We are looking these few days at NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL FAKE NEWS MEDIA-----to see how media creates propaganda----and below we see a MEDIA ACADEMIC being sold as POPULIST------LEFTIST who spent an entire educational career with far-right wing global banking NEO-LIBERAL/NEO-CON IVY LEAGUE schools.
We are looking at this ONE headline in FOREIGN AFFAIRS and its author in case Daniel Drezner with an article followed by Jonathan Marks
The first thing we see is both are JEWISH academics and writers calling each other the bad guy.
This Time Is Different
It is tempting to pin the degradation of U.S. foreign policy on Trump, but the…'
THAT IS WHAT IS MEANT BY FOREIGN AFFAIRS ----THIS TIME WILL BE DIFFERENT----
First, we recognize the corruption of each religion by those wanting to eliminate Western religions. Below we see two JEWISH writers saying each are the bad guy and both are working for global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS---TRIBE OF JUDAH.
Neither of these guys are populist---neither are a PUBLIC ACADEMIC.
'Christmastime For the Jews | NotionsCapital
“The War on Jewish Christmas must be stopped,” Daniel W. Drezner,Washington Post “Are Jews Doomed to Lose the War on Jewish Christmas?” Paul Waldman, The American Prospect “Why ‘Jewish Christmas’ (Movies and Chinese Food) is Going Mainstream,” Sarah Seltzer, Flavorwire'
'Are Jews Doomed to Lose the War on Jewish Christmas?
On this Christmas eve, the most important article of the day is undoubtedly this piece by Daniel Drezner on a deeply disturbing development in American society, namely, the War on Jewish Christmas: Chinese food and a movie. Perfectly pleasant rituals, made special by the fact that the Gentiles are' ...
'Tufts College was founded in 1852 by Christian universalists who worked for years to open a nonsectarian institution of higher learning'.
'Daniel Drezner | The Fletcher School
Biography Daniel W. Drezner is professor of international politics, a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and a contributing editor at The Washington Post. Prior to joining The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, he taught at the University of Chicago and the University of Colorado at Boulder'.
'Professor Bio Page
- The Great Courseswww.thegreatcourses.com/professors/daniel-w-drezner Dr. Daniel W. Drezner is Professor of International Politics at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. He earned his B.A. in Political Economy from Williams College and his M.A. in Economics and Ph.D. in Political Science from Stanford University'.
Below we see the college DREZNER attached to for tenure------this college called 'CHRISTIAN' was identified as INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSALIST-----not Christian. This college has always been a global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS ----
'Tufts College was founded in 1852 by Christian universalists who worked for years to open a nonsectarian institution of higher learning'.
'The Fletcher School was founded in 1933 with the bequest of Austin Barclay Fletcher, who left over $3 million to Tufts University upon his death in 1923. A third of these funds were dedicated to a school of law and diplomacy. Fletcher envisioned "a school to prepare men for the diplomatic service and to teach such matters as come within the scope of foreign relations [which] embraces within it as a fundamental and thorough knowledge of the principles of international law upon which diplomacy is founded, although the profession of a diplomat carries with it also a knowledge of many things of a geographic and economic nature which affect relations between nations."
The school opened in 1933. One of the first buildings acquired was Goddard Hall which was converted into a library. Tufts assumed exclusive responsibility for the administration of The Fletcher School in 1935'.
This term LIBERAL EDUCATION as we shouted over these few decades has been corrupted. LIBERAL EDUCATION in US has always been REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE LOCKEAN LIBERALISM------what this article below refers to is FAR-RIGHT WING GLOBAL BANKING NEO-LIBERAL EDUCATION---making the rich extremely richer. These terms are corrupted and they are corrupted by NEO-LIBERALS being largely TRIBE OF JUDAH.
'April 18, 2013
Liberal education and civic education need not go together (essay)
Jonathan Marks challenges those who say that advocates for liberal education must put civic engagement at the core of their arguments'.
LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE LIBERAL EDUCATION IS GEARED TO 99% WE THE PEOPLE. FAR-RIGHT WING GLOBAL BANKING 1% ECONOMIC NEO-LIBERALISM ONLY EDUCATES THE RICH.
MARKS AND DRESNER COULD CARE LESS ABOUT EDUCATION AND ARE NOT PUBLIC INTELLECTUALS.
The definition of PUBLIC INTELLECTUAL has gone from people working for the PUBLIC---the 99% WE THE PEOPLE to people who send propaganda to those 99% WE THE PEOPLE. INTELLECTUALS feeding propaganda are CORPORATE not PUBLIC.
We Don’t Need No Stinking Thought Leaders
Despite Daniel Drezner’s arguments to the contrary, now is not the “worst of times” for public intellectuals, Jonathan Marks argues.
ByJonathan Marks INSIDE HIGHER EDUCATION
July 11, 2017
Professors are only human, so many of us want to be Daniel Drezner.
Drezner, a professor of international politics at Tufts University, is a successful academic. A midcareer scholar, he has published more peer-reviewed work than most political scientists will in a lifetime. But he also boasts more than 80,000 Twitter followers, contributes to The Washington Post and, according to the dust jacket of his latest effort, The Ideas Industry, has “one of the most heavily trafficked blogs” in academics.
He may not be in the very top tier of intellectuals who write for a wider audience, but he has “partaken in snack-filled green rooms, business class lounges and swanky conferences in exotic locales.” He has “spoken at conferences run by financial firms” and “even offered some pro-bono advice to Google.”
The Ideas Industry is a wide-ranging book about how the marketplace of ideas has changed, especially but not only in Drezner’s area, foreign affairs. But Drezner devotes special attention to how colleges and universities are now situated in that marketplace. The short answer: we’re in bad shape.
We are in bad shape partly, he argues, because when academics intervene in the marketplace of ideas, they usually do so as “traditional public intellectuals, ready to explain why some new policy idea is unlikely to work,” rather than as “thought leaders,” who tend to have “a positive idea for change and the conviction that they can make a difference.” But Drezner thinks, for reasons I will name later, that it is now “the best of times for thought leaders” and “the worst of times for public intellectuals.”
Hmmm, DREZNER really feels MOVING FORWARD DEEP, DEEP, REALLY DEEP STATE TOTALITARIAN is progressive THOUGHT LEADER thinking?
I suspect Drezner is tweaking us with “thought leaders,” a fad term we highbrows might be inclined to dismiss. But in defining thought leaders as “creators” and public intellectuals as “critics,” Drezner prepares the ground for a “symbiosis,” in which evangelical thought leaders, perhaps too boldly, propose new ideas, while public intellectuals and the academics who think like them “analyze and criticize thought leaders.” Academics willing to be public intellectuals are, according to Drezner, “needed more than ever” in the marketplace of ideas.
But we should pause a little longer at the distinction between thought leaders and public intellectuals. In Drezner’s idiosyncratic understanding, a thought leader and a public intellectual together make up one healthy intellectual, the former representing the bold, creative side without which ideas are never devised and proposed, the latter representing the careful, critical side, without which ideas are never tested and refined. In a handy chart, Drezner explains that thought leaders are optimists, inductive reasoners and prioritizers of experience, whereas public intellectuals are pessimists, deductive reasoners and prioritizers of expertise. Drezner ask that we not push this “binary distinction too hard,” since it is merely a way of clarifying “our understanding of the modern marketplace of ideas.” We will not, then, push it too hard. But it seems all but made up.
HOW IN THE WORLD DID WE GET THROUGH THE AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT---I AM MAN INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTIONS CREATING THE BEST IN WORLD HISTORY CIVIL SOCIETY AND QUALITY LIFE FOR THE MOST PEOPLE----IT WAS THOSE DASTARDLY----PUBLIC INTELLECTUALS
Russell Jacoby, who put the term “public intellectual” into wide circulation, used it simply to describe “writers and thinkers who address a general and educated audience.” I doubt that it is illuminating, even as a starting point, to describe the diverse writers and thinkers Jacoby has in mind -- like Jane Jacobs, Gore Vidal and Norman Podhoretz -- as more deductive than inductive, or more prioritizers of expertise than experience. Yet those writers are surely “traditional public intellectuals” in Drezner’s terms.
More importantly, thought leaders are only sometimes, and then incidentally, intellectuals. Look up “thought leader” on Amazon. When I did that, my first hit was Ready to Be a Thought Leader? How to Increase Your Influence, Impact and Success. The third was Personal Branding and Reputation Management: How to Become an Influencer, Thought Leader or a Celebrity in Your Niche. Whereas a public intellectual must be devoted to the life of the mind, a thought leader need only have a thought to market.
GET THOSE PUBLIC INTELLECTUALS TO THE GULAG!!!!!! SOUNDS FASCIST TO ME.
And whereas there is tension between the public intellectual as a devotee of ideas and the public intellectual as an “influencer,” since the work of influencing is wont to distract from and distort ideas, that tension dissolves in the case of a thought leader for whom influencing is the point. Drezner is free to define thought leader however he likes, but if, as he admits, “thought leaders are mocked more widely than public intellectuals,” it is presumably because people suspect they are putting us on, not because they are optimistic and inductive.
In fairness, Drezner acknowledges that thought leaders hunt for something other than new truths. Those who most successfully “hawk their wares” and build “their own brands” can share space “previously reserved for moguls, and celebrities, and athletes.” And he discusses the pitfalls of intellectual celebrity. But he seems less, if at all, concerned that the very idea of thought leadership is at odds with the very idea of being an intellectual. A thought leader is not so much the bold, positive sibling of the cautious, negative public intellectual as not an intellectual at all. If academics are reluctant to enter into the symbiotic relationship with thought leaders that Drezner proposes, it is probably less because they cannot adjust to changing times than because thought leaders are nothing like them.
MAYBE IT IS BECAUSE ---CHANGING TIMES ARE NOT GOOD---BUT DYSTOPIA
This reluctance is not solely about thought leadership. As Drezner points out, academics are also reluctant to become public intellectuals. They “look to the social world as something to be studied, to be researched, to be analyzed, even to be opined -- but not to be acted upon.” The professoriate traditionally tries to keep itself “removed from politics.” Drezner thinks that this stance bothers critics, who find it “elitist,” and “potential benefactors,” who think it a “surrender to inaction.”
But there are sound reasons for academics to avoid politics. Perhaps academic discourse is less reasonable than advertised, but political discourse barely has room for reason. Alexander Hamilton wrote that in “cases of great national discussion,” we can expect that “a torrent of angry and malignant passions will be let loose,” a point he demonstrates by accusing his opponents of conspiring, out of self-interest or “perverted ambition,” to dismember the country. Not only, contrary to Drezner’s argument, might professors hope to preserve their credibility by keeping away from politics, but they also might worry that the habits of politics, in which one does one’s best to distract attention from rather than confront the opposition’s best arguments, will leak onto their campuses.
Meanwhile, if academicians choose to engage in public debate, it seems to me that they are in better shape than Drezner supposes. Drezner thinks that trust in universities, and indeed, in all establishments other than the military, has declined.
ABSOLUTELY---BECAUSE GLOBAL BANKING 1% NEO-LIBERALS LIKE DRESNER MADE THEM CRIMINAL, CORRUPT, AND FILLED WITH FAKE NEWS AND DATA.
He thinks that in our politically polarized times, colleges and universities are despised by many because they are perceived, not wrongly, as tilted to the left. And he thinks because of growing inequality, universities had better be mindful of what the new class of plutocrats wants, which is “direct impact” and confidence, not detachment and question marks. These three long-term trends -- decline in trust in prestigious institutions, polarization and growing economic inequality -- are the same trends that, Drezner argues, have benefited thought leaders and harmed public intellectuals.
DREZNER GRADUATING FOR HYPER-GLOBAL BANKING 1% NEO-LIBERAL UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO-----STANFORD UNIVERSITY WHICH CREATED ALL THAT EXTREME WEALTH AND EXTREME POVERTY INEQUITY-----IS NOW THE ANSWER WITH 'THOUGHT LEADERS'
These arguments seem exaggerated to me. Trust in universities has probably declined, but perhaps not much. Drezner draws on the General Social Survey to show that “confidence in institutions associated with learning and knowledge” dropped from a peak of around 50 percent in 1974 to an average of 31 percent in 2012. But if we start in 1975 instead of 1974, we find that confidence dropped less impressively, from about 36 percent to 31 percent. Meanwhile the Harris Poll, which measures confidence in the leaders of “major educational institutions, such as colleges and universities,” finds a similarly modest shift from 37 percent having a “great deal of confidence” in 1971 to 30 percent in 2012. Confidence is likely at least as high now as it was 20 years ago, when it stood at 27 percent. Finally, that inequality has increased does not mean that benefactors have grown more uniform in their preferences.
The overwhelming new fact of our time, which Drezner notes but does not weigh as heavily as declining trust, and increasing polarization and inequality, is the explosion in demand for and supply of intellectual content, and the ability of seekers of nearly any kind of content to find it. Not long ago, I was listening to Unorthodox, a superb Jewish news and culture podcast in a well-populated field. The hosts were interviewing Molly Yeh, who has hit it big with her blog about food, and being an Asian-Jewish Juilliard graduate percussionist transplanted from Brooklyn to a farm on the North Dakota-Minnesota border. Lesson: it is less necessary now than it ever was to fit a particular mold to find an audience for one’s ideas.
In that sense, we can cheer with Drezner that at least part of the world outside the university, far from being an intellectual desert, is intellectually vibrant. But if we academics choose to try to make our way in that part of the world we need not shoot for the role of the optimistic thought leader’s crabby counterpart. We can have our own show.
We discussed under FOOD public policy how CATHOLIC leaders declared their institutions---NOT RELIGIOUS -----SECULAR as ROBBER BARON few decades of growing our US ECONOMY overseas while killing our domestic business economy. Today, we are controlled by GLOBAL CORPORATIONS and GLOBAL BANKING-----nothing US domestic happening.
KILLING OUR WESTERN RELIGIONS ----THIS TIME WILL BE DIFFERENT.
“Catholic” means “universal” and unity is one of Catholicism’s main selling points. Catholics claim that brothers and sisters from every race, language, ethnicity and tribe are united around one Lord, one faith, one baptism. However, the elephant in the sanctuary is the obvious division between traditionalists and modernists.
To put it bluntly, since the Second Vatican Council two tribes have emerged within the Catholic Church.
To avoid contentious and confusing terminology let’s refer to the two groups as “old order” and “new order”'.
Above we see those terms OLD ORDER----NEW ORDER-----as in NEW WORLD ORDER,. Below we see that CHRISTIAN description as UNIVERSALISTS----
'Tufts College was founded in 1852 by Christian universalists who worked for years to open a nonsectarian institution of higher learning'.
Here is that same college where DREZNER the writer for FOREIGN AFFAIRS is tenured------this FLETCHER INTERNATIONAL LAW today has a DEAN with UNITED NATIONS-----WORLD BANK employment and her credentials say UNITED NATIONS CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY.
SUSTAINABLE ENERGY FOR ALL-------
GEORGETOWN being far-right wing global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS KNIGHT OF MALTA----FREEMASONRY ---NOT RELIGIOUS.
'U.N. Official: Global Economy Needs Radical Makeover to Fight ...www.georgetown.edu/UN-official-Rachel-Kyte... United Nations official Rachel Kyte speaks at Georgetown on climate change at an event co-sponsored by the university’s Global Futures Initiative, the Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security (GIWPS) and the Georgetown Environment Initiative'.
So, just from that one FOREIGN AFFAIRS article we see journalists called PUBLIC ACADEMICS none of which are PUBLIC POPULIST----they simply speak to the public.
The school's Interim Dean is Ian Johnstone, a Professor of International Law. Ian Johnstone has been a faculty member since 2000. From 2013 to 2015, he was also the Academic Dean.
Prior to joining Fletcher in 2000, he served in the United Nations’ Executive Office of the Secretary-General.
On October 1, 2019, Rachel Kyte will assume the deanship of the Fletcher School. Currently the chief executive officer of Sustainable Energy for All (SEforALL) and special representative of the UN secretary-general for Sustainable Energy for All, Kyte previously was the World Bank Group vice president and special envoy for climate change, leading the Bank Group’s efforts to shift its operations and campaign for the Paris Agreement'.
'Sustainable Energy for All (SEforALL)'
Again, this 'progressive' is not LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE LOCKEAN LIBERALISM---I AM MAN---it is the same far-right wing global banking extreme wealth extreme poverty NEO-LIBERALISM
'Typical examples of progressive Catholic groups are The Reformed Catholic Church and the Worldwide Ecumenical Catholic Church of Christ with Archbishop Karl Rodig'.
These REFORM CHURCHES whether Protestant OR Catholic -----are killing our CHRISTIAN religions with these FAKE attempts to bring these two sects together.
Is Catholicism about to break into three?
- Fr. Dwight Longenecker
Oct 6, 2015
In a recent letter to The New York Times, Marquette theologian Daniel Maguire suggested that the Catholic Church was headed toward a three-way schism.
Writing about Pope Francis’ reforms to the annulment process, Maguire predicted:
Catholicism is going the way of its parent, Judaism. In Judaism there are Reform as well as Conservative and Orthodox communities. This arrangement is not yet formalized in Catholicism, but the outlines of a similar broadening are in place …. While conservative and orthodox Catholics welcome this annulment concession by the Vatican, reform Catholics don’t need it. Their consciences are their Vatican. Reform Catholics, whose numbers are swelling, are still bonded to the church but not to the Roman curia.
It is certainly possible to discern three tribes within American Catholicism. However, using the Jewish terminology is confusing. “Orthodox,” “Conservative,” and “Reform” do not translate well into American Catholicism. Clearer titles for the three tribes might be “Traditionalist” which correlates with the Jewish “Orthodox.” “Magisterial” because “conservative” Catholics adhere to papal teachings and the magisterium, while “Progressive” reflects the “Reformed” group in Judaism.
Three in One and One in Three
What marks these three tribes? Let’s be positive and say what each group is for rather than what they’re against.
Broadly speaking, “Traditionalists” adhere to the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, the Baltimore Catechism, and Church teachings from before the Second Vatican Council. They are positively pro-life, they support traditional family structures, and encourage fine music, beautiful liturgy, art, and architecture. They are in favor of celibacy for an all-male priesthood, a renewal of the enclosed religious life, and support a wide range of traditional devotions.
“Magisterial” Catholics put loyalty to the authority of the pope and magisterial teaching first and foremost. They are happy with the principles of the Second Vatican Council, but want to “Reform the Reform.” They want to celebrate the Novus Ordo Mass with solemnity, reverence, and fine music. “Magisterial” Catholics are likely to be enthusiastic about apologetics, evangelization, and a range of pro-life ministries. They think the Church needs to relate to the modern world, use new media, and connect with the younger generation, but they look to the pope and Church teachings to help them do that faithfully. They uphold traditional Catholic teaching in faith and morals, but wish to communicate and live these truths in an up-to-date and relevant way. George Weigel dubbed them “Evangelical Catholics.”
The “Progressives” are vitally interested in peace and justice issues. They’re enthusiastic about serving the marginalized and working for institutional change. They are likely to embrace freer forms of worship, dabble in alternative spiritualities, and be eager to make the Catholic faith relevant and practical. Progressives believe the Church should adapt to the modern age. They are sensitive to ecumenical and “pastoral” needs and are likely to see Catholic doctrines and moral precepts as “guidelines” that need to be used flexibly depending on the individual and his circumstances. Maguire sums up their attitude pretty well: Progressives “don’t need the Vatican. Their conscience is their Vatican.”
I agree with Maguire that these three tribes can be discerned within American Catholicism. Where I disagree is that there can be any formalized arrangement that establishes three separate groups. The three groups exist within the Catholic Church in an uneasy alliance, and that’s how it has to stay. I’m surprised that a theologian of Maguire’s standing seems unfamiliar with the term “schism,” because any group that separates from the Catholic Church would cease to be Catholic - even if they called themselves Catholic.
Maguire envisions three different “Catholic” groups emerging as separate entities, but why just three? In fact, a plethora of groups have already parted ways with the Catholic Church, and set up shop as “independent Catholic Churches.” A quick rummage through the Web reveals a fascinating set of alternative Catholic denominations who (to use Maguire’s phrase) “don’t need the Vatican. Their conscience is their Vatican.”
They comprise an intriguing collection of eccentric characters who live in a churchy fantasy land of their own making. Self-appointed bishops, archbishops, patriarchs, eparchs, and popes, they are both ultra-traditionalist and ultra-progressive. They live in the basement of Mother Church like a twenty-something who dwells in his mother’s basement, plays video games, and dreams about being a football hero. Exploring their alternative world is like a visit to an ecclesiastical Believe it Or Not museum.
The jury is still out as to whether the Society of St. Pius X is formally in schism, but as traditionalists who reject the Novus Ordo Mass and the authority of the Second Vatican Council, they’re high on the list. Nevertheless, their leaders continue to flirt with Vatican authorities and recently Pope Francis granted their priests faculties to hear confessions, so rapprochement is possible.
Schismatic traditionalists fall into two main groups. The sedevacantists (the See is vacant) who believe there is no longer a valid pope, and the conclavists who have gone one step further and elected their own pope. The Society of St Pius V, a sedevacantist group based in New York, is steered by Bishop Joseph Santay, while the Traditional Roman Catholic Church, founded by His Lordship Sherman R. Pius Mosly, is based in New Jersey. Another sedevacantist group is The Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen. Founded by Francis Konrad Schuckardt (d. 2006), they are dedicated to the messages of Fatima and are part of Schuckardt’s Tridentine Latin Rite Catholic Church.
Conclavists are distinguished by having their own pope. The Palmarian Catholic Church is a notable conclavist group from Spain where they follow Pope Gregory XVIII. Noteworthy American anti-popes are Pope Michael, who lives with his parents in Kansas; the Rev. Lucian Pulvermacher, known as Pope Pius XIII (d. 2009), and a former Episcopal priest, Chester Olszewski of Pennsylvania, who reigns as Pope Peter II. South African Victor Von Pentz (Pope Linus II) lives in Hertfordshire, England, while Argentinian Alejandro Tomás Greico is Pope Alexander IX. Around the world, there are about a dozen other papal claimants whose “conscience is their Vatican,” including convicted sex offender William Kamm, whose papal apartment is a jail cell in Germany.
Among the traditionally minded, there are also some intriguing groups that overlap with other Catholic-minded traditions. They often have curious histories that meld not only Catholicism and Anglicanism, but also link with Eastern Orthodoxy, Syrian, Coptic, and Celtic Christianity. A good example is the group recently established by His Eminence, Rutherford Cardinal Johnson, Patriarch of The Anglican Rite Roman Catholic Church. His Eminence claims that the ARRCC is rooted in the Catholicism of 16th-century Tuscany and the ancient English Catholic rite. The Church of the Culdees, led by the Most Rev. Ivan MacKillop, OCC, celebrates medieval Anglo-Irish Monasticism, while The Celtic Orthodox Church has revived the ancient Coptic-Celtic traditions of Brittany, Ireland, and Western Britain.
Not enthusiastic about popes at the best of times, Catholic progressives don’t consecrate their own anti-popes, but they do boast more than 20 “Independent Catholic Churches” with their own bishops and archbishops. Not counting the Eastern Orthodox and more than 100 independent Anglican denominations, the progressive schisms are made up of Independent Catholics, Old Catholics, and Alternative Catholics. Like the traditionalist groups, most of them claim apostolic succession from the Old Catholic Church of Utrecht - which was established in the 1870s in disagreement over the definition of papal infallibility.
Typical examples of progressive Catholic groups are The Reformed Catholic Church and the Worldwide Ecumenical Catholic Church of Christ with Archbishop Karl Rodig.
Then there is the Ecumenical Catholic Church, not forgetting the Ecumenical Catholic Communion and The American National Catholic Church. Most of the progressive groups endorse remarriage after divorce, women’s ordination, married clergy, same sex unions, and contraception. Some exclude women priests, but those Catholics whose “conscience is their Vatican” can affirm women’s ordination by joining The Association of Roman Catholic Women Priests.
Among the more unusual progressive schisms are The Antiochian Church in America, a little church in Tennessee with a taste for Eastern Orthodoxy; the Imani Temple African-American Catholic Congregation founded in 1989 by former priest George Augustus Stalling Jr., and The Traditionalist Mexican-American Catholic Church known for their veneration of Sante Muerte and drug trafficking. Their current archbishop, David Romo Guillén, is serving a 66-year jail sentence for kidnapping and money laundering.
While some progressive Catholics find a home in the “Independent Catholic Churches,” more find their way to the the mainstream liturgical Protestant churches. With the same progressive agenda, and a stronger infrastructure, the Episcopal, Lutheran, and Methodist churches also offer a Catholic atmosphere for Catholics who are bonded to the Church, but not to the Roman Curia.
