Bishop Michael Mary and the Unam Sanctam Initiative.

Last month, a formerly lefebvrist organization known as the  Transalpine Redemptorists got bishop Pierre Roy to consecrate a bishop for them. I am very angry that this took place and I will explain why. 

Firstly, if the first thing you do after leaving the Novus Ordo is become a bishop, there is something wrong with you. Whenever someone enters a new religion, his position should be one of submission and learning. This applies to becoming a sedevacantist from lefebvrist traditionalism.

 Sedevacantism isn't just a theological opinion, valid among others. Its the only thing that prevents the blasphemy of assuming the doctrines of Vatican 2 come from the Catholic church. While bishop Michael Mary might be familiar with catholic doctrine, it stands to reason that he is not ready to be a bishop because of all the errors he might have gotten from his years at the SSPX. 

Secondly, becoming a bishop immediately after conversion is the sign of a power hungry grifter. We don't want such figures to be ordained or given authority in any way, because their presence risks abuses and controversies. 

Thirdly, his ordination is a harbinger of the "Unam Sanctam" initiative, which presents some serious flaws. 

Let me explain what I mean. 

In the Unam Sanctam "open letter", we are supposed to be signing this: 

We, the faithful of the Roman Catholic Church scattered throughout the world, hereby exhort our Bishops and Priests to gather in an Imperfect General Council. We urge them to study together the present condition of the Apostolic See, in order to bring about a turning point in this crisis of the Church. Since Vatican II, modernists have sought to establish a new Church, substantially different from the Church of Christ. 

This is incorrect. Firstly, the modernists aren't trying to establish a new church, they have de facto established a new church. The Conciliar religion doesn't have the four marks for the church. 

The Unam Sanctam itself seems to reject the so-called Cassiciacum Thesis, when they say the following: 

We refuse to believe that the solution to this crisis lies in their ungodly hands. We believe that the solution lies rather in the hands of the faithful clergy...

This is a possible jab to the followers of the Thesis, who believe that the clergy of the conciliar church will one day convert and suddenly gain jurisdiction over the catholic remnant. 

It's okay for the Unam Sanctam to reject this absurd theory. However, if the anti-church hasn't been established yet by the modernists, then why should we reject the Cassiciacum Thesis?

The Letter continues: 

We are asking them to fulfil their duty and join the movement organizing an Imperfect General Council.

We do not wish to live without being subject to the Bond of Faith, the gentle Christ on earth, the Bishop of bishops, the Vicar of Our Lord Jesus Christ. For many years, we have been forced to turn a deaf ear to the teachings that have been loaded upon us from the Vatican. We do not recognize in those teachings the voice of the Good Shepherd.  

Yes, but then you just claimed a few paragraphs above that they haven't been able to establish their modernist church. Why then are you unable to take the Vatican seriously? 

This situation cannot continue any longer. We therefore hope with all our hearts to see our Shepherds put aside their differences and disagreements and come together for the one thing in which they can find unity: to remedy the crisis of the Apostolic See. 

We are convinced that this will end the various divisions that prevent the True Church from shining throughout the earth with the beauty of its unity. We, as Catholics, are asking for a response to the present situation. Only you can give this to us, assembled in the Holy Ghost through a General Council.

If Unam Sanctam really wants to stop the division between them, he should have called them to open their minds to the possibility that they have been wrong about certain theological matters and invite them to find out what the Church *really teaches* about such matters. He should have invited them to research and see if some of the theological opinions that have been allowed to fester under the great apostasy would leave someone outside the church - meaning, if they are heresy. 

All of this is theological discussions are made harder by the conclave subtext, specially because the Thesis believers will not participate on it. He who brings disunity can't call to unity. 

We will not have the destiny of the Church, the Immaculate Bride of Christ, any longer in the hands of the destroyers.

This is yet another error. The destiny of the Church is chosen by God, not by a group of boomer Pachamama worshipers. While they can certainly impact the Church, she isn't going to go to hell because of them, now will she die if we reject the Unam Sanctam.

We want you, speaking together as the universal Catholic Church, to give us a clear answer on the true nature of the current pretender to the papacy. 

Well, for someone who asks for a clear answer, that last phrase surely has a lot of ambiguity. Who are the "universal Catholic Church?" Does it include the followers of the Thesis? Does it include members of the SSPX? Because sede-vacantists are for sure aware that the "true nature of the pope pretender" is that he isn't a catholic cleric, but an accursed apostate working for the leagues of liberalism, freemasonry and the judeo-centric elites. 

