Friday, December 1, 2017

Time for a Good Old Mark Shea Rant!

Mark Shea occasionally is very coherent and clear and all, he occasionally is spot on, but today is not that day ...

By the way, as to coherent, I feel a need for coffee, this post should have been on my main blog .... OK, back after coffee. Two things. The posts of Mark Shea are from yesterday's date, I seriously have no idea (as yet) what he is signing for December 1st. And, second thing, if one of his posts was bad, at the intro, the one I am ranting about, another one in fact is spot on, at least in a spot. Let's take a good paragraph first, shall we?

That is what Christianists are now reduced to fighting for: class warfare by the rich against the poor. But then, Christianism is about nothing other than the idols of money, pleasure, power, and honor (and blood and soil in their Alt Right manifestations).

Spot on. Except that in same essay, Mark Shea also called Roy Moore a child molester, which on a sane Catholic view he is not. Age of consent may be 16 in Alabama as of present, I hope it was lower before. I am sure Clinton was into raising it in the 1990's - at least marital age in South Carolina was raised from 12 (as it was when a Swedish girl mag ran a story in 1995) to 16 (as it was when I checked if it was possible to marry - at US Embassy in Paris - a then 16 year old very pretty girl from South Carolina).

Btw, pursuing power is a thing Christianists are doing among other things by calling the behaviour of Moore child molestation. If Corfmann's story is true, act one of the tragedy is, she was not in a position to marry a gentleman before meeting Mr Moore. Act two is meeting him, in circumstances inappropriately close to babysitting. Only act three (with two scenes) gets saucy. Act four is Corfmann (with mother) not forgiving him and therefore not marrying him (a moral tragedy for him, if not for her) and act five is his becoming adulterer. Moore's "wife" was a divorced mother, I don't think he ever denied Kisor was a "divorced mother" in 1985. Hope Leigh Corfmann has lived a better life than he, since then! That includes, obviously, hope she did not make the story up. I could, alas, relate to someone denying it, if true.

And now for a more questionable series of quotes:

During World War II, Hermann Goering had some project he needed done and he procured some Jewish prisoners to do it. Somebody asked why he was using the unclean hands of Jews for the work instead of using German labor. Goering’s reply: “I decide who is a Jew.”

My grandfather had a right to Aliya. He refrained after a visit to the Holy Land. Perhaps because the hot climate was not good for grannie's heart. Perhaps because of Palestinians having lost land in the process. Perhaps because he realised that to Zionism, Herod is a national hero.

Anyway, one of the people he met was a family who had been friends with Goering. Grandma, up to her death, would impersonate their impersonation of Goering. The words were exactly "hier bestimme ich wer Jude ist" - "here it is I who decide who is a Jew".

Why would that family like to impersonate their friend Goering saying those words? Well, because they saved their lives. He banked his fist on the table and said them to an underling who was going to arrest the family whom, as then not arrested, was living in Holy Land and enjoying the company of my grandparents.

Goering's daughter liked to mention that, in the "Entnazifizierungsprozess" by German authorities, her mother could benefit from a lawyer who could get in witnesses saying, for instance, that she had helped this or that or sundry family in the theatre business. Who would otherwise have been arrrested for being Jewish. She got away with a few months. Hermann, however, had another type of trial, where friendly witnesses were not invited and he could expect a harsher trial.

My analysis of why Goering needed the Jews was, he was doing (or trying) a Schindler move. Here is, however, Mark Shea's:

He literally arrogated to himself the claim that he could dictate the nature of reality itself.

Actually, being Jewish, unlike being for instance "between 186 and 187 cm", is not a univocal thing. In Germany, then, "Jewish" had an administrative meaning, to which not each and every Jewish connection would be applicable. For instance, Hitler was himself entitled only to Kleines Goj-Ausweiß (as Jews like to jokingly call it), nevertheless, no one would for administrative purposes have considered him a Jew.

In Austria, the administrative purpose of designation Jew, under Austrofascism, had been simply to remove the person from positions in administration. Not to place them in any camps, not to deprive them of private property, just to get them out of administration. They made - in a not too big administration - some 620 sth case by case exceptions. I e, people who were Jewish, but not so in the eyes of the administration (or whose Jewishness was no obstacle to their being in the administration). Dollfuß too, probably, might have had trouble to get honestly a Großes Goj-Ausweiß - I knew a greatgranddaughter of his, who voted Tsipi Livni in her latest election I knew of in the non-Austrian other citizenship. I suppose this is part of why Hitler considered him a traitor and decorated his murderer : he was anti-Jewish only on a Nixon level, like after the weasels, but not after the squirrels. He did not believe in any Jewish gene that the society would be better off without, in future evolutions of it. He did believe, and so do I, in some Jews being dishonest in business to Gojim.

So, claiming to decide who was Jewish was, in context, simply to claim being an administrator of higher rank than the administrators he was talking to.

As to the tone, well, I have met that tone with a Marxist (probably) editor of a magazine for the homeless, in Berlin - motz, it was. I had, as a homeless, been staying two nights or three in the homeless shelter tied to the magazine and its salesmen.

On Sunday morning, I wanted to go to the Church of FSSPX, St Peter's near Breitenbachplatz. I was not sure they had any evening Mass on Sunday evening, I rather think they did not (only two priests, and two Masses Sunday morning). The editor, who was fairly certainly not Fascist, who was fairly certainly Marxist, told me I couldn't go, since "hier bin ICH Gott". It literally means "here it's I who am God". I did not hit him on the face, but I left, never came back, never sold another motz.

Now, unlike Jew, God actually is NOT merely sth which the administration can define. God actually IS involved in the nature of reality itself. That probable Marxist really was arrogating to himself the claim to dictate the nature of reality itself.

Much the same thing was on display with Stalin in the 30s during the execution of the Five Year Plans. Stalin’s agricultural reforms dictated to the universe that the weather had to behave according to his godlike will. Accordingly, he actually had meteorologists shot for “counter-revolutionary weather forecasting.”

Unlike Dollfuß, even unlike Hitler, Stalin does not count as Fascist. He does count as Marxist. But perhaps Mark Shea finds "Fascist" a fluent description (as I suppose Goering did with "Jew"), or perhaps he is here arrogating to himself the right to dictate the very nature of reality?

And, of course, at the end of the war, we see Hitler moving around non-existent armies and commanding dead and deserted troops

Can you document it, Shea? I started reading Hitler and His generals - an English higher officer had interviewed a Wehrmacht officer. I did not get to WW-II. I don't know what the book says about this subject.

If it is true, obviously I'd put it down to generals "managing" him - not daring to tell him the truth. There was bad blood between them on both sides.

I just saw on quora someone defend Hitler's decision to order his soldiers to fight to the last in Stalingrad (a decision very much less appreciated than the similar one from Red side in the Teruel battle) and that on two grounds : Commies were not giving quarter, other armies needed to draw back and keeping Red Army busy at Stalingrad gave the other armies a chance which 6th German had anyway no longer. Sounds like he had some sound sense of strategy and military honour, even if he had done better to remain a painter.

and Goebbels using horoscopes and hocus pocus as the basis of lies to will unbelieving Germans into the unreality that victory was just around the corner.

As it happens, Goebbels was a few things other than just Fascist. For one thing, both Alessandro and Benito were Fascists. Benito as an unbeliever, like their dad, Alessandro as a faithful Catholic (who arguably wouldn't touch a horoscope), like their mum. Similarily, both Dollfuß and Hitler were Fascists - Dollfuß in deference to Quadragesimo Anno (a deference which Pope Pius XI did not call hypocritical) and profiting from the thaw weather between Mussolini and Pius XI to be friends with the former (as he was sickly, he needed the Italian baths he was invited to, as well as finding it practical to have Mussolini at the Brenner Pass to avoid an Anschluß). In other words, "Fascist" is not a description which narrows down to all and everything Goebbels did.

It may interest you, of the 20-30's Fascisms I know, of the ones which became ruling ideologies in any state, National Socialism was the one which engaged in occultistic research. Franco and Salazar, Dollfuß and Schuschnigg, Horthy and as far as I know Szalaszy, AND Corneliu Codreanu were all free from this.

Marxism, on the other hand - guess which country you can study parapsychology at state sponsored Universities? As far as I know, you could under Brezhnev, and you can under Putin. You certainly could, as I found, under Khrushchev - supposing this is not incorrect:

Also, you can do it in some English speaking countries:

Two universities in the United States currently have academic parapsychology laboratories. The Division of Perceptual Studies, a unit at the University of Virginia's Department of Psychiatric Medicine, studies the possibility of survival of consciousness after bodily death, near-death experiences, and out-of-body experiences.[67] Gary Schwartz at the University of Arizona's Veritas Laboratory conducted laboratory investigations of mediums, criticized by scientific skeptics. Several private institutions, including the Institute of Noetic Sciences, conduct and promote parapsychological research.[66]


As of 2007, parapsychology research is represented in some 30 different countries[68] and a number of universities worldwide continue academic parapsychology programs. Among these are the Koestler Parapsychology Unit at the University of Edinburgh;[69] the Parapsychology Research Group at Liverpool Hope University (this closed in April 2011);[70][71] the SOPHIA Project at the University of Arizona;[72] the Consciousness and Transpersonal Psychology Research Unit of Liverpool John Moores University;[73] the Center for the Study of Anomalous Psychological Processes at the University of Northampton;[74] and the Anomalistic Psychology Research Unit at Goldsmiths, University of London.[75]

Presumably, neither US nor UK count as Fascist doctatorships.

So, yes Goebbels was an occultist, and that would involve not just "magical thinking" (whatever that means in psychologic gobbledygook) but outright heresies or at least sins against the faith (see Summa Theologica, II-II, Q 92). He was also married to a secularised Jewess, who endorsed her own father being put into a camp, where he died, when he was impoverished, and the end of the Goebbels family rings so Masada to me. Masada - perhaps another reason why gramp was not doing Aliya. While an Evolution believing Agnostic, he had traditional Swedish sensibilities, not National Socialist or Zionist ones, on such things.