Some might suggest that Catholics whose “conscience is their Vatican” stop being hypocrites, follow their conscience, and join one of the many groups with whom they are in agreement. If a progressive Catholic wants married priests, New Age spirituality, women’s ordination, artificial contraception, same-sex marriage, and abortion, wouldn’t they be happier with Christians with whom they agree?
Likewise, if a traditionalist Catholic finds himself continually worked up because Pope Francis is too leftist, the new Mass is too informal, and he is dismayed by what he perceives as the hypocrisy of “liberal” Catholics, spineless bishops, poor catechesis, lax clergy, and heretical leadership, shouldn’t he let his “conscience be his Vatican” and either scoot off to join one of the traditionalist schisms or start his own?
The answer is “no.”
The Catholic Church needs diversity of opinion. It’s healthy for family members to disagree, and debate is one of the ways the Holy Spirit leads the Church. But both progressives and traditionalists must constantly measure their personal opinions and preferences against the magisterium of the Church and her authority.
Discontented progressives and traditionalists should not march off in a huff and join a schism. Instead, both sides should remember the definitions of difficulties, doubt, and dissent. A difficulty is when we honestly face a problem with the faith, scratch our heads, and wonder, “How can that be?” A doubt is when we nurse an attitude of rejection and rebellion, saying, “That can’t be!” Dissent is when we act on our doubt and openly disagree with, dismiss, and disobey Church teachings without regret or repentance.
The answer for cafeteria Catholics is not to leave the Church. Instead, the answer is for those with difficulties to work through them, for those with doubts to develop a curious and affirming attitude to Church teaching, and for those who dissent to pray for a change in their hearts and minds so they might come at last to the place where they can joyfully assent to the fullness of the Catholic faith.
Below we see the writer of that article above saying DON'T WORRY ---BE HAPPY----these CATHOLIC SCHISMS are all PROGRESSIVE. What we are seeing is a creation of a REFORMED CHRISTIAN format that neither PROTESTANTS nor CATHOLICS will like. Meanwhile, today's VATICAN is MOVING FORWARD with
HITLER/STALIN AUTHORITIAN MARXIST ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE FASCISM.
So, this is a leading writer today being called PUBLIC INTELLECTUAL-----being sold as POPULIST ------with lots of publication. PATHEOS as a media outlet is a raging global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS-----not religious.
'Dwight Longenecker - amazon.com
Fr Longenecker has written over fifteen books and booklets on Catholic spirituality, apologetics and prayer. He has authored hundreds of articles which have been published in newspapers, magazines, websites and journals in the USA and the UK. His popular blog published at the Catholic portal at Patheos is called Standing on My Head'.
We understand there are people who like to be HITLER/STALIN FASCIST but those people are really a small percentage. The CATHOLIC CHURCH now ROMAN----EASTERN GREEK---EASTERN RUSSIAN will as we say consolidate into ONE being that GLOBAL CORPORATE FASCIST model. We see this already as EASTERN BLOCK EUROPEAN nations are getting those FASCIST BRUTAL leaders.
This EUMEMINICAL drive for CHRISTIANS has NO GOOD coming to CATHOLIC ----and it's goal is to eliminate PROTESTANT. The same is happening above for JEWISH ----it is becoming REFORM JEWISH more and more NOT RELIGIOUS.
THIS IS WHAT WE CALL ONE WORLD ONE RELIGION---3000BC HINDI-BRAHMIN.
We can see FR DWIGHT LONGENECKER has quite the MIXED background.
'CRUX CONTRIBUTORRaised in an Evangelical home, Fr Dwight Longenecker studied theology at Oxford University and served as a Anglican priest before becoming a Catholic. In 2006 he returned to the USA to be ordained. He now serves as parish priest of Our Lady of the Rosary Church in Greenville SC. Browse his books and be in touch at dwightlongenecker.com'.
So, below is MICHAEL MATT who is telling us FR DWIGHT LONGENECKER is a bad CATHOLIC while MATT is identified as a LAWYER ----for goodness sake----seems to be that far-right wing ultra-conservative FAKE CATHOLIC---NOT RELIGIOUS.
'For a Catholic priest to make such wild, unfounded and inflammatory statements is unconscionable. And yet this is the extent to which neo-Catholics are evidently willing to go in order to silence traditional Catholics'.
'CFN holds yearly conferences that feature prominent Catholic extremists including American Catholic Lawyers Association head Christopher Ferrara (see The New Crusaders), Father Nicholas Gruner, and Michael Matt. At the 2003 CFN conference, Vennari decried Vatican ecumenical outreach as "pandering to other faiths, especially Jews." Vendors at CFN conferences have sold wildly anti-Semitic books including The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Hilaire Beloc's The Jews'.
This is the same tone global banking 1% FAKE NEWS MEDIA with which our headlines and journalism were filled.
CATHOLICS HATING JEWS.
In both cases NONE OF THESE ACADEMICS/WRITERS are religious. These are the global banking 1% ONE WORLD ONE RELIGION ---3000BC HINDI-BRAHMIN-----killing our Western religions while filling our US media with FAKE NEWS FAKE DATA.
So, we have people calling themselves CATHOLIC or JEWISH thinking PROTESTANTS are ruining religion----none of which are religious.
Wednesday, March 9, 2016
The Remnant Demands a Retraction from Fr. Longenecker
Featured Written by Michael J. Matt | Editor
Fr. Dwight Longenecker
“We should separate the paranoid hate mongers from the rest of the traditionalists. They are not traditionalists. They are Protestant fundamentalists wearing traditionalist Catholic clothes. I know about Protestant fundamentalism. I was raised and educated among Protestant fundamentalists. Among them were many good and sincere Christian people, but also among them, and driving their religion–was a certain type of religious person whose attitudes mirror exactly the Catholic fundamentalists on the rise today." (“Ten Traits of Catholic Fundamentalism”, by Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Patheos.com)
(Ooo, scary! Sounds like something right out of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s “Intelligence Report”. Let’s do backflips now to show our jailors how anti-fundamentalist and reasonable we all are.)
With life in an increasingly Christophobic world going from bad to apocalyptic, one wonders what motivates a relatively orthodox Catholic priest to wake up one morning and say: Today I think I’ll launch an Internet attack against all the traditional Catholics in the world.
Traditional Catholics have their problems, to be sure, but is Father Longenecker aware that the next president of the United States may well be Hillary Clinton? Did he somehow miss the news that homosexual ‘marriage’ has become the law of the land? Didn’t he notice that priests in Philadelphia have been sexually abusing hundreds of children over the past couple of years, and that another massive scandal lawsuit is in the works?
Doesn’t’ Father realize that “fundamentalism” now includes those opposed to homosexual marriage and abortion, too?
As I read through his completely unprovoked attack against all of us, a couple of thoughts came to mind: Father Dwight Longenecker must have a lot of time on his hands, and Father Dwight might be a little obsessed with traditional Catholics.
He must have time on his hands, right? How would he know as much as he claims to know about these sick, angry, paranoid, violent, hateful traditionalists unless he had ample time on his hands to comb through the fever swamps in search of evidence? He evidently stumbled across a couple of wingnut websites and, based on that, launched his offensive against all traditional Catholics.
This is ridiculous. It would be like The Remnant deciding to cite Fathers Corapi and Francis Mary Stone as Exhibit A and B of everything wrong with the neo-Catholic establishment, based on the following syllogism: Fathers Corapi and Stone are neo-Catholic priests; these two priests were exposed as womanizers; therefore all neo-Catholic priests are womanizers.
His logic (or lack thereof) suggests that Father Longenecker may be a little obsessed with traditionalists. But why? According to his online bio, Father enjoys watching movies, riding his motorcycle, hanging out with his wife and four children (Father is a former Anglican married priest) and walking his Labradors and a cat named James. He seems to enjoy quite a full life. So why would he be obsessed with us?
Perhaps Father has a guilty conscience? A priest who decides to sit on his hands and offer nary a word of warning to his sheep during this turbulent reign of Pope Francis may well wrestle with his conscience, I suppose. And maybe it’s just easier for Father to assassinate the character of those who are speaking out about the naked emperor, rather than confronting the problem head on. It’s a fun little strategy, I would imagine, if you’re smart enough to fool yourself that you occupy the high ground.
Perhaps Father’s superiors (or his wife, Alison) would take umbrage at him pointