The Unam Sanctam Initiative: Introductory Text

The purpose of this article is not to disparage the idea of a group of clerics meeting each other to have a discussion on theological issues. Rather, it is to attack the Unam Sanctam initiative; its methods, claims and organization. 

Many people, like writer Trad Warrior, are so excited to have an "Imperfect general Council" that they forget some of the things we have learned from similar initiatives.

For example, we have the case of the storefront "pope". Wishing to "save the church", a group of delusional individuals made a conclave at a storefront in which a guy with dubious ordinations was elected. He took the name "Pope Michael", and his soul is currently burning in hell for usurping the power of the papacy. 

They want to be seen as the ones that saved the church, but they don't pause and consider to see if they actually have the means to provide a solution to the apostasy. 

We also have the possibility of people using the Vacant See as an excuse to create abusive cults. 

This is my main objection to the Unam Sanctam Initiative: There is no reason to believe *they* will find a way of validly electing a Pope. There is no reason to believe *they* will find a way to gather lefebvrist "Trads" and make them sede-vacantists. And based on the language they use and the actions they do, there is reason to believe that their motivations are to be questioned and held accountable. 

The Introductory Text 

The Unam Sanctam initiative introduces their project in the following text: 

What unites the Catholic Church is not opinion, personality or personal convictions. She is a visible society founded by Christ, and must therefore be governed visibly. 

What does this mean? Who believes that the church is unified by personality? What does that even mean? 

The Pope is not merely a matter of ceremony. He is the principle of unity established by God, the supreme judge who can settle disputes, safeguard doctrine and preserve the Church as one body.

Many Catholics today harbour at least some doubt regarding the legitimacy of the most recent claimants to the papacy. 

At least some doubt? Unam Sanctam doesn't seem to understand that the conclusions of lefebvrist traditionalism are blasphemous. There is no "confusion": there are just people who don't want to see that all of their years of "traditional catholicism" were spent defending an apostate church. 

Someone who merely doubts the papacy of Roncalli et al. is not a sedevacantist, but someone who thinks sedevacantism might be true. A doubter is not a believer. 

And who are this "recent claimants to the papacy"? If I thought Ratzinger was the last pope, I would think this is referring to Frankie and Bob.

Yet, if this office is in practice absent, unity becomes obscured. Jurisdiction becomes contested, discipline collapses into improvisation, and Catholics slowly grow accustomed to living as though it were normal for the Church to exist without a visible head whom they can obey with straightforward simplicity. 

If the office is absent in practice, does that mean that there is a "theoretical pope" hiding in the woods?. I would really like to meet this theoretical pope. Seems more realistic than the Thesis. In fact, this is probably a crumb directed at the followers of the Cassiciacum Thesis. This is weird because they are not going to participate in the "Imperfect General Council" anyways - they don't believe it's a plausible solution. 

Unam Sanctam says that "jurisdiction becomes contested". Whose jurisdiction? The reason why many people believe the sedevacantist bishops can't claim any jurisdiction is based on arguments against the validity or the legitimacy of their ordinations. Organizing a conclave isn't going to vanish those questions. 

I agree that it isn't normal for the church to be for so long without a pope. However, that doesn't automatically mean that the people who are organizing this initiative are trustful servants of God who just want the best for the church. Unam Sanctam uses strong vocabulary to manipulate believers into fearing they will find themselves outside of the church - with the mark of the theological anarchist - if they don't support the initiative. 

But this is not normal. A vacancy of the Apostolic See, as recognised by numbers of Catholics who have remained faithful, especially if it becomes permanent, is not a stable solution, but a wound that continues to worsen.

How is it possible for the vacancy to become permanent? Do the Unam Sanctam people want us to believe that if we don't help them to elect a pope *now*, God will abandon us and we will never get one ever again? 

Notice also the therm "numbers or Catholics". That implies not every believer is a sedevacantist. How will the Lefebvrists join the "Imperfect General Council" when they believe the See is currently occupied? 