If after consulting together, guided by the Spirit of God, you decide the necessity of placing the visible authority of the Church, the helm of the Barque of Peter, in the hands of a man of your choosing, we desire it.

Some paragraphs ago, you implied a rejection of the Cassiciacum Thesis - and now you seem to be suggesting some openness to it. Why? 

It seems that these people want to organize a big meeting between sede bishops (and other non-sede bishops!) to: 

+ Decide whether the See is Vacant or not.

+ Decide whether we should proceed to make a conclave and elect one of the clerics involved in the discussions. 

+ Elect a pope (if possible) 

Someone should tell whoever wrote this letter that communication skills are essential for society and for big events like this one. There are You Tube movie reviewers whose language is clearer and better written than this thing. 

We do not want your names to go down in the history of the church as those who were afraid to gather together in the Holy Ghost and remedy the greatest evil afflicting the Church: the likely usurpation of the See or Rome by the enemies of God. 

Nice attempt to scare priests and bishops by the "Judgement of Church History", when you  believe that the usurpation of the Vatican is just something that "likely happened". 

We pray that each of you will reflect in your hearts and, joining your voices to the chorus of your brothers, proclaim loud and clear: “Where Peter is, there is the Church.” As Catholics, we must live under the authority of a true Pope and we ask you to tell us where there is one today and, if necessary, to work towards a resolution to the usurpation of Peter’s Throne.

Many conclavist groups, like the one that elected the late pope Michael, try to manipulate everyone into submitting to them by decrying the authority of the Pope, his role as master of the Church, and his importance in the catholic world. Next thing you know is that a group of laymen (including women) got together at a Comic Con and -without regard for Canon Law - decided to "elect" a guy with dubious orders whose knowledge of theology is very basic. 

There is also the implication that if the Unam Sanctam decides that there is a pope, their followers would have to submit to lefebvrist traditionalism and the Novus Ordo pope. It's in the phrase "we ask you to tell us where there is one today", which should probably say "wether there is one today"

Conclusion

My concern for the sedevacantist world has never been higher. To summarize: 

+ They are too quick to accept "converts" from the Novus Ordo and the SSPX as if they suddenly forgot about the infiltration of the Church by Jews, soviets and masons. 

+ They are too quick to lay their hands on guys who want to be bishops. 

My objections to the Unam Sanctam initiative are the following: 

+ The Unam Sanctam initiative can't decide if they want to reject the Vatican Second Popes or not. 

+ The Unam Sanctam initiative can't decide if the Thesis should be rejected or not. 

+ The Unam Sanctam initiative can't decide if the modernists have usurped the Vatican or not. 

+ The Unam Sanctam can't decide if the modernists have made a new church or not. 

Why should I accept their "Council" when they can't even write a coherent letter? 

I refuse to trust them until they prove themselves as true believers, who accept not the Vatican Second "popes". 

What Toy Story 5 Missed About iPad Kids

Toy Story 5 released this month and its making quite a lot of money. Many people are praising it, but many others are criticizing it's lackluster message. 

You see, since the movie was revealed to the masses, it was hyped to be *the movie* tackling the issue of I-Pad kids. However, it didn't explore the topic with sufficient depth. Today, on the Pasture of Knowledge, we will see some of the things which Toy Story 5 missed about I-Pad Kids. 

What Did The Movie Talk About? 

While the movie starts off portraying I-Pads in relatively negative light, it slowly  opens itself more to the benefits of technology. For examples: 

+ The I-Pad character (Lillypad) is partly portrayed as a benevolent figure who wants what's best for Bonnie. Lillypad however doesn't understand Bonnie's needs and is mistaken about her approach. 

+ When Lillypad realizes she has harmed Bonnie, she escapes and recognizes her inability to help. However, the rest of the crew go on an epic rescue mission to recover the I-Pad.

+ Jessie, initially bigoted against technology, overcomes her discontent after befriending a gps and a potty training tech gadget (not kidding). 

+ The character Blaze is seen messaging people on her computer; she is able to use the internet responsibly. 

+ Bonnie finally gets a real friend thanks to Lillypad. 

In short, Lillypad isn't an object that should belong exclusively to adults. It's a toy that can be used for evil or good. It can be used to make friends and it can be used to hurt others. 

This message isn't erroneous, and the film did talk about other I-Pad issues. Below, we have the problems that were addressed: 

+ Cyberbullying and How Hard it is to Socialize with I-Pad Kids 

Bonnie gets cyber bullied for playing with toys, by mean I-Pad girls who are addicted to their own Lilly-pads. 

+ The importance of imagination. 

Kids imagination is glorified with fairly creative, visually stunning animated sequences. 

+ It asks children to not forget their toys, which are healthier and less likely to cause harm. (Its also a way for Disney to sell merch).

+ Making friends. 

Bonnie learns to make a friend whose ability to control screen time is greater than hers. 

+ Parents being online too 

Bonnie's parents can be seen glued to their screen. 

+ How Other Children Drag you into Excess Screentime 

Bonnie attempts to socialize with Lillypad kids, by spending to much time with Lillypad. 

What Did the Move Missed? 

While the movie did talk about some of the issues with I-Pads, I have reasons to believe they should have been harsher in their approach. This is because cyberbullying is not the most pressing issue surrounding I-Pads. Below, we have a list of things Pixar could have talked about: 

+ Pedophile / inappropriate fandoms.

Many fans of family-friendly franchises like Sonic, Paw Patrol and Zootopia are either pedophiles seeking to groom children or furry creeps who don't care if a child sees a video of cartoon characters breeding. 

+ Elsagate Content 

Through You Tube and social media it's relatively easy to find violent / fetish videos involving cartoon characters. This are made by groomers (and presumably, the government) to harm children. 

+ Content not meant for children.

Some content is not porn and yet it shouldn't be accessed by children. Sometimes, adults need a space to talk about adult dark issues and horrific incidents. Children shouldn't be exposed to this. 

+ Mental Damage. 

Many I-Pad kids develop neurodevelopmental problems, such as: speech delays, symptoms of autism, trauma from Elsagate content, and problems to learn new things. The fast pace and overstimulation proper to internet content makes it difficult for them to concentrate during slower activities, like school. 

+ Physical Damage & sedentarism. 

Babies exposed to I-Pads risk harming their sensitive eyes or become cross-eyed. Lack of exercise is also bad for children, who eventually learn to be lazy and unable to handle boredom. 

+ Toxic Artificial Intelligences 

AI language models get their juice from everything in the internet. There is no reason to think Chat GPT won't tell your child to commit suicide or crimes. Cases of psychosis have in observed in AI Chatbot addicts. People who overuse AI become incompetent because they let the clankers do everything for them. 

+ Groomers looking for victims

The internet is full of bad people. Anyone can be a groomer trying to become your "friend", whether it's in social media or in a multiplayer game. 

+ Internet Lies 

The internet is full of lies. Children should be taught that not everything they see in the internet is necessarily true. Nevertheless, some of this lies are very easy to believe , specially if they come from hyper-realistic AI image generators. 

+ Addiction (whether it's to social media, YouTube, videogames or apps). 

With addiction I define not just someone who uses I-Pads too much, but someone who develops physical symptoms when forced to withdraw from their beloved toy.

Furthermore, Pixar could have addressed the causes of this problems: 

+ The establishment wanting to put everything on the internet. 

The "Internet of Things" is just an excuse to connect every single device (from computers and phones to microwaves and dishwashers) into a big web that can be managed and controlled remotely by AI overlords. Mobiles have replaced radios, tvs, cameras, and books. If everything cool is online, then why are we shocked that kids are addicted? 

+ Bad parenting 

This one explains itself very quickly. I-Pad  parents should be publicly shamed for wanting Apple and Android to raise their children. There's also too many people who want the government to raise *their* children. Now we have the Digital ID social media bans, because some looser millennial parents didn't want to raise their children. 

+ Lack of accountability for internet groomers, pornographers and inappropriate fandoms. 

This is the responsibility of tech companies, applications, and the police.  They need to be publicly shamed for their negligence. 

+ Lack of accountability for tech companies.

Many Syllicon Valley Brands make their products as addictive and destructive as possible; and when the chickens come to roost, they blame 3rd parties. 

+ The establishment vs the proper rearing of children. 

It should be no secret that excessive work hours take away from you the ability to properly raise children. The elites want children to be raised by depressed teachers and computers, not by mom and dad. 

+ Corona Lockdowns

During the Covid pandemic, screen abuse increased exponentially. This is specially true of children who spent their first years behind screens because their parents were too stupid and scared.

+ The simple fact that self-control is harder for children. 

There is no reason to dump in your child the entire responsibility of limited screen time. You are the one who has to place the restrictions and enforce them. 

Why did Pixar Chicken Out?

Let's be honest: this isn't the first time Disney attempts to "tackle serious issues" and fails miserably. This had already happened with Toy Story 4 and Pocahontas. 

The reasons why Pixar wasn't able to explore all of the negatives of I-Pad use in children are the following: 

+ Disney benefits from I-Pad kids. Their extended mobile use is probably one of the few things that keeps Disney+ alive. Disney is also in possession of multiple Apps and mobile games.

+ If Disney Pixar had been harsher, they would have been called Luddites and Boomers. They would also harm their relationship with Tech Bro companies. 

+ If Disney had glorified I-Pad kids, they would have been attacked by concerned parents, teachers and child psychologists. 

+ Its easier for Disney Pixar to take a  middle of the road side and ignore the harsher parts of the I-Pad kid problems. After all, it's not like if Toy Story ever focused it's attention on child rearing - the focus was always in the toys. 

Furthermore, while the movie was marketed as toys vs tech, it is actually about making unlikely alliances and working as a team, to help children who have no friends. 

Conclusion 

If this film was released in 2014 it would have been ok. I much rather have a movie like this over Toy Story 4. 

The problem for Toy Story 5 is that now we have more information and experience about children and I-Pads. This combination has proven to be fairly destructive and it makes family life harder.

Some people could argue that the issues I talked about here are extremely dark and wouldn't fit in a Toy Story movie. That's an interesting point. However, Pixar has already made movies about depression and anxiety. Considering how serious the I-Pad kid issue is, they shouldn't have chickened out like they did. 

Nothing prevented Pixar from toning down the problems of the internet in a way that would keep the films family friendly. The disturbing Elsagate videos, for example, could have been replaced with a scary video that didn't let Bonnie sleep for a week.

It's important for Pixar to actually tackle this topics - instead of misinforming  their audience with deceitful marketing. 

My conclusion stands: The movie should have been harsher with parents and tech companies. Today, the question is not whether I-Pads and phones are good or bad. The question is whether they are good for children or not. 

Let's hope that, despite it's deficiencies, Toy Story 5 still manages to convince children to look beyond the screens and improve their relationships to others. 

Book Recommendations

Hello everybody. 

Today I wanted to write about something a bit more possitive. This blog often revolves around negative commentary; There is nothing wrong with that but today it will be different. 

I have always been a bit of a bookworm. I like reading, whether it is from a book I can hold or a digital text. I have read multiple books through my life, so I wanted to recommend some of my favorite Catholic books. Today, after you are done with reading The Pasture of Knowledge, you will have a few extra book recommendations for the rest of the year.

History of the Heresies 

I read "History of the Heresies" by St. Alphonsus back in 2020, and to date it's one of my favorite theology books. 

It is an educational, enthralling reading - even the theologically complex parts are interesting to read. I like the way in which St. Alphonsus lists the errors of each group, because it's very straightforward and allows you to understand what kind of sect you are dealing with. 

The book is mostly about the history of how the heresies appeared and the reaction of the Church - the refutation comes at the end. Those interested in the history of the Catholic religion or history in general will enjoy this read for sure. 

I also liked how the personalities of each heresiarch were depicted. You can find cruel despots, neurotic cult leaders, stiff clerics and even devout souls. Readers who pay attention will be able to see the heretics as fellow human beings - this is important because it proves everyone can do theological errors. 

If you want to read this book, however, I would like you to take a deep breath and avoid pushing yourself with the more complicated heresies (those about the Trinity and the Incarnation). I think this parts are difficult for theology beginners. Its alright if you don't understand, it's not alright if you merely think you understood.

You can find History of the heresies at the following links: 

Archive.org (Volume 1) 1847 

Archive org  1857

A Tour of the Summa by Paul J Glenn 

I read this book last year, and while it is less captivating than History of the Heresies, It's definitely worth reading. 

This book is intended to explore in an easier way some of the points of the Summa Theologica. It's a good read for those who would like to study the work of St Thomas but struggle to understand it or are not very strong with philosophy. 

Furthermore, this will be a useful manual for those who have already learned their catechism and want to move further. 

The initial part, dealing about the nature of God, is really difficult because it deals with very abstract ideas. As the book progresses it gets easier to understand but it still provides insightful information. 

Overall it is a very educational read everyone should check out at least once. 

You can find A Tour of the Summa at the following link: 

WM Review

The Doctrine of Modernism and It's Refutation 

There are many people on the trad spheres who throw the word "modernist" around without even understanding what it means. This small manual should prove a perfect antidote for this type of ignorance. 

"Modernism and It's Refutation" allows the reader to understand the reasoning behind this doctrines. It goes beyond what you will find in amateur podcasts and YouTube shows like Return to Tradition or Avoiding Babylon, whose understanding of modernism is fairly superficial. If you want to go beyond toxic comment sections and ignorant rants on Twitter, this book is for you. 