But why would Goebbels being an occultist in any way stamp decent Catholic (or Orthodox) fascists as occultists?* Why would defending Spain against the Reds, why would defending Portugal against the Lodge be in any way shape or form an occultistic project?

Reds were a menace in Spain, 1934 one was not just "reading it in cards", one was reading it in news - until elected President Gil Robles sent Franco to Asturias** In 36, it was there again, while Azaña was not technically a Red, he was certainly not very apt for putting to justice the Reds who assassinated Calvo Sotelo or "executed" José Antonio Primo de Rivera***

Freemasons were a menace in Portugal. Read the story of the Fatima seers, and see how they were treated in 1917, not in an overtly Marxist dictatorship, but in a supposedly free country.

Salazar was not dreaming like Cayce, when he saw Freemasons as a menace to Portugal. (If there is anything slightly occult, he may have had too Rosicrucian an idea of the Middle Ages, as an idealistic time when egoism was not running anything except the hearts of the most vile, but I think in 19th C when he was born, this was so widely disseminated outside Rosicrucians, this cannot stamp him as one of theirs.) Franco in his turn was not asking Gypsy women about Crystal balls, when it came to Commies being a menace. Salazar and Franco certainly count as being quite as Fascist as Goebbels, and they count as being way more Catholic too.

The essence of fascistic thinking is the belief that we, not God, create reality by the Power of the Word. It is a kind of blasphemous magical thinking that believes black can be made white and turned again as the Dear Leader dictates. Such blasphemy exacts a terrible price if it is not repented.

I do very much not see how this is fascistic as such. I also thought the adjective in English was equal to the noun, Fascist. And as a proper name, referring to Fasci di Combattimento, 1919, capitalised. Perhaps you are thinking of Giovanni Gentile.

The self-styled "philosopher of Fascism", he was influential in providing an intellectual foundation for Italian Fascist thought, and ghostwrote part of The Doctrine of Fascism (1932) with Benito Mussolini.

Grazie for "selfstyled"! I am sure Dollfuß largely preferred a certain Jesuit father, namely Ignaz Seipel, and his "Wirtschaftsethische Lehre der Kirchenväter" (meaning economical-ethic doctrine of the Church Fathers, not sure if there is an English title or translation) over any work by Gentile. I am sure Franco preferred what he had learned at military school in Salamanca (including when he stopped hazing° while running it) over anything anyone could read in Gentile. And Salazar probably preferred both Seminar (like Stalin he was an ex-Seminarist, unlike him not an ex-Christian) and university courses in political economy (he started out as minister of finance) over anything he could have read in Gentile. I even suspect neither of them ever opened a page of Gentile.

And anonymous wikipedians gratify my sense of English by referring to "Fascist thought" not "fascistic" one.

Not unrelatedly, our Dear Leader, having lied for years about Birther crap, finally renounced that lie a year ago (and lyingly took credit for dispelling the lie that he had fostered).

But yesterday, in a feat of reverse magical thinking, he chose to revive the stupid lie that Obama is not an American citizen. ... The People of the Lie who now constitute the backbone of the Party of Trump will eat it all up. They don’t care that its all lies. They only care that it tells them what their itching ears want to hear.

Oh, the diatribe against Fascism was just a captatio benevolentiae before a diatribe really against Trump and "Trumpkins" (not quite same meaning as DLF in Prince Caspian, perhaps). What a surprise ... I am actually not catching him red handed in double standards, if he calls Trump a liar, he called Obama a murderer back in 2014.

Since - also from december 2014 - he is a Tolkien fan, I suggest Mark Shea reread that letter about the Spanish War which Tolkien wrote after he and C. S. L. had had very different attitudes to Roy Campbell ...

OK, let's make attributions. All quotes from wiki were from articles linked to just below quote, first quote from Mark is from People of the Lie, Part Deux and the rest are from Magical Fascistic Thinking, that's it. Even while needing another cup of coffee, I'll sign, and just under it link to the blog I would normally have posted this article on, that one being my main blog and containing several rants°° in response to Mark Shea.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Day after St Andrew

* Please, Serbs, when I say "decent Catholic Fascists", I am not referring to Ustashi! Also, Stepinac was not an Ustashi and did not promote the killings at Jasenovac, I know he told Nikolai Velimirovic - the Orthodox Jacobus de Voragine for those who don't know, his newer Legenda Aurea being called Prologue from Ohrid - he should leave, but he could have been trying to save Nicolai's life, you know! And it seems Dachau was safer for Nikolai Velimirovic than Jasenovac would have been.

** And please note, in the war of 36-39, Franco was never involved in so bloody a thing to civilians as part of what he had done in Asturias had been!

*** A man not quite unlike Codreanu. A man whom now even some Red historians think could have saved Spain a war and made a decent deal, if he had lived.

° Le temps de Franco, by a non-Fascist, indeed Leftist writer, termed it "bizutage", in US that seems to be "hazing", in UK "initiation ceremonies".

°° Here is the label "de marco shea" on my main blog, that being:

New blog on the kid
(a k a nov9 blogg9, hence url:

No comments: