Friday, April 20, 2018
Thursday, April 19, 2018
Wednesday, April 18, 2018
Thursday, April 12, 2018
A pixel, web beacon, web bug, tracking bug, tag, page tag, tracking pixel, pixel tag, 1×1 gif, ofd clear gif is an important part of the internet which is abused by companies such as facebook and google. Most users of the internet are as unaware of how it functions, as they are of how an elevator operates. As long as they can push a few buttons and get the outcome they want, they never think of what is happening underneath the surface. The last time we at Call Me Jorge... sat down and calculated how much a facebook account should cost per year it was in the ballpark of around $700. In other words would you want to pay $700 for using facebook a year? So how does facebook remain free? Simply by building up files on anyone (via the pixel), even if they do not have a facebook account, who uses the internet and selling that data. There is no such thing as a free lunch. You are the end product living in a panopticon.
Francis has met with several high tech heads (including Mark Zuckerberg) at the Vatican and formed partnerships with them. All that was made publicly available about Francis’ meeting with Mr. Zuckerberg is that Mark wants to bring the internet to the ‘peripheries’ in the name of the ‘greater good’ and Francis shares this goal. Zuckerberg and Facebook have lobbied through his sister, Randi Zuckerberg, for the abolition of anonymity on the Internet in the name of saving children because of the plague of cyber-bullying that’s run amok the world over. You can’t make this garbage up.
Below are three videos from Zuckerberg’s congressional questioning, photos from Zuckerberg’s social media and the internet which show Zuckerberg’s practice of Talmudic Judaism as well as his connection to the Chabad-Lubavitcher master race cult.
For readers who don’t understand pixels or the tracking technology used by Facebook and other internet companies we highly recommend reading two pieces by Karl Denninger:
We have copy-and-pasted the posts below for posterity’s sake but would rather have you read them at Mr. Denninger’s website, Market Ticker, and support his blog by doing so.
Zuckerberg practices the rhetoric tricks of Talmudic pilpul to evade answering the questions asked.
‘your data’ doesn’t include facebook’s file on you
the CEO either doesn’t know what’s going on at his company or ?
(click images to enlarge)
Tell us how you feel Mark
An instant messenger exchange (from early 2004) Zuckerberg had with a college friend shortly after launching The Facebook in his dorm room. — Well, These New Zuckerberg IMs Won't Help Facebook's Privacy Problems, Business Insider, Nicholas Carlson (13 May 2010)
Celebrating Purim, did Zuckerberg get
drunk as commanded by the Talmud?
Mark Zuckerberg in 2004 celebrating Purim at Harvard Chabad with Rabbi Hirschy Zarchi and his brother Mayer Zarchi. (more photos)
Wearing a kippah is an outward denial
of Jesus the Christ as one’s Savior.
Meeting the Haredi movers & shakers of the world
Mark Zuckerberg with the late, Szymon Perski (aka Shimon Peres).
Zuckerberg with Benjamin Netanyahu, the father of ‘the war on terror’.
Chabad connection shows up again.
Rabbi Hirschy Zarchi of Chabad congratulates Mark Zuckerberg for receiving a honorary degree from Harvard University (26 May 2017). (source)
Inculcating the next generation with Talmudism
Will Zuckerberg’s daughter ask her god to “Pour Out Thy Wrath” on the goyim?
“For shabbat tonight, we gave Max a kiddush cup that has been in our family for almost 100 years. Her great-great-grandfather Max got it after our family immigrated here and it has been passed down through our family ever since.” — Facebook, (15 September 2017)
Did Zukerberg also swing a chicken
around his head for Yom Kippur?
Facebook, (30 September 2017)
Making Haman’s ears cookies (Haman lives throughout history as Esau, Amalek, Haman and his descendants Rome, Christendom, Gentiles, etc...)
“Baking hamentashen. Chag sameach! — celebrating Purim with Priscilla Chan.” — Facebook, (2 March 2018)
The usual nonsense from the various social media companies has started up once anew.It's very important you understand how they steal data on you, the scope of that theft, and why it matters along with why you not only didn't consent you can't consent.To understand this you must understand how the web works.Let's say you go to https://market-ticker.org and read some pages there. That's this blog, by the way.
If you're new around here you will see a highlighted bar telling you that signing in will improve your experience. This is because if you create a (free) account and sign in you can customize how the system displays things (the control panel's options are quite-extensive), you can ask it to notify you if topics you're interested in get new user comments and more.If you sign in you would assume (and the TOS tells you) that the system will store a "cookie", which is just a numeric identifier, on your machine. That's how it knows who you are when you click a new page, or when you come back to the page later.But this is not limited to when you sign in. Any site on the web can and most do send down other cookies. This software, for example, sends done what is known as a "UUID", or "unique user ID". It's simply a random, unique (and very long) numeric code that identifies your machine. Why? Because it's useful for the software to be able to do things like enforce rate-limiting (that is, to prevent spam-bots from overloading the system and doing other nasty things they would try to do), specifically. It also allows the software to correlate accesses whether you're signed in or not, which helps security (e.g. if you lose your password the system has a decent idea if you really are who you're trying to get a validation email for!)Why is this important? Because any access to a page on the site for which the cookie is valid will have the cookie sent with the request, no matter what page you are accessing on the Internet, and in addition the exact URL you visited is also sent that generated the request.What's important to understand is that the site you're reading does not generate that request -- your browser does. Your browser gets a line that says "<script .....>", "<img ....>" or similar and it sends a request for that resource to the specified place. In the request is the source page (where the request came from) and any cookies your browser has that are valid for the address to which the request is sent.So let's assume you're Facesucker. You make it "easy" for site owners to put "likes" and even use sign-on features from Facebook's authentication on your page. Say, you're a newspaper.
Ok, so I go to www.mylocalnews.dirtbag/my-local-jackass-city-council.html.As the page loads it requests the "like" buttons from Facebook for the articles, and in addition requests the sign-in box for comments. Both of those generate a request to Facebook's computers and in that request is the exact URL I am reading -- that is, from where the request came.Now here's the important part: If I have signed into Facebook at any time in the past from that device then the company has stored one or more cookies on my machine that uniquely identify me. Since the request to Facebook's servers match the place where the cookie came from they now get the exact article I was reading and my identity even though I did not sign into Facebook to read the article. I have given no consent to this, I cannot opt out of it and every single place on the Internet that has these buttons and/or sign-on boxes causes this to happen.What's even worse is that I don't have to actually have signed into Facebook, ever, or even have an account in order for this to occur. The first time that request goes to Facebook if there are no cookies sent Facebook can assign me one and check my browser's characteristics, including the IP address I'm coming from. I now am "branded", in that the same cookie will be used to track me forever, and if I at any time in the future sign into Facebook or otherwise use any of their facilities I will then retroactively associate all of that browsing data with my person.Now you know why Facebook allows (for "free") the user of the OAUTH sign-on facility and promotes "like" buttons all over the web. It is not about increasing your social experience.
It is about snooping on everything you do online so they can sell and use that data without your knowledge or consent and in fact it is impossible for you to give prior consent because you have no idea the buttons are there before you visit the page!You can defend against this by clearing all your cookies every time you use your computer, which will cause new cookies to be generated for each visit, but few if any people will. Never mind that on a phone this happens too and there they can often determine at least coarse location without even having a "location" permission turned on (simply by what network and IP you're on.) Note that many so-called "apps" are really not much more than a "front" for web accesses to special URLs that know how to parse what comes back and thus obey the exact same conventions regarding cookies.I could do this sort of thing here on the Ticker as my web servers get the same data theirs do on every request but I don't -- on purpose -- because I consider it an outrageous invasion of your privacy and rights. A few years ago I removed the "Like" and similar buttons for Facebook from the Ticker for this very reason, after a fairly-careful study convinced me they were indeed abusing that data in exactly that fashion. For right now Twitter's are still present but can be opted out of if you create a login here via the control panel options (that is, if you are signed in you can disable the script loads and thus Twitter's ability to "see" that you read the page.)This sort of "data mining" needs to be prohibited as a matter of criminal law. Fines will do nothing as they are simply a cost of doing business. Instead, any firm that does this since consent is impossible must have their corporate charter revoked and their entire board tossed in prison for gross and outrageous invasions of privacy and personal rights.But -- doing that would shrink Facebook's data stream to a tiny fraction of what it is now and basically all of its market cap exists only because it can and does personally profile anyone that touches any resource that uses its "like" or sign-on functions and sells that.This "business model" is nothing other than an outrageous invasion of privacy, it occurs without your consent, you'd never consent to it if you did understand it fully and exactly how-accurately they can measure everything about you and you get directly screwed by various firms as a result to the tune of hundreds or thousands of dollars a year.My reason to believe the latter? Their ARPU could not possibly exist unless you're getting hosed for at least 10x that amount, since most "advertising" does not in fact drive behavior and is worth zero. The small percentage that actually results in a conversion (sale) thus must support the entire ARPU generated or their business instantly collapses.The REAL Social Media SCAM, Market Ticker, Karl Denninger, (20 March 2018)
Folks, cut the crap ok?
I know what you're thinking -- I'll just turn off "third party cookies" and all will be ok (in relation to my previous article.)
Incidentally, that is not the default for Chrome and other browsers. Gee, I wonder why? Who runs all sorts of third-party ad networks again?
But that aside this doesn't work.
The reason is an HTTP field called an "Etag."
Etags, along with expiration dates and "If-Modified-Since" allow a browser to quickly check with a host whether or not content has changed, without re-downloading it. Let's say you get an image on the web. Later, you go back to the same page and the same image is there, since it has not changed. If the image is still in your cache it is very wasteful to send the whole thing again -- which could be several megabytes. Instead, if it hasn't changed, you can just display what's in the cache.
Well, to know that, you need to know if the resource changed on the server end. There are two ways to do this -- using a date stamp, and using what's called an "Etag."
The latter can be attached to any resource, although it's usually attached to images. The server sends down an Etag: field with the image in the HTTP headers, which is an opaque identifier. In other words, from the browser's point of view it does not care what the string is; it doesn't represent a time, date, or anything other than a promise from the server that it shall change if the content has changed and needs to be re-sent.
If this sounds like a cookie that's because it can be abused to become one, and you cannot shut it off unlike cookies!
So let's say you disable third-party cookies. Fine, you think. Nope.
I have a "Like" button. Said button has an image. That image is the finger pointing up, of course, and you must transfer it at least once. I send an Etag with it, but instead of it being a change index it's unique to you!
Now, every single time you request the button you send the Etag for the image. If it hasn't changed (and it basically never will, right -- it's an upturned finger!) I send back "Not modified". Except.... I just pinned to you, personally, that access to the page and you have third-party cookies turned off!
So I send back "Not modified" but you just told me who you are, what web page you were viewing, and your browser ID and IP address.
I get all of this for every page you visit where such a button or function is present even if you never use it.
Oh by the way this works with beacons of course, since they're 1-pixel transparent images. And no, I wasn't the first to figure this one out many years ago, and it's been known and in active use on the web for a long time.
The premise that blocking third-party cookies prevents these folks from being able to figure out who you are and what arbitrary web content you are viewing is false! Nice switch Mr. Browser writer, too bad it doesn't solve the problem!
What this means is that you can be tracked specifically and individually, as you personally, with knowledge of who you are, where you are, when you clicked it and exactly what page you looked at, whenever you visit a page that has any such thing on it without your knowledge or consent should any such resource be included in that page. It is inherently part of the web server's logs that the owner of the page you visit gets your browser ID, IP address and what you viewed. But what you probably didn't know and certainly did not consent to is that through very trivial abuse any resource that comes from some other web property -- a like button, a sign-in option for other than a locally-stored account, even an ad can cause your system to obtain, store and regurgitate a unique identifier specific to you and your device whenever that resource is encountered, anywhere. As soon as you do anything that links that identifier to you as a human that relationship is then known and never lost. Indeed it can happen retroactively in that the tag can be generated one day and then days, weeks, months or even years later you might provide the missing component (your identity) on some other page that contains the same resource.
There is no way for you to consent because it happens before you can possibly know it will and thus you can't give consent. You also can't know in advance where else that "capturing" system for your presence might be operating. It works exactly like a third-party cookie except that you cannot shut it off other than by operating system (or firewall) blocking of the entire domain or IP address involved or by clearing all cached data on every access, which is extraordinarily wasteful. If you're on an Android phone or an iPhone, since both prohibit editing the /etc/hosts file that would otherwise make blocking such possible without too much trouble (e.g. through "Adblock") you cannot reasonably interdict this at all on the stock browsers.
You also cannot block this on desktop or tablet browsers without severely damaging your browsing experience. Specifically, while you could conceivably load an extension to block all Etag headers doing so would probably get you blackballed on many sites (it sure would here and probably automatically as the system would consider it abuse!) because doing that would result in your data transfer requirements from the site skyrocketing as every single image would have to be sent on every access even if you already had an unaltered copy in your local system's cache in memory or on disk.