The books can get quite challenging at times but it's way easier than A Tour of the Summa and History if the Heresies. 

It's also easier to understand than "A Catechism on Modernism" by Fr. Lemius and the encyclical Pascendi. It is therefore a good primer for those who want to understand this works. 

You can find The Doctrine of Modernism in the following links: 

Archive.org 1903

Moral Theology by McHugh and Callan 

During late 2019 I wanted to learn the principles of moral theology. I got into the Spanish-language book "Teología Moral para Seglares". 

Even though this book is written in my native language, I found it harder to understand than it should have been. Most troublesome however, was that the writers often used examples from human reproduction to explain their points. For some of us this is extremely jarring and very uncomfortable. I grew tired and gave up. 

One day I was exploring Project Gutenberg, a website full of public domain books, and found Moral Theology by McHugh and Callan.

I started reading and  it was an instant hit.

It was easier to understand, and the topics were well organized, which is something important for large books. 

The content of this book is extremely informative. Here you can find a bountiful of information about the rules of Catholicism, the Ten Commandments, the Virtues, and the Sacraments. It is also really nice to keep around as a reference work anytime you have a question about this topics. 

My only caveat is that perhaps some anxious people could stress under the content of this book. The solution is to read the book calmly and piece-meal so that the mind can receive information, not overstimulation. 

Overall this is one of my favorite theology books - and it doesn't have references to reproduction with every example. 

You can find Moral Theology in the following links: 

Archive.org (Part One) 1958 

Archive.org (Part Two) 1958

Will This Movie Make You Doubt Your Faith?

A few posts ago I wrote about Disclosure Day, Steven Spielberg's latest movie. I speculated about the kind of story we would be getting and it's messages. Now that the movie has been released, I think my predictions were accurate, but there were a few extra things I didn't expect. 

For example, I thought DD was going to have a large cultural impact, but now its likely to be considered one of Spielberg's worst movies (together with Ready Player One and The Crystal Skull). Many people from both mainstream conservative and normie sectors are saying the film was a disappointment and is full of terrible plot holes. I also noticed many people know the movie is just a psyop. 

This leads me to conclude that in the long run, Disclosure Day isn't going to be the most important Blue Beam movie, unless it becomes a cult classic in a few years.

Having said this, I would like to share my thoughts about the film, which is indeed full of very interesting propaganda. Today, on the Pasture of Knowledge, we will see what kind of secrets Spielberg has disclosed for us. 

Movie Synopsis

We are introduced to David Carnell, a mathematical genius who has stolen alien tech and a few videos about UFOs from Wardex, a heavily subsidized corporation.

Carnell's girlfriend Jane is held by them to convince Carnell to give up the items. Math-Guy tricks them by pretending to give up the items and then escapes. He then contacts his ally, Hugo Wakefield, and asks if he should release the files online; Wakefield thinks it's a bad idea and instructs him to return to base.

Meanwhile, TV reporter Margaret Fairchild receives a visit from a cardinal bird, who awakens within her psychic powers. Fairchild is scared because she doesn't understand what her telepathy means, and during a weather report she grunts coca cola noises and scares everyone. Noah Scanlon, Wardex's owner, sees this. He recognizes the language of the aliens and decides it's time to target her too. 

Meanwhile, Carnell shows the footage to Jane. She is moved to pity, because the aliens were tortured by Wardex; however, she objects to the disclosure because she thinks people will loose their faith. Despite being a former nun, Jane thinks faith is important for society and doesn't want to loose it. 

Carnell goes to a wheat field and sees the coca cola noises video. He is also able to understand the language and feels scared. As Fairchild grunts, circles form on the wheat field. Carnell doesn't know he is one of the chosen ones yet. 

Noah Scanlon wants to kill Carnell, and so he uses alien technology to posses Jane. He starts taking control of her. Panicking, Jane holds her Crucifix very strongly until she injures herself. The pain drives Scanlon away. 

Fairchild, who is being persecuted by the men in black, calls Carnell and tells him Wardex will kill him. Shortly after this a persecution scene ensues. Once they have found refugee on her former convent, Jane asks the mother superior if God would allow aliens, to which the elderly nun replies that He would likely do so. 

Carnell is caught by Wardex shortly after this, but not all is lost. Fairchild enters the Wardex building and uses her psychic powers to deceive everyone into thinking she is one of their loved ones. Fairchild saves Carnell and they reunite with Wakefield. 

There, the revelation happens. Fairchild is shown a replica of her childhood home. She remembers that one night, she was singing "One Day My Prince Will Come" from Snow White, when a stag and a cardinal bird appeared in her room. They lured her outside, and brought her inside a very bright house. There, Fairchild realized she was inside and alien spaceship and the animals were aliens. She also found child Carnell who was very scared. The aliens placed crystals on their heads and they received their abilities, which remained dormant. When the aliens wanted to awaken the abilities, they visited them in the shape of red cardinals. Neither remembered the suppressed memories - until now. 

Our protagonists have another car chase and arrive into a Broadcast TV station. When they are preparing the disclosure, Wardex turns the lights off; but Fairchild uses her psychic powers and bring them back. This makes Scanlon give up his role as Mr. Smith. Margaret hesitates a bit about her disclosure, saying she is nobody's religion, but eventually she recovers confidence and agrees. 

Upon the gazes of millions of people who are (somehow) tuned in for the broadcast, the videos are disclosed. Wakefield wheels an alien into the area, who whispers a message to Carnell. Carnell speaks to Fairchild, who gives one last stare to the audience and says "Listen". And then the movie ends. 

1: The Abduction of the Kids

For me, the most insulting message the movie has to offer is the abducting of the kids. We are supposed to think that the aliens are "empathetic" and virtuous, despite the fact that their disclosure to humanity involved grooming children out of their homes, experimenting on them, giving them powers they didn't understood, and scaring them. It doesn't make sense, and instead it comes across as a glorification of child abduction.

Other people have also made the connection with the MK-Ultra experiments. During an MK-Ultra process, the victim is traumatized and they develop an alternate personality for protection. This personality is then forced into dormancy until the controllers need it; a trigger from the traumatic experience is then given to the victim. If someone was tormented, for example, while watching "Dumbo", a replaying of the movie triggers the person and it makes the alternate personality to take control. When the person returns to normalcy, they can't remember their actions during the time they were mind controlled. 

For Fairchild and Carnell, the alien experiments gave them psychic powers which remained dormant but awakened upon contact with cardinal birds, who were closely related to their traumatic experience. I had already mentioned that alien abductions were a likely cover for MK-Ultra experiments. 

In this case, the powers substitute the alternate personality, buy even these abilities have a connection to the experiment. You see, psychic powers are also said to happen when one develops schizophrenia or uses psychoactive drugs, which were coincidentally used during Monarch Project. Another MK-Ultra themed production, Stranger Things, has multiple characters with psychic powers who were experimented upon, in this case by the USA government. 

Even if the MK-Ultra connection wasn't planned by the directors, we are told that abducting kids is kind as long as you say you have "empathy" and disguise yourself as a Snow White character. 

2: The Questioning of the Religion

Many believers think that the film wants them to question their christian religion and leave it. In reality, Spielberg wanted them to include alien life into their religion. 

Yes, the difficulties that alien life could cause upon religious people are mentioned, but then Jane's former Mother Superior talks to her and says "Why would He create such a big universe just for us?", and this convinces Jane that aliens are not a difficulty. 

The position of the movie towards religion is not openly hostile; it is an invitation to bring it closer to Spielberg's value$ of "empathy", liberalism, and readiness to learn from the unknown. 

When Jane used religion as an obstacle to empathy (we can't save the aliens because people will doubt the faith), the movie frowns, but when she used religion to save her partner from Wardex, the movie feels happy. 

Religion is not a bad thing for the movie if you value it as a way of making connection with others. Religion is only a bad thing if those who practice it close themselves to empathy and others. 

This movie is officially Ratzinger approved. 

3: The Powers Within Yourself 

I have noticed that many people are infuriated by the ending. We never got to see what the aliens actually wanted to say. "Disclosure Day" wasn't really about "Disclosure". Why could this be?

Well, I have a theory about this. Through the movie, Fairchild receives a quasi-worship by everyone who is helped by her psychic habilites. And yet she is not someone's religion. She is not a god and neither are the aliens that come to visit, despite of what you might have heard. 

The purpose of the aliens is not to be worshipped as an external force, but to help us rediscover our hidden mystical habilites. This is also true about empathy: humans have already developed this capacity, and the role of the aliens is to help us to relearn and value it. 

Indeed, empathy (in humans) is what glues the powers together. Scanlon for example is capable of using the alien tech, but his lack of empathy makes him unable to use it correctly. That's why he looses. Fairchild on the other hand is overpowered because her psychic abilities are not hindered by cruelty. 

4:  The Revealing of the Knowledge

The theme of government revelation was explored in a fairly unoriginal way, but I still noticed some interesting things: 

The first one is that the revelation happened in a Broadcast TV, not in the internet. Many said this was just Spielberg being an out of date boomer who wrote this story for the 80's. That's true, but maybe there's more to this. 

The use of broadcast TV is a call to trust and confide in mainstream media once again. For Spielberg, the internet is a chaotic place where nobody trusts anything, while Broadcast TV united people together and it was easier to keep the ideological hegemony.

Notice also how the TV people were open to the alien Disclosure, while Evil Capitalist™ kept the alien tech for himself. Spielberg is thus showing the left wing delusion of trusting journos and scientists as if they were the sworn enemies of corporations. 

On a more metaphysical level, the Broadcast heralds a new age of mysticism that will be shared with the masses, not retained for the exclusive use of the elites. 

Conclusion 

Despite it's negative reception, Disclosure  has revealed to me multiple things. It isn't just a movie to incite the masses into trusting aliens and accepting a Blue Beam deception. It is worse, specially for those who can't see beyond the bad CGI and the corny storyline. 

Disclosure Day has a variety of symbols and messages that I didn't even imagine: 

1: It's a movie about MK-Ultra, and a possible confession by the elites that UFO abductions were a cover for it. 

2: It's a movie about allowing left-wing Boomer value$ into our religions, and to open ourselves to the mysterious, the suspicious and the strange. 

3: It's a movie about "empathy" being the biggest value ever. 

4: Its a movie a out how the powers we need are already within ourselves. Aliens are not masters, just helpers. 

5: It's a movie about glorifying Broadcast TV and the mainstream media, and a call for us to trust the government and it's words. 

Might none of the people who liked it be deceived by it, and night none of the people who hated it miss it's fearsome details. 

This Is Your Church

Source: Creative Commons 

For the American Audiences: I will be calling the sport known as "soccer" with another word: Football

I'm rather shocked nobody else has spoken against this, but here it's is: 

Every four years, there is the world football cup. And every four years, the Parish Church of St. Gabriel the Archangel in Tacuba, Mexico City, is witness to a particularly irreverent expression of Mexican creativity the new evangelization. 

An image of the Child Jesus is dressed in the apparel of the National Football Team. A green T-shirt, white football shoes, a football and even a Mexican flag are dumped into the statue, and exposed to the masses. Many of them think this will finally help them to win the world cup. I beg to differ. 

Writers don't seem to agree as to when this "tradition" started. Some quote the year 1970. During those times a new cleric arrived. P. José Reyes Chaparro ordered the confection of the statue while on a mission to repair the church. 

Others place the date in 1986. Both dates are likely in my opinion, because the World Cup was hosted by my country during those years. 

According to the lefebvrist Mexican blogger Jesus Batista, they used to dress the statue with the uniform of the winning Liguilla team. This stopped, however, when the winner was Toluca FC (the "diablos rojos" - red devils). 

Reyes Chaparro said that the idea could be a "hook" for people who normally don't care about religion to come to the church an pray. 

While some conservative souls have objected to this practice, the novus ordo church has not stopped this tradition, despite the fact that this  activity is very well known in Mexico and they have the means to stop it. 

This is not to attack the poor souls who genuinely think this is respectful with Baby Jesus. This is just another example of how the new religion trivializes religion in a poor attempt to please people. 

Celebrity Exorcists and their Problems

There's something seriously wrong with celebrity exorcists like Dan Reehill, Chad Ripperger, and their imitators. I have three objections against them and I will proceed to explain them. 

The first objection is their stupid tradition of asking questions to the devil. The internet is full of headlines like the following: 

"The devil tells exorcist he LOVES this things"

 "Satan told exorcist he HATES this PRAYER"

"SHOCKING: Things the devil told to exorcist that will CHANGE your LIFE"

The reason I object to this is that the demons are obviously liars and there is no reason to trust them. Even if they say the truth, there is no reason to ask them questions like a glorified "catholic" ouija board. 

The second reason I object to them is based on the fact that they never condemn the Conciliar religion. If they are so good at demon detection, why can't they see the biggest, fattest demons of them all? 

The late Malachi Martin was also a celebrity exorcist of sorts, but at least he said the truth about the Council. 

The third objection is that this industry will become a gold mine for attention-seeking clerics. There's nothing wrong with *one* interview with Joe Rogan or Tucker Carlson, but appearing at every single YouTube channel to speak about your experiences with demons is wasteful. 

At some point this videos will stop being about spirituality, becoming instead the "catholic" equivalent of ghost hunting shows. All fluff, zero substance. 

The exorcists, tempted by the desire for clicks and views, can embellish their stories - even until they become undistinguishable from the junk that appears in films like "The Conjuring". If such a thing ever happens, will their followers realize they have been conned? 

None of this things make any sense to me and that's why I don't trust celebrity exorcists. Might they be brought to to their senses, and might they never make up stories like the ones from "The Conjuring". 

Variety Hour

Woke Actor Hate Must Stop 

This year, another garbage superhero film will be released. Its called "Supergirl", and the hype for it is almost minimal. The leading actress, one Millie Alcock, caused a little bit of a Ruckus with some statement she made. Something about she not being accepted by the audiences for being a woman. 

The rabid masses of conservative fans online ran to the anti-woke internet to complain about her troublesome statements. Indeed, an irritated response to another mediocre attempt to push feminism. 

However, at this point, I think criticizing Millie Alcock is a veritable waste of time and we would do well to ignore her. 

Many actors crawl out of their mansions to speak some dirty politics into the masses, only to be received by an angry mob of internet enthusiasts calling them out for "pushing their politics on others". 

This was the unfortunate fate of actors like Pedro Pascal, Cynthia Erivo, and Rachel Ziegler. 

While this people are not likable, I would like to remind everyone that the pushing of "the message" is not the fault of the actors. It's the fault of the studios. 

Considering that actors are both professional liars and marketers, it's not unrealistic to imagine that their producers make them sell their woke movies by behaving like arrogant woke brats. Considering there is plenty of evidence about studios interfering with movies, treating directors - let alone actors - as the one and only asset of woke Hollywood is like treating someone's cow as the face of the farming industry. 

It's more effective therefore to ignore the theater kids and focus on the studios. And yet many of this fake conservatives are back giving their money to Warner bros and Disney and Paramount whenever a "non-political" film gets released. 

Laura Loomer Hints at Terror Attack - will there be a False Flag During the World Cup? 

Laura Loomer is quite an interesting character. Her career consists in selling conservatism to the people in exchange of undying loyalty for Israel. Some weeks ago, Laura Loomer dropped a very interesting Twitter bomb: 

Forgive me but this doesn't feel like a prediction - this feels like a treat. Since we are playing prediction, I suppose this massive terror attack will happen during the World Cup - just so that everyone in the world can see how evil Muslims are. 

While the Shi'a Muslims. are certainly capable of violence, I can't see why on earth they would like to turn half of the world against them with a useless act of violence against random football players and roaring audiences. 

Someone needs to tell the Zios that being part of a violent supremacist religion doesn't mean you are unaware that such an attack will not bring victory to your nation.

Part of Iran's propaganda front consists in attacking the elites of the west, not the people of the west. A bombing against civilians  would kill that narrative fairly quickly. 

Perhaps the Shi'a are stupid enough to waste their bombs on celebrities and rich football fans, but how am I supposed to expect that it will not be a False Flag attack? 

Novus Ordo Watch's Latest Moral Outrage is a Wasted Opportunity

Yesterday Novus Ordo Watch published an article condemning Bishop Barron for endorsing the horror film "Obsession", the reading of which made me quite angry. 

To be clear, Barron's endorsement is obviously scandalous. Obsession is is one of those horror movies with a breeding subtext. When such things are mixed together with excess gore, well, the only word I can think of is deviant. 

Furthermore, I believe any film with graphic bedroom scenes should be avoided unless one can somehow censor the offending part. This arrangement is not possible at the cinema. 

The reason for my anger consists in the fact that I know Mario Derksen can do better than this. Novus Ordo clerics constantly recommend stuff that should be avoided. This isn't the first time Novus Ordo Watch has criticized NO clerics for this. Therefore this story isn't really new. 

The only new information I got was that Obsession is an immoral movie and that Deliverance is another immoral movie - information that I didn't need and that I could have gathered from elsewhere. 

Bishop Barron has been recently involved with promoting Zionism. This abominable movement has been involved for decades in *actual* violence. They have been promoting unjust wars of conquest that will bring many to misery. And their actions are based on an apostate racist religion. Why did Mario Derksen wait until now to condemn this person? 

In my opinion, this article is proof that Novus Ordo Watch is declining in quality. Perhaps if he had used Obsession as a hook to expose Bishop Barron's Zionism, it would have been fine, but he didn't. I expect much more from the largest sede propaganda website in the world.