When there is no true successor of Saint Peter, the election of a Supreme Pontiff remains an important duty incumbent upon the Church. When the Church finds Herself without a Pope, as happens upon the death of the Pontiff, She is bound to provide Herself with another; that is to say, Her members must act to ensure that the Holy See is once again occupied.

Ok.

This shows how important it is for the Church to have a visible head, the true principle of unity.

This is true, but that doesn't mean the solution will come from the Unam Sanctam Initiative. 

Again, many conclavist groups use the importance of the papacy to elect uneducated sociopaths who don't care about the church and just want a new little religion for themselves. A religion can't save itself by harming itself. 

It is the aim of the Unam Sanctam organisation to work for the convocation of an Imperfect General Council to discuss this matter and to consider how the present crisis that affects the head of the Church might be resolved.

If the Unam Sanctam initiative wants to organize an Imperfect General Council, then they should get rid of those who merely "doubt" the validity of the conciliar popes, because they shouldn't have a say in such a Council. 

If the Unam Sanctam initiative just wants to help organize an Imperfect General Council, they can just say: "we want to organize meetings to prepare the Imperfect General Council, and to see how to make it according to the doctrine of the church".

Yet, when they say "to discuss the matter and to consider how the present crisis that affects the head of the Church might be resolved", they are implying that they don't think the Imperfect General Council is necessarily the solution to the problem. 

We humbly ask the Catholic faithful of the Church Militant to pray for this holy intention.

How can I pray for your intentions if I don't know what your intentions are? 

I think some of the sede bishops are aware that they don't have ordinary jurisdiction and therefore they can't be valid electors. Other sede bishops might think they are; but haven't moved forward because they are comfortable where they are. If the Unam Sanctam initiative wants to elect a pope, they must first prove that their plans are defensible from a theological perspective. 

In any case, we look for solutions with patience and fear of God, not with anxiety, trad-ecumenism, and the delusional desire to be seen as heroes of the church. 

Conclusion

My objections to the Unam Sanctam are as follows: 

+ Despite the asserted desire to organize a future Imperfect General Council, Unam Sanctam insists on admitting people who are not Sedevacantists and who have nothing to add to the search for a new pope.

+ Just like conclavist sects, Unam Sanctam reaffirms the teaching of the church about the Papacy, implying that if the reader disagrees with the means and motivations behind the organizers, he is rejecting catholic doctrine. 

+ The vocabulary used by Unam Sanctam, has proven so far to be ambiguous and absurd. Like the modernists, Unam Sanctam speaks like a corporate office trying to avoid lawsuits.

I will continue to attack this initiative in the following months, until I see an increased negative reaction from the sede community.

Spiderman: Brand New Hate

Last month, movie screens all over the world were stocked with yet another Spiderman movie. 

The reception for this film has been spectacular. It quickly became one of the most successful movies ever released; competing with films like Avengers: Endgame and Titanic. 

Many seem to think that Brand New Day is worthy of multiple visits to the local cinema. I think, however, that this movie is painfully overrated.

Brand New Day's main antagonist is none other than Jean Grey, a mutant woman with psionic abilities (namely, telekinesis and telepathy). Jean can brain control anyone within 33 feet from her. She can experience their memories, and she can jump between the brains of multiple people. 

In the comics and other movie adaptations, Jean Grey is a hero; this is not the case in Brand New Day, where Sadie Sink plays an embittered teenager whose sister Sarah was abducted by a government organization named Damage Control. She wants to find a way to infiltrate DC, find her sister, and rescue her.

We can profile her as some sort of school-shooter type enemy: broken, immature and extremely distrustful. Her levels of empathy are also remarkably low, with some people comparing it to the "Dark Phoenix" saga from comics were Jean is corrupted by a cosmic entity. 

Her attempts to save Sarah involve a variety of morally questionable actions, namely: 

+ Mind Controlling people whose role in Sarah's abduction is none. 

+ Mind Controlling a random guy and making him stand in front of traffic - after which he is promptly ran over by a car - just to tease Spiderman. 

+ Mind Controlling Spidey's love interest, MJ. Forcing a kiss with Spiderman just to deceive him and hurt his feelings. Proceed to make MJ jump off a building. 

+ Mind Controlling Bruce Banner, destroying his ability to control The Hulk, and sending him into a rampage. This one to me is particularly disgusting because this is Banner's greatest fear, and this could cause serious repercussions to his life and sanity. 

+ Mind controlling an elderly lady into strapping a bomb to herself and ramming a tank into a government building. 

+ Harming / killing random people. 

+ Mind controlling the guys from a ninja group named "The Hand", forcing them to attack Spidey. She makes one of them stab himself through the stomach just to injure the arachnid.

In short, this film's Jean Grey is an individual who doesn't care about lessening harm to third parties. At the same time, there is no reason to think that her abusive "plan" was the best way of saving Sarah. For example: 

+ If Jean Grey can jump within people's brains, why make an old lady steal a tank when she can just psychically sneak her way into Damage Control headquarters? 

+ What exactly prevents Jean from mind controlling a Damage Control worker to infiltrate the headquarters? 

+ The MCU's New York city is home to a large number of super powered individuals; if Jean Grey can control one of them, she's done. Furthermore, she can find someone's dirty secrets and use them for blackmail. 

I mean, all of this things still involve moral issues, but the damage to third parties is greatly reduced and the plan is more effective. In short, Sadie Sink's Jean Grey is someone whose malice makes her stupid and hinders her own intentions.

Despite all this, Jean Grey is treated by the movie as a poor little misunderstood innocent, not as a broken figure who does evil things. She is elevated to the level of victim™ as if her victims didn't had feelings too. 

After figuring out why she is a terrorist, Spiderman "fixes" her: he allows her into his mind, and she witnesses Aunt May giving a motivational speech. Spidey then takes the role of a social worker who tells Jean that she is loved, that she is not a killer and that she's got a friend in him, friendly neighborhood Spiderman. 

Then, Spiderman takes a bullet for her. This finally convinces Jean that Spidey is a friend and she decides to save him with the help of the Punisher. 

And then she just leaves. She faces no consequences for her actions. The movie wants us to consider her a victim™ as if she didn't hurt lots of innocent people for a plan that didn't even save her sister in the end. 

You see, saving someone who loves you and forgives you for your abuse isn't as brave as admitting that you have been a useless monster. Most characters who redeem themselves in movies proceed to actually virtuous deeds. Some make a big sacrifice of their life or safety. Others try to compensate their great evils with an even greater number of good actions. It would have been nice to have a scene were Jean apologizes to the people she harmed or possessed, but none of this happens. Not even in the post-credits scene. 

And this isn't even the first time Marvel excuses the behavior of a female possessor. 

The last mass possessor in the MCU was Wanda Maximoff, aka Scarlet Witch. After experiencing grief because her robot boyfriend Vision died, she commits the following crimes: 

+ Possessing all the inhabitants of a town named Westview, forcing them to pretend they are living in an Utopic sitcom. 

+ Sending fellow witch Agatha Harkness into a mental loop because she wanted to intervene. 

+ Refusing to free the inhabitants as soon as they revealed they were experiencing torment. 

+ Accessing the evil book Darkhold, after which she is possessed by an entity that convinces her to kill, torture and harm people just to get to take care of someone else's children.*

+ She only expels the entity from her mind when she realizes someone else's children think she is a monster. Then, she kills herself. 

While all of this happens, "heroes" like Dr. Strange and Monica Rambeau react with the maturity of a Lego Marvel© Christmas Special. Once again, zero consequences. 

Will Marvel try to actually try to redeem Jean Grey, like Tony Stark before her? I would like them to do it, but I don't expect them to correct their course. You see, Brand New Day and it's characterization of Jean Grey are being defended by establishment media and commentary figures. They think Jean is a "morally grey" character. Furthermore, she is portrayed as a persecuted minority, which means the writers won't dare to give her some accountability. 

