinking being, outside himself, could be. It is understandable therefore that he should make every effort to deny in advance the rights and qualifications of those whom he wishes to eliminate; and that he should regard all means to this end as fair. We are back here again at the techniques of degradation.." (p. 149).

In the New Order, those who oppose abortion and homosexuality on moral grounds must be degraded. They must be placed in a ghetto. Just as the National Socialists employed the techniques of degradation in their propaganda war against the Jewish People, portraying them as rats emerging from a sewer, as subhuman people who stood in the way of a new republic and a more glorious era, so too radical homosexual activists and Culture of Death ideologues seek to demonize any and all moral opposition toward homosexuality and abortion and will use any and all means to achieve that end.

Another lying atheist exposed: "Catholic Internet Watch" Blog created by a virulently anti-Catholic atheist

In the comments section of my post "Persecution?  What persecution?", Mr. Michael Cole, writing about an individual who has been attacking myself and other orthodox Catholics at the Blog "Catholic" Internet Watch, writes:

"Brian Bridson is "Scout." At another Blog, this atheist from the UK writes:


Excommunication and Defection from the Catholic Church

First of all, there is a very real difference between excommunication and defection. Excommunication is an action taken by the Roman Catholic Church that comes close to fully removing you from the Church, but, in typical Catholic fashion, they leave you with the option of repenting and reclaiming your good standing with the Church. So even if you are excommunicated, you are still counted as a member of the flock.

Defection is different. Also known as Actus formalis defectionis ab Ecclesia catholica, grants the person seeking it the right to have their name removed from records of the Catholic Church and nullifies your baptismal certificate. Of course, when seeking Actus formalis defectionis ab Ecclesia catholica, it would be good to include the rationale for your defection. You will also want to know where and when you were baptized.

I first called the priest servicing the Church in which I was baptized to inform him that I would be pursuing the issue. He spoke with the bishop about it and confirmed that all I need to do is provide the priest with a letter, stating my intention to defect, with my baptismal information and reasons for defection. He will then take the letter to the Bishop of the Diocese, have it processed, and I will receive a letter in the mail confirming my defection.

Below is the text, minus personally identifiable information, that I provided to the priest stating my intention to defect (submitted Monday, March 21, 2011):

My name is Brian Bridson. I was baptized at xxxx Catholic Church, in xxxx, Ontario, during late August or early September in xxxx. Becoming Catholic, much less confession, communion and confirmation, were never decisions I made myself; I never chose to be Catholic.

Due to the fact that I never chose to be Catholic, and because I believe that not once has any evidence for the existence of any gods, much less the Christian or Catholic one, I hereby request a formal defection from the Catholic Church (Actus formalis defectionis ab Ecclesia catholica).

Please send record of my formal defection from the Catholic Church to the address below:


Brian Bridson

xxxxxxxxxx


Thank you for submitting my Actus formalis defectionis ab Ecclesia catholica.

Brian Bridson

It is short and simple, but all that was needed. Don’t forget to sign (include your signature in) your letter. I will post the letter I receive from the Church when I get it."

http://philosophershaze.com/?page_id=7


There are links to many atheist and secular humanist websites at this blog of his. And in a post on "Catholislam," one of his tags is "catholic internet watch," which, surprise - is the title of his new anti-Catholic blog.

I've copied all of this should he decide to delete the pages. More on the atheist Brian Bridson here:

http://philosophershaze.com/?page_id=127


Here's what Brian Bridson - the "grandson of three Catholic grandparents" - has to say about the Church in his post entitled "Catholislam":

The catholic church isn’t interested in educating its followers, much less encouraging them to be able to have genuine conversations with atheists and agnostics. This attitude is summed up rather nicely by Suzanne Scotconi of the archdiocese of Toronto, who said that “We rather like the weak ones.” (See this post for more information about Scotconi’s remark.) What the church really wants in a bunch of mindless sheep that are too scared to think for themselves and who are unable to have honest, genuine conversations with others who haven’t drank their kool-aid.

And what does this do? Well, with great ignorance comes great misunderstanding. These sheep, especially the good ones who have given over the entire substance of their being to this vampiric organization, become unable to enter into honest dialogues with those who have competing or greatly different outlooks on the world. And this misunderstanding, as it grows, often leads to open animosity towards these various “others”.

Don’t forget though – this is a church of understanding.

Then think about the manner in which the church treats members of the TBLGQ communities. In fact, the contempt is so great for these people that in the UN the church, via the Vatican, tried to strike down a motion that would designate them as having special status under international human rights legislation. And why would they seek to deny ensuring this discriminated group of individuals be given special status? Because their “holy book” tells them that these people are akin to evil monsters; swine even.."

