Author Archives: rg

Renowned Catholic philosopher warns Pope Francis is ‘destroying the foundations of faith and morals’

Dr. Josef Seifert rebuked the cardinals of the Church for failing ‘to proclaim those many truths of the faith that the Pope openly or tacitly contradicts by words and also deeds.’

Writes Andreas Wailzer:

A Catholic professor blasted Pope Francis, accusing the Pontiff of “destroying the foundations of faith and morals.”

Renowned philosophy professor and intimate friend of Pope John Paul II, Josef Seifert, published an open letter addressed to the cardinals of the Catholic Church, in which he called the bishops of the Church to resist Pope Francis’ his heterodox actions, like the signing of the Abu Dhabi document.

“Pope Francis – I say this with a bleeding heart – is not the ‘guarantor of the faith’, but is constantly increasingly destroying the foundations of faith and morals with this and many other statements and pronouncements,” Seifert wrote.

Continue reading here.

Regarding unjust weights

A biblical rule that should prohibit inflation

From Deuteronomy 25:

13 Do not have two differing weights in your bag—one heavy, one light. 14 Do not have two differing measures in your house—one large, one small. 15 You must have accurate and honest weights and measures, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you. 16 For the Lord your God detests anyone who does these things, anyone who deals dishonestly.

(I first learnt this when I read Guido Hülsmann’s book “The Ethics of Money Production“)

Choice of ruler in the Old Testament

God set some rules for that person

The prophet Samuel warned the people of Israel not to have a king. Essentially, he said: “Beware what you wish for.”

From 1 Samuel 8:

10 Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, ‘This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: he will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plough his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle[c] and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.’

Interestingly however, in an older book (Deuteronomy), God seems to have anticipated that the people will want a king. So he gave some instructions as to what that person was to do once in office:

From Deuteronomy 17:

14 When you enter the land the Lord your God is giving you and have taken possession of it and settled in it, and you say, ‘Let us set a king over us like all the nations around us,’ 15 be sure to appoint over you a king the Lord your God chooses. He must be from among your fellow Israelites. Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not an Israelite. 16 The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the Lord has told you, ‘You are not to go back that way again.’ 17 He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold.

18 When he takes the throne of his kingdom, he is to write for himself on a scroll a copy of this law, taken from that of the Levitical priests. 19 It is to be with him, and he is to read it all the days of his life so that he may learn to revere the Lord his God and follow carefully all the words of this law and these decrees 20 and not consider himself better than his fellow Israelites and turn from the law to the right or to the left. Then he and his descendants will reign a long time over his kingdom in Israel.

The Climate Change story told by ice cores…

... contradicts the narrative the propagandists of man-made climate change would want you to believe

Four-minute video here.

Essentially: It appears that around the time when we started measuring temperatures around the world systematically (from about 1850), the earth, or at least the northern hemisphere, was emerging from the coldest phase in the last 10.000 years. And we’re still far below the average of that era.

This puts the theory of man-made “immanent catastrophic” climate change very much in question.

King Charles: a reactionary ruler

Our green, mystical monarch harbours a deep suspicion of modernity, science and freedom.

Article by Tim Black.

Excerpt:

The problem is that Charles’s ultra-reactionary worldview no longer provokes the ridicule it might once have done. Quite the opposite. Our political and media classes now seem in love with his reactionary rantings – albeit their more diluted versions. They may have no idea what Traditionalism means or stands for, but they certainly share his climate-change apocalypticism. They may not be yearning for a conservative revolution, but in the declinist ambience of Charles’s screeds and speeches, they see a dim reflection of their own green-tinged disillusionment with modernity. Their own disenchantment with liberalism and democracy. And so they have been actively calling for him to abandon the neutrality of his predecessor. They even claim that his views on the environment are ‘uncontroversial’ and that expressing them would not violate any constitutional protocols.

US president Joe Biden’s climate envoy, John Kerry, says he hopes Charles will continue to press for action on climate, claiming it ‘is a universal issue… not ideology’. ‘King Charles has been an environmentalist for 50 years’, opines the Washington Post. ‘Now is the time for him to make his case to the British people.’ Others have gone even further. ‘We are fortunate that our new king possesses a willingness to intercede in public life’, wrote one particularly excited ‘post-liberal’, just after Charles’s accession to the throne. ‘His instincts are good and just, and his decades-long critiques of globalisation, of our despoliation of our natural and built environments and our pell-mell rush towards the mythical horizon of progress have been tragically borne out by events’, he wrote.

This is what is most troubling. Not that Charles likes to think of himself as a 1920s-style conservative revolutionary, engaged in a project of often bizarre avant-gardist reaction. But the fact that these views chime so well with those of our political and cultural elites. His reactionary views, once the source of ridicule, are now theirs, too.

Discussing censorship on Twitter

Jordan Peterson discusses this with David Zweig

Video is here.

From the description:

Dr. Jordan B. Peterson and journalist David Zweig discuss his role in breaking the Twitter Files, government censorship in society, the extent to which lockdowns were effective, how they affected children in particular, and how one renegade church would not bow to overzealous regulation.

David Zweig is a writer and journalist, with multiple books published, such as “Invisibles” in 2014 and the upcoming “Abundance of Caution” that centers on the effects of the COVID-19 response on schools and children. He was also one of the journalists who helped break the Twitter Files, focusing on the suppression of information to the satisfaction of the U.S. government and the public health establishment.