That's pretty sad because a decently written redemption arc for her could be beautiful, motivational and even spiritually useful for some of the hapless viewers. It's also extremely uncomfortable because brain control is a violation of privacy, something that corporate tech bros, politicians and wanna-be antichrists like Trump are obsessed with. 

Perhaps, just like Jean Grey herself, Marvel's evil is making them stupid too. 

I will pray that people will benefit from  whatever is good in this movie (not much) and strongly reject the (multiple) areas with questionable morality. 

The Propaganda of Disney Parks

"The mediator between head and hands must be the heart" - Metropolis, 1927

We all know that Disney movies have propaganda, but what about Disney Parks? Could their dark rides and roller coasters try to influence our thinking as they manifest the beliefs of their creators? 

The idea of theme park propaganda is a bit difficult to get. There isn't a lot of messaging you can dump on a roller coaster or ferris wheel. However, hat doesn't prevent theme parks from showing beliefs and promoting behaviors. Just the right degree of imagineering and we got just another medium for indoctrination. 

There was once a theme park in Orlando, Florida. It's name was "Splendid China" and contained shows about Chinese culture and miniatures from its landmarks - from the CCP perspective. The park was controversial from the very beginning for  promoting party lines and would eventually die out. 

Disney's propaganda might feel a bit more subdued, but upon closer examination we can find that they do have it in some of their rides. 

For starters, if the ride is based on a movie, the film's messages will be transfered to it. One of the shows in Animal Kingdom is "Zootopia: Better Zoo-gether" and it repeats many of the ideas from the film - namely, diversity.  

Now, I don't think speaking about movie-based rides is worth my time, because in that case I can just judge the movie by itself. However, Disney rides aren't always movie rides. Since the beginning they have portrayed different aspects of human life, often with original characters designed exclusively for the park. 

Today, in the Pasture of Knowledge, I will show you some interesting analysis from different Disney parks, rides, and themed areas.

Disneyland and Magic Kingdom

The original Disney park opened in 1955 and became an instant hit. Later, in 1971, Disney opened Walt Disney World Resort,  the Florida location. That place has more parks, with the Magic Kingdom being a  copy of Disneyland in Anaheim. 

The parks are divided in multiple sectors: Adventure Land, Frontier Land, Liberty Square, Fantasy Land, and Tomorrow Land. Upon first glance they represent different genres in story telling like science fiction, westerns and fairy tales. 

However, I think the Disneyland areas also manifest liberal humanist values. Individual Disney rides promote classical liberal ideas of freedom, fraternity and democracy, while the sectors represent different aspects of humanity which are  dutifully glorified by the hand of Disney magic. America and liberal capitalism are promoted as well. 

While it's possible that my interpretation of Disneyland and the Magic Kingdom isn't what the designers intended, I think my theory can defend itself upon scrutiny. I will proceed, therefore, to explain why I think the overarching message of Disneyland is American Humanism. 

Adventure Land is a glorification of the age of exploration and conquest, without which the American empire wouldn't exist. It also represents human bravery and the desire to find new things. 

+ Pirates of the Caribbean is a glorification of Anglo-Saxon piracy. The corsairs used to sabotage the Spanish empire, whose merchant ships from america were the constant prey of the pirates. 

The same was the case with the now abandoned Discovery Island, which was initially themed to pirates - and named Treasure Island.

Frontier Land, New Orleans Square and Liberty Square are a glorification of the American nation. We have different rides themed to different areas in the US, such as the south, the badlands, and eastern america. Liberty Square represents the founding of America.

+ Tom Sawyer's Island represents American love of freedom. It's a garden full of youthful energy which the visitor can explore without restrictions. On the middle we can find a fort, such as the ones which were built to expand American territory. 

+ Splash Mountain glorified southern culture and ways of life. However, this ride has been removed at both locations because the film its based upon is widely  considered to be racist. We went from glorification of the old South to a corporate woke cancellation, as the log flume was hastily replaced by Tiana's Bayou Adventure. 

+ The animatronic spectacle of "Hall of Presidents" is a glorification of democracy, the presidents, and the political system of America. On the other hand, the fact that they have animatronic representations of dead people should be interpreted as a manifestation of American irreverence. 

+ The show "Great Moments with Mr.  Lincoln" needs no explanation, as it involves president Abraham Lincoln.

+ Sometimes, just by removing a ride, Disney can say a lot of things. Last year, the company destroyed the river area of Frontier Land in Disney World. It will be substituted with one themed to the Cars franchise. For me, this represents that Disney is slowly abandoning their American pride.

Fantasyland, taken as a whole, represents Human imagination and it's dreams for a world were happy endings are always coming to fruition 

+ The ride "It's a Small World" contains a series of dolls decorated to different nations. As the vehicle moves, the following song is repeated in multiple languages: 

"It 's a world of laughter

A world of tears

It's a world of hopes

And a world of fears

There's so much that we share

That it's time we're aware

It's a small world after all

There is just one moon

And one golden sun

And a smile means

Friendship to ev'ryone

Though the mountains divide

And the oceans are wide

It's a small world after all

It's a small world after all

It's a small world after all

It's a small world after all

It's a small, small world

Mother earth unites us in heart and mind

And the love we give makes us humankind

Through our vast wondrous land

When we stand hand in hand

It's a small world after all

source

"It's a Small World" therefore represents peace and unity, as well as naturalist fraternity. 

Tomorrow Land is perhaps the most interesting part of the park. You see, Walt Disney was fascinated with progress in technology. Personally, I found Tomorrow Land to have very strong Star-Trek vibes: An intergalactic brave new world, were there is nothing but pleasure and the laws of the Enlightenment rule the worlds.

+ The prime example of this would be the Carousel of Progress, an animatronic spectacle narrating the history of technology through the 20th century and it's services to the American family. The ride presents an extremely positive attitude towards the future of technology. The song "Big Beautiful Tomorrow" decorates the show. 

"Welcome, to the general electric carousel of progress

Now most carousel just go 'round and 'round without getting anywhere

But on this one, at every turn we'll be making progress

And progress is not just moving ahead

It's dreaming and working and building a better way of life

Progress is the sound of a motor

The hum of a turbine

The heartbeat of a factory

The sound of a symphony

The roar of the rocket

Progress is people getting release from drudgery

Gaining more time to enjoy themselves and live richer lives

And as long as man dreams and works and builds

This progress will go on in your life and mine

There's a great, big, beautiful tomorrow

Shining at the end of every day

There's a great, big, beautiful tomorrow

And tomorrow's just a dream away

Man has a dream and that's the start

He follows his dream with mind and heart

When it becomes a reality

It's a dream come true for you and me"

Source

+ The ride "People Mover", in which the visitors take a ride around Tomorrow Land, is intended to be the public transport of the future. People Mover provides some interesting lore about the area, such as Astro Orbiters being a representation of interplanetary peace. 

+ Astro Orbiters and Space Mountain represent the desire of humanity to explore space. 

+ The ride "Buzz Light Year's Space Ranger Spin" represents the means by which tomorrow will be preserved. You move through cardboard cartoon planets, shooting at the enemies which are funded by evil Emperor Zurg. The subtext of this ride is that Tomorrow, the fight against those who oppose progress will continue until they surrender. 

EPCOT 

EPCOT stands for "Experimental Prototype City of Tomorrow, and it's basically an expansion of Tomorrow Land.b

It's history is very interesting. EPCOT was  one of Walt Disney's last projects. His plan was to build an utopian, futuristic city that would influence other metropolis around the world. That didn't turn out, for everyone around him thought his idea was impossible to accomplish. Walt died on 1966 and didn't accomplish his dream. 

However, his successors turned the idea into a park project. EPCOT was opened in 1982. The park was meant to be educational and promote scientific knowledge; EPCOT has changed significantly since it's golden years, and many of its rides and pavilions have been abandoned or refurbished. I will speak about its attractions - some of which are currently defunct - and their meanings

+ EPCOT's dreams for a better tomorrow are showcased quite clearly in the ride  named "Spaceship Earth". Here, we travel through time and witness the history of communications with a slight luminist tone and lots of dreams for progress and the future. 

+ A similar message was found in the defunct dark ride "World of Motion", which narrated the history of vehicles and transportation. 

+ "Living with the Land" has equally strong tech-bro energy. The ride starts with a very US-centric explanation on different biomes and the history of the ground. Then, the ride explains that humans, in their quest for better farms, have done some things which are harmful for the environment, such as pesticides. 

Fortunately, Disney has a solution. They have built a greenhouse where they showcase "new and innovative" ways of farming with less impact on the planet, like aquaponics. As always, the ride intends to generate a strong sense of hope for technology to improve forever and ever. 

+ Horizons was a very similar ride to Carousel of Progress; but instead of telling the history of technology and it's benefits to the American family, it told the future of technology and it's benefits for the American family. The end of the ride was decorated by an utopian sci-fi mural named "The Prologue and The Promise".

+ The park hosted a large convention building named Communicore, and later Innoventions. This area showcased multiple tech demos from companies like Apple, Sega, IBM and Lego. 

At some point, Innoventions had a ride which was sponsored by the military brand Raytheon. Instead of blasting middle eastern countries tough, the attraction consisted in people designing their own roller coaster and then experiencing it in VR. 

+ EPCOT's weirdest ride was "Ellen's Energy Adventure", in which Ellen DeGeneres and Bill Nye "The Science Guy" would explore the history of fossil fuels as well as some other sources of energy. The show was sponsored by Exxon, and it portrayed oil and gas in a very positive way. 

"Ellen's Energy Adventure" was initially called "Ellen's Energy Crisis", but Disney wasn't ready to tackle controversy on its educational park. Now, the things have changed significantly - I'm pretty sure Bill Nye still has nightmares about his role on the show. 

+ The "Wonders of Life" pavilion included a show named "The Making of Me", in which human reproduction was explained. 

+ The ride "Journey into the Imagination" and it's successor "Journey into Your Imagination with Figment", are about human creativity. The visitors are encouraged to use their imaginations, something quite ironic for a corporation like Disney to say. 

Anyways, the original ride presented many areas in which imagination can be used.  It focused a lot in the arts. Aside from literature, this was one aspect of Human Life not yet glorified by Disney Parks. 

The newer ride focuses more on poking fun at serious people. As a miserable guy tries to explain the 5 senses and their role on imagination, Figment, the cartoon purple dragon, interrupts him. He breaks mayhem, farts, and tells visitors that imagination works better when it's set free. 

+ The main attraction of the park would be the World Showcase, were different countries  would be represented with thematic restaurants, rides and shows. This is similar to "Its a Small World", and it teaches unity, diversity and world peace. Together with the science sector, it represents the ideas of the Enlightenment. 

Conclusion

We have seen that Disney parks do have some propaganda, and that theme parks are a way in which ideas can be taught quite effectively. However, this article wouldn't be complete without considering the current state of Disney Parks. 

You see, the general discourse surrounding Disneyland and Disney World has become quite negative. Disney Parks are becoming way more expensive than they used to be. Some families get into debt just to experience a regular Disney vacation. And those who insist on visiting every year, receive the pejorative name of Disney Adults. 

Many theme park enthusiasts and fans have criticized the company for anti-consumer practices, greed, and a generalized drop in quality. The same acrimony that we see with Disney movies and products is also present in the tourism sector of the company. 

What does this mean for Disney Park propaganda? For me, it means that the idealization of humanity that this parks represent is struggling to fit in with modern cynicism. Disney decline symbolizes the death of old-world liberalism and its prompt replacement with the soulless corporate managerial state. 

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.