Facebook's entire business model relies on this. That is why they "offer" their sign-on system to newspapers, blogs and other web sites all over the world. It is also why they have their "like" buttons everywhere. It is through those "features" that they track everything you do online, even if you don't have an account with them, and all of that tracking processing and sale of whatever they learn of your personal life is done without any consent because it is not possible to consent to what you're not aware of in advance.
This is why the only solution to Facebook's data mining, and they're not alone in this (and yes, it has to apply to all of these firms and those yet to come), is legislative. This sort of activity -- collecting anything from those places where "like" buttons or any other third-party content is placed, or where sign-on credentials are used, and where that data is either used to inform decisions (e.g. advertising) or sold must be considered a felony criminal offense punished with the revocation of corporate charters and indictment of every officer and director of the firm involved.
I could trivially commit this sort of abuse, by the way, on The Ticker. It would require a hell of a lot of storage, but it would be easy to do.
I don't do it because it's wrong.
Others don't give a crap if it's wrong.
Zucker****er is one of the worst. His latest missive is especially damning, in that it deliberately omits the fact that Obama's 2012 campaign used such data mining. He didn't object then because they wanted the Democrats to win. Note that he takes no credit for that, nor does he accept blame. He simply lies by omission.
No, you can't fix this by not having a social media account personally since you don't have to sign in for you to be tracked and the tracking not only happens on the site in question it happens anywhere connections to that site are found such as images, buttons or other related functionality.
For this reason the problem can only be fixed legislatively or if all of said firms are driven out of business due to mass-revulsion by the people -- either way the only fix is if pulling this crap is an instant corporate death sentence right here, right now.
The OTHER Half Of The Social Scam (MUST READ), Market Ticker, Karl Denninger, (23 March 2018)
This entry was posted over at the Thinking Housewife blog last week. It gives one something to think about when compared to the dross that comes out of the idiot box. The occult is known for mocking its victims and how more of a macabre jest can one create than pinning crimes on an enemy, that you committed, while letting those in the know you are hoodwinking everyone?
source: Thinking Housewife, She Hava De Gun
source: Thinking Housewife, She Hava De Gun
Wednesday, April 11, 2018
Tuesday, April 10, 2018
Christ may be resurrected but Francis doesn't want you to rejoice in it. For in this Easter season he has released another Apostolic Exhortation full of his banal modernist thoughts and in the process heaped a Cross onto the backs of pewsitters that take the Novus Ordo seriously. This rumored encyclical instead turned out to be an Apostolic Exhortation but don’t worry it’s filled with a strong condemnation of Catholics neopelagians. The burdensome Gaudete et exsultate (Rejoice and be glad) was launched with its own video trailer. Watch it and see what you will learn from reading the document.
some of the excerpted lowlights
(by no means is it to be considered exhaustive)
(bold is ours for emphasis, our comments in italics)
A contemplative life is bad
26. It is not healthy to love silence while fleeing interaction with others, to want peace and quiet while avoiding activity, to seek prayer while disdaining service. Everything can be accepted and integrated into our life in this world, and become a part of our path to holiness. We are called to be contemplatives even in the midst of action, and to grow in holiness by responsibly and generously carrying out our proper mission.
Traditionalists (aka pelagians) are bad
58. Not infrequently, contrary to the promptings of the Spirit, the life of the Church can become a museum piece or the possession of a select few. This can occur when some groups of Christians give excessive importance to certain rules, customs or ways of acting. The Gospel then tends to be reduced and constricted, deprived of its simplicity, allure and savour. This may well be a subtle form of pelagianism, for it appears to subject the life of grace to certain human structures. It can affect groups, movements and communities, and it explains why so often they begin with an intense life in the Spirit, only to end up fossilized… or corrupt.
Francis is an oppressor because he apes the Faith
94. Persecutions are not a reality of the past, for today too we experience them, whether by the shedding of blood, as is the case with so many contemporary martyrs, or by more subtle means, by slander and lies. Jesus calls us blessed when people “utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account” (Mt 5:11). At other times, persecution can take the form of gibes that try to caricature our faith and make us seem ridiculous.
Francis want charity without discrimination for one’s responsibilities
98. If I encounter a person sleeping outdoors on a cold night, I can view him or her as an annoyance, an idler, an obstacle in my path, a troubling sight, a problem for politicians to sort out, or even a piece of refuse cluttering a public space. Or I can respond with faith and charity, and see in this person a human being with a dignity identical to my own, a creature infinitely loved by the Father, an image of God, a brother or sister redeemed by Jesus Christ. That is what it is to be a Christian! Can holiness somehow be understood apart from this lively recognition of the dignity of each human being?
Don’t fret over communism and stop protesting abortion so strongly
101. The other harmful ideological error is found in those who find suspect the social engagement of others, seeing it as superficial, worldly, secular, materialist, communist or populist. Or they relativize it, as if there are other more important matters, or the only thing that counts is one particular ethical issue or cause that they themselves defend. Our defence of the innocent unborn, for example, needs to be clear, firm and passionate, for at stake is the dignity of a human life, which is always sacred and demands love for each person, regardless of his or her stage of development. Equally sacred, however, are the lives of the poor, those already born, the destitute, the abandoned and the underprivileged, the vulnerable infirm and elderly exposed to covert euthanasia, the victims of human trafficking, new forms of slavery, and every form of rejection. We cannot uphold an ideal of holiness that would ignore injustice in a world where some revel, spend with abandon and live only for the latest consumer goods, even as others look on from afar, living their entire lives in abject poverty.
Welcome the invading Moslem hordes into your countries
102. We often hear it said that, with respect to relativism and the flaws of our present world, the situation of migrants, for example, is a lesser issue. Some Catholics consider it a secondary issue compared to the “grave” bioethical questions. That a politician looking for votes might say such a thing is understandable, but not a Christian, for whom the only proper attitude is to stand in the shoes of those brothers and sisters of ours who risk their lives to offer a future to their children. Can we not realize that this is exactly what Jesus demands of us, when he tells us that in welcoming the stranger we welcome him (cf. Mt 25:35)? Saint Benedict did so readily, and though it might have “complicated” the life of his monks, he ordered that all guests who knocked at the monastery door be welcomed “like Christ”, with a gesture of veneration; the poor and pilgrims were to be met with “the greatest care and solicitude”.
103. A similar approach is found in the Old Testament: “You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you yourselves were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Ex 22:21). “When a stranger resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress him. The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Lev 19:33-34). This is not a notion invented by some Pope, or a momentary fad. In today’s world too, we are called to follow the path of spiritual wisdom proposed by the prophet Isaiah to show what is pleasing to God. “Is it not to share your bread with the hungry and bring the homeless poor into your house; when you see the naked, to cover him, and not to hide yourself from your own kin? Then your light shall break forth like the dawn” (58:7-8).
Blogs such as Call Me Jorge... are bad
115. Christians too can be caught up in networks of verbal violence through the internet and the various forums of digital communication. Even in Catholic media, limits can be overstepped, defamation and slander can become commonplace, and all ethical standards and respect for the good name of others can be abandoned. The result is a dangerous dichotomy, since things can be said there that would be unacceptable in public discourse, and people look to compensate for their own discontent by lashing out at others. It is striking that at times, in claiming to uphold the other commandments, they completely ignore the eighth, which forbids bearing false witness or lying, and ruthlessly vilify others. Here we see how the unguarded tongue, set on fire by hell, sets all things ablaze (cf. Jas 3:6).
A cloistered life isn't good
140. When we live apart from others, it is very difficult to fight against concupiscence, the snares and temptations of the devil and the selfishness of the world. Bombarded as we are by so many enticements, we can grow too isolated, lose our sense of reality and inner clarity, and easily succumb.
Discernment is the key to everything & change is good except when it’s not good. If we block change we are blocking the Holy Spirit.
166. How can we know if something comes from the Holy Spirit or if it stems from the spirit of the world or the spirit of the devil? The only way is through discernment, which calls for something more than intelligence or common sense. It is a gift which we must implore. If we ask with confidence that the Holy Spirit grant us this gift, and then seek to develop it through prayer, reflection, reading and good counsel, then surely we will grow in this spiritual endowment.
An urgent need
167. The gift of discernment has become all the more necessary today, since contemporary life offers immense possibilities for action and distraction, and the world presents all of them as valid and good. All of us, but especially the young, are immersed in a culture of zapping. We can navigate simultaneously on two or more screens and interact at the same time with two or three virtual scenarios. Without the wisdom of discernment, we can easily become prey to every passing trend.
168. This is all the more important when some novelty presents itself in our lives. Then we have to decide whether it is new wine brought by God or an illusion created by the spirit of this world or the spirit of the devil. At other times, the opposite can happen, when the forces of evil induce us not to change, to leave things as they are, to opt for a rigid resistance to change. Yet that would be to block the working of the Spirit. We are free, with the freedom of Christ. Still, he asks us to examine what is within us – our desires, anxieties, fears and questions – and what takes place all around us – “the signs of the times” – and thus to recognize the paths that lead to complete freedom. “Test everything; hold fast to what is good” (1 Thess 5:21).
Best footnote ever
 Detraction and calumny are acts of terrorism: a bomb is thrown, it explodes and the attacker walks away calm and contented. This is completely different from the nobility of those who speak to others face to face, serenely and frankly, out of genuine concern for their good.
Gaudete et exsultate, Apostolic Exhortation of Francis (19 March 2018).
Who wrote this? Was it Francis’ perverted ghostwriter, ‘Smoochie’ Fernandez? It has to be because it’s as if the majority of the document is a copy-and-paste job from Fernandez’s writings and the speeches of Francis. It reads like a new age book filled with sophisms. Don’t worry, if you take ‘Gaudete et exsultate’ to heart, ‘Smoochie’ and Francis will heal you with kisses and spiritual hugs, unless you practice the Catholic Faith...so rejoice and be glad!
Friday, April 6, 2018
When one’s role is to sell stories and tell lies to people, one begins to believe them both. In this latest installment of The Pope Video, Francis blathers on about the economy, while ignoring the role of money creation (created out of thin air by the banks; Can banks individually create money out of nothing? — The theories and the empirical evidence); says once again that man is first, instead of God; states something along the line that if everyone joined together and gave dignified work to each other the economy would take off, while conveniently ignoring the elephant of usury in the room — in fact Francis wants to expand usury to the already material poor; and ends the video by encouraging economists to make everything better, economists are as effective as the witch-doctors Francis brings to the Vatican — both are good at impressing their peers in their occupations and nothing else. Thankfully, it will be another month until Francis subjects the public to another one of these videos.
People are dominoes!
#fakenews “is extremely dangerous to our democracy.”
“Economic factors may take some spring out of the Easter bunny’s step this year!”
“Who are you really shopping for...”
Thursday, April 5, 2018
“Please, do not proselytize. Look for ways to open paths for the Lord to speak, so that the Lord can call. Do not campaign or run advertising campaigns because the call of God does not fall under the guidelines of marketing. It’s something else.”
Francis’ video message for the 47th National
Week for Institutes of Consecrated Life
When a transcript is released CMJ will either link to it or post it below. Just know that Francis’ “great fear” is that the young will “lose their roots”. When Francis says “roots” he doesn’t mean the Catholic Faith, he means the revolutionary religion born out of the Second Vatican Council.
— video transcript —
“P. Martínez Oliveras y a todos ustedes que están reunidos reflexionando en este tema que nos lleva hacia el Sínodo: los jóvenes, las vocaciones, la vocación a la vida religiosa. Y, por supuesto, el telón de fondo es «faltan vocaciones». Y nos podemos quedar en esa lamentela; estar ahí con esa música de fondo de llorar glorias pasadas cuando el Señor nos dice: «Mira hacia delante y mira lo que tenéis que hacer». Pero no hagas proselitismo, por favor. Buscad maneras para abrir caminos para que el Señor pueda hablar, para que el Señor pueda llamar. No hagas campaña electoral ni campañas de tipo comercial porque el llamado de Dios no entra en las pautas del marketing. Es otra cosa. Así que, ¡anímense y sigan adelante!
Respecto de los jóvenes solo les quisiera sugerir una cosa que los puede ayudar. Me impresionó la traducción alemana del último libro de Z. Bauman (el original salió en italiano, Nacidos líquidos [Nati liquidi]) pero la traducción alemana puso: Sin raíces [Die Entwurzelten]. Mi gran temor es que nuestros jóvenes pierdan las raíces. Tengo miedo de eso. Quizás el trabajo de hoy sea preparar el camino para que se vea aquello que anunció Joel: «Los ancianos soñarán y los jóvenes profetizarán» (2,28). Y hoy más que nunca es necesario que los jóvenes tengan un diálogo con los ancianos. Mucha de la generación del medio, la de sus padres, está a mitad de camino.
Estamos a tiempo de recuperar raíces. También estamos a tiempo de y estamos a tiempo de hacer soñar a esos hombres y mujeres para que nos den después a los jóvenes la capacidad de profetizar. El diálogo entre los abuelos y los nietos es un diálogo intergeneracional de alto nivel. Y todavía estamos a tiempo: no lo perdamos. Y vean la manera de escuchar las inquietudes de los jóvenes y también la de los ancianos. Métanlos juntos y la cosa va a andar bien.
En cuanto al número de vocaciones que el Señor decida. Nosotros hagamos lo que Él nos pidió: rezar y testimoniar. («Yo quiero ser como ése». «Yo quiero ser como ésa»). Que Dios los bendiga. Recen por mí. Que se diviertan. No pierdan el sentido del humor”.
The Vatican News’ latest advertising campaign selling the brand of ‘Francis’ to the world with the political sounding slogan, “We bring Francis to the world”.
(click images to enlarge)
Friday, March 30, 2018
More Meddling Catholics:
Monday, March 26, 2018
(click images to enlarge)
A Novus Ordo diocesan priest oversees the exchange of vows
while the SSPX priest stands to the side and watches.
“Thus, we find ourselves in a case of necessity.... This is why we are convinced that, by the act of these consecrations today, we are obeying... the call of God.” — Abp. Marcel Lefebvre in sermon given at the episcopal consecrations of June 30, 1988.
Quoted in Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican, 2nd ed., Fr. Francois Laisney, (Kansas City: Angelus Press, 1999), pp. 118-19.
Last month on February 10, 2018, a couple from the FSSPX community of St. Raphael’s in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada were wed by a Novus Ordo priest, Fr. Kelly Wilson. This wedding didn’t take place at St. Raphael’s, instead it happened in Fr. Wilson’s diocesan church of St. Augustine of Canterbury in Brandon, Manitoba, Canada. After the exchange of vows, Fr. Richard Vachon, who had witnessed all this go down, proceeded to offer a nuptial mass (Tridentine Mass — 1962) in the Novus Ordo St. Augustine’s. According to the Remnant Newspaper,
“The couple preferred the church of St. Augustine for the ceremony, and Fr. Vachon reportedly indicated to them that since it is the couple who are the ministers of the sacrament of marriage, it doesn’t matter which priest officiated.”
This leads to all sorts of questions. First off, is Fr. Kelly Wilson a valid priest? If so, is the Novus Ordo Missae valid? If so, since communion is given in the hand and particles of the host fall on the ground, did not — the bride, groom, bridesmaids, groomsmen, priests, and guests — all those present walk on Christ?
What if the bride and groom tire of each other and decide to get an annulment? Will they go to the diocese where annulments are given out for fogging a mirror? Or will they go to the SSPX which claims a right they do not have under a “state of necessity” to grant annulments?
The answer to all these questions is dependent on whom in the SSPX you ask them to and how well the talks with Modernist Rome are going at the moment. Sometimes they say, ‘yes, it’s doubtful’ other times, ‘no, it’s valid’. None of this should be surprising as the FSSPX runs hot and cold. Perhaps, Bp. Bernard Fellay can clarify as to what SSPX’s policy is regarding marriage and their agreement with Modernist Rome?
“[It’s] not a trap, not a bad, hidden trick”
(From 1 minute 12 seconds to 16 minutes 40 seconds; Bp. Fellay speaks on marriage and the Vatican granting them the privilege to perform weddings provided they meet certain conditions; Letter can be read by clicking here.)
St. Raphael’s Priory of the SSPX in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada was so proud of the Novus Ordoized - Extraordinary Form wedding that they published a photo of the married couple standing beside the Novus Ordo presider and SSPX priest (see below) in their bulletin of March 2018.
If the SSPX is now going to have their priests witness marriages in Novus Ordo churches that have a Novus Ordo presider as the main witness, then have their priest offer up the ‘Extraordinary Form’ for the couple in the same Novus Ordo church, what’s the point and where is the “state of necessity”?
Is the Society bringing the Faith back to Modernist Rome and its Novus Ordo Missae or is the Society becoming that which it so strongly protested for years?
It’s interesting times to be living in.
Hey if the Vatican can have two popes, why not have two priests for a wedding?
***** UPDATED 4 APRIL 2018 *****
The above mentioned groom writes an open letter concerning his wedding and the SSPX—Canada posts it on their official website.
***** UPDATED 4 APRIL 2018 *****
The above mentioned groom writes an open letter concerning his wedding and the SSPX—Canada posts it on their official website.
March 26th 2018
A clarification on my wedding
I, Nicolas Lessard, got married to Monica Green on the 10th of February 2018, in the Roman Catholic Church of Saint Augustine of Canterbury in Brandon, Manitoba. Both my wife and I are faithful of the Society of Saint Pius X. The host priest, Father Kelly received our vows, and Father Vachon, of the SSPX celebrated our wedding mass. Following the wedding, there has been a lot of buzz about the circumstances of the wedding in the context of the relationship between Rome and the Society. This letter intends to address this “controversy”.
The first point I would like to make is that the controversy started off with the SSPX's Winnipeg bulletin showing a picture of my wife and me, Father Vachon of the SSPX, who prepared our marriage, and Father Kelly. The bulletin didn’t give many details and the articles that spawned from it implied or assumed many things that were false. Normally, someone who doesn’t know all the aspects of an issue should give the benefit of the doubt, in all Christian charity. The fact that some bloggers did not do so indicates to me that they are spinning a story to drive an ideological narrative, which is disingenuous and dishonest.
The second point addresses the location of the marriage. The location was not imposed on us by the diocese or the SSPX but was freely chosen by Monica (from SK) and myself (from QC). The SSPX priests here do not have the necessary civil license to perform marriages in Saskatchewan (SK) since they do not reside there, which complicated the location selection. We found this church, which presented all the qualities we were looking for which many churches, including both the SSPX churches in Welwyn (SK) and Winnipeg (MB), lacked. These include seating capacity, whether the church was heated (we’re in Canada here!), distance to the reception hall, cost, transports, and the dignity of the church. This last point is worth mentioning since all attendees noticed the sheer beauty of St. Augustine of Canterbury. There was an appreciation for the beautiful harmony of the Traditional liturgy, the Gregorian singing and the church’s well preserved gothic interior.
The third point regards the laws of the Church. Monica and I consider ourselves not just faithful of the SSPX, but faithful Roman Catholics. In spite of the cancerous crisis going on in the Church, she stays the One True Church of God, and thus the errors of her representatives do not negate the obligation to follow legitimate requests. Neither of us were willing to weaken our marriage bonds by operating outside proper regulations.
We would have had Father Vachon receive our marriage vows if it had been up to us. But since, we were in a church of the diocese, we followed the directives given to the Society by Rome concerning the Society’s marriages. We understand that the Society has followed this same procedure for many individual cases long before these directives were published anyway; actual SSPX parishioners will know that.
I hope this letter answers most of the questions that were raised from this one picture and label in a parish bulletin. Although it is unfortunate that our marriage was used by some online to promote baseless speculation, my wife and I will take this occasion to ask those who read this to pray for us and for the SSPX!
‘Open Letter Lessard—Green SSPX Wedding’, A clarification on my wedding, SSPX—Canada, (26 March 2018)
More on ISIS:
Saturday, March 24, 2018
What do Nina Rosenwald, Henry "Scoop"Jackson, Richard Perle, Frank Gaffney, Henry M. Jackson, Larry Solov, John Bolton, Robert Mercer, Kellyanne Conway, Rebekah Mercer, Robert Spencer, David Horowitz, Pamela Geller, Milo Yiannopoulos, Tommy Robinson (Stephen Yaxley-Lennon), Christine Brim, Alan Lake, Robert Shillman, Ben Shapiro, Ted Cruz, Alan Dershowitz, Jeffrey Epstein, Mike Cernovich, Ghislane Maxwell, Charles C. Johnson, James O’Keefe, Charles Koch, David Koch, Rebecca Walter Dunn, Ginni Thomas, Laura Loomer, Robert J. Shillman, Jack Posobiec, Alex Jones, and Donald Trump have in common? A tangled spider’s web of connections.
Robert Spencer covering up his bald spot.
Wednesday, March 21, 2018
Where then, are the people?
(click image to enlarge)
😂 An empty square today for story time with Chaos Frank, crowd must have been in line to buy his new book ‘Dio è giovane’.