Chapters – (0:00) Coming up (1:16) Intro (1:51) The role of the media (3:25) How Zweig joined the Twitter Files team (5:02) Parameters of the investigation (6:00) Determining relevance (9:39) Why Zweig chose to tackle lockdowns (14:13) Having solid stories turned down (18:44) Bari Weiss, willing to listen (21:53) What the suppression of voices on Twitter means (26:23) Public trust in vaccines before the pandemic (30:45) The biological parallel (33:00) Overt focus on the pathogen left us blind to the side effects of our response (35:43) “Stay in your lane” (30:42) The problem of having too many options (41:58) Why we have natural, inalienable rights (47:55) Early data that was completely ignored (49:52) Weighing risk against value (53:45) An astonishing lack of curiosity (54:40) The evidence based hierarchy: where expert opinion ranks (57:30) The censorship at Twitter exposed (1:00:25) Some censorship is not unreasonable (1:01:03) Psychology of troll behavior (1:03:09) The few can corrupt the whole (1:05:22)The job of a journalist is NOT to draw the line (1:07:26) Authoritarian information control (1:13:43) Confusing a model with actual data (1:14:52) The error in “techno-solutionism” (1:18:07) The places that stayed closed and those left outside (1:22:22) Critical well being dispensed over assumptions (1:25:10) Asking questions makes YOU the pathogen (1:27:08) Spying on church members, millions in fines (1:31:50) Rapidly diminishing returns across time (1:33:30) The truly affected are those who lost their support systems

Another climate scientist with impeccable credentials breaks ranks: “Our models are mickey-mouse mockeries of the real world”

See article here. Excerpts:

In his book The Global Warming Hypothesis is an Unproven Hypothesis, Dr. Nakamura explains why the data foundation underpinning global warming science is “untrustworthy” and cannot be relied on:

“Global mean temperatures before 1980 are based on untrustworthy data,” writes Nakamura.

“Before full planet surface observation by satellite began in 1980, only a small part of the Earth had been observed for temperatures with only a certain amount of accuracy and frequency. Across the globe, only North America and Western Europe have trustworthy temperature data dating back to the 19th century.”

From 1990 to 2014, Nakamura worked on cloud dynamics and forces mixing atmospheric and ocean flows on medium to planetary scales. His bases were MIT (for a Doctor of Science in meteorology), Georgia Institute of Technology, Goddard Space Flight Center, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Duke and Hawaii Universities and the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology.

In his book The Global Warming Hypothesis is an Unproven Hypothesis, Dr. Nakamura explains why the data foundation underpinning global warming science is “untrustworthy” and cannot be relied on:

“Global mean temperatures before 1980 are based on untrustworthy data,” writes Nakamura.

“Before full planet surface observation by satellite began in 1980, only a small part of the Earth had been observed for temperatures with only a certain amount of accuracy and frequency. Across the globe, only North America and Western Europe have trustworthy temperature data dating back to the 19th century.”

From 1990 to 2014, Nakamura worked on cloud dynamics and forces mixing atmospheric and ocean flows on medium to planetary scales. His bases were MIT (for a Doctor of Science in meteorology), Georgia Institute of Technology, Goddard Space Flight Center, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Duke and Hawaii Universities and the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology.

Continue reading here.

The excess death problem won’t go away

Tom Woods writes in a newsletter two days ago:

I just read that during the week ending April 21, 2023, the number of deaths registered in England is 22.9 percent higher than the five-year average.

These numbers keep coming out, and our wise experts keep pretending they aren’t there.

You may have heard of Ed Dowd, author of Cause Unknown, who’s been breaking down the data. When asked about what pieces of data are the most compelling, he offers these:

Two data sets. The Society of Actuaries, which are group life policies at the elite, elite corporations across the U.S., Fortune 500 mid-sized. Their excess mortality in 2021 was 40%. The general U.S. population was 32%. Typically, this group is much healthier than the general U.S. population. The Society of Actuaries has shown that in prior studies. It’s in my book, it’s QR coded.

And they said that in any given year, group life policyholders die at one third the mortality rate of the general U.S. population. So that inverted in 2021 and continues to this day. I blame the vaccines and mandates.

The second piece of data: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics disability data. The disability numbers are around 29 to 30 million for the prior five years going into 2021. Then they exploded in February from about 29 to 30 to 33.2 million. That was a three standard deviation event, which in geek-speak happens 0.03% of the time.

Of those 3.2 million people that were added, 1.7 million are employed. When you look at the disability rate increases, employed went up 31%, the general U.S. population went up 9%. And what’s even worse is, those not in the labor force — people who could work and are willing to work — their disability rate only went up 4%. Those are the people who got fired for not taking the jab or refused to take the jab and quit.

Typically speaking, the employed of the country, by the very nature of going to work, aren’t as disabled as the general U.S. population. And this has never happened in the history of our country. Those two pieces of data are, for me, a mic drop. That’s what I presented to Senator Ron Johnson in December. And that’s it. That’s all we need to know. We’re done here.

In other words, why would the disability trends be so divergent, and especially in the wrong direction? The working population is generally healthier than the non-working, and yet we had this massive reversal of that normal situation. Given how many people working were required to get the jab, and that plenty of the non-working didn’t get it, and disability among the working exploded but it didn’t among the non-working, is it all right with the police if we at least consider that the jab could have had something to do with it?

To people who say “correlation doesn’t equal causation,” Dowd replies: “So did the virus mutate in ’21 and ’22 to only affect younger-aged working people but somehow avoids those who are not employed? Unless we have a new virus that knows you’re working, there’s no explanation for it.”

(Please don’t write to me saying you don’t believe in viruses, because that’s not the point here.)

I personally believe there is deep skepticism about the shots across the political spectrum, even if Democrats are afraid to express it. That’s one reason the RFK, Jr., candidacy is welcome: he is showing them that it’s all right to say these things, just as Ron Paul showed Republicans that it was all right to oppose ridiculous wars.