Full anti-Catholic post here:

http://philosophershaze.com/?p=2125


Now, Mr. Bridson (a.k.a. "Scout") just left another post at his new Blog "Catholic" Internet Watch, in which he writes: "A commenter at Paul Anthony Melanson's gay-hating La Salette Journey blog is claiming that I am Brian Bridson. This is not true, and there are no reasonable grounds for such a suspicion outside of the frenziedly paranoid, intellectually dysfunctional little Catholic bubble inhabited by the La Salette Journey set. I left them a comment to correct the mistake, although I rather expect it to be deleted."
Now astute readers of this Blog - and this would exclude mindless atheists such as Brian Bridson - know full well that I have no hatred whatsoever for homosexual persons.  Only the sin of homosexuality.  Astute individuals will also find it interesting that Brian Bridson says that he grew up in London "during the 1980s and 1990s."  In fact he uses the exact phrase which "Scout" uses at "Catholic" Internet Watch: "Growing up in London during the 1980s and 1990s."  In a post at that Blog dated October 26, 2011, "Scout" (a.k.a. Brian Bridson) writes:

"Some complain Catholic Internet Watch is "anti-Catholic". It is not. I am the grandson of three Catholic grandparents and count Catholics amongst my friends. Real anti-Catholic prejudice is something I deplore. Growing up in London during the 1980s and 1990s, I remember the suspicion against Catholics at the time of the IRA bombing campaign.

Critics ask me, "Why focus just on Catholics?" It is true that narrow-mindedness can be found amongst the members of other belief systems. I could start a blog called "Protestant Internet Watch", "Muslim Internet Watch" or "Atheist Internet Watch" and find much of legitimate concern to blog about. If I wanted to be even-handed, I could do an "Everybody Internet Watch" and devote each week to a different misbehaving group.

The fact of the matter is, though, that my time and knowledge is limited, and as the old dictum goes, "it is best to write about what you know best". I believe I am, or hope I am, well-placed to study Catholic internet goings-on because I was immersed in that world for a while myself. But that does not make me "anti-Catholic". In fact, I admire the more beautiful aspects of Catholicism, and was at one time very personally interested in the religion on a positive level.

What eventually turned me off was the effect Catholicism has on so many of its followers. That is why Catholic Internet Watch was born. The internet is a largely anonymous forest where you can often best gauge what people are really like and what they are really thinking. It is here that I learnt about the darker side of the collective Catholic mind, and I believe it has to be exposed if people are to become aware of the problem that exists. In many ways, the Catholic leadership fails to deal with or even encourages bad thinking and bad behaviour, and this is also something that needs to be exposed." (See here).

Mr. Bridson has his own anti-Catholic agenda.  And he is obviously willing to lie and deceive to advance that agenda.  Manipulation is manipulation.  And Mr. Bridson (a.k.a. "Scout"), is a manipulator.

Culture of Sodomy: Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley supports the techniques of degradation

Mass Resistance is reporting that Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, who has a rather extensive record of radical pro-homosexual activism, has filed an amicus brief in support of KnowThyNeighbor. See here. KnowThyNeighbor is a radical homosexual hate organization which specializes in intimidation and harassment and in what the French philosopher Gabriel Marcel labelled the "techniques of degradation."

In his work of critical importance entitled "Man Against Mass Society," Marcel explains, "I understand by 'techniques of degradation' a whole body of methods deliberately put into operation in order to attack and destroy in human persons belonging to some definite class or other their self-respect, and in order to transform them little by little into mere human waste products, conscious of themselves as such, and in the end forced to despair of themselves, not merely at an intellectual level, but in the very depths of their souls.." (p. 42).

Through the fanatical employment of such techniques, radical homosexual activists hope to smash down their opponents, to categorize them as mentally ill (suffering from a "phobia"), as hate-filled "bigots" who cling to "worn out arguments" based upon an "archaic morality" which is rooted in Divine Revelation and Natural Law, as superstitious and backward people who need to be re-educated in order to fit into the new Culture of Sodomy.

Marcel writes, "Having abandoned the behaviour of a thinking being, he [the fanatic of any stripe who seeks to impose rather than propose*] has lost even the feeblest notion of what a thinking being, outside himself, could be. It is understandable therefore that he should make every effort to deny in advance the rights and qualifications of those whom he wishes to eliminate; and that he should regard all means to this end as fair. We are back here again at the techniques of degradation.." (p. 149).

In the New Order, those who oppose homosexuality on moral grounds must be degraded. They must be placed in a ghetto. Just as the National Socialists employed the techniques of degradation in their propaganda war against the Jewish People, portraying them as rats emerging from a sewer, as subhuman people who stood in the way of a new republic and a more glorious era, so too radical homosexual activists seek to demonize any and all moral opposition toward homosexuality and will use any and all means to achieve that end.

The homosexual movement is not a civil rights movement. It is a moral revolution. And Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley has shown that she supports this moral revolution.

* The Church proposes, the world imposes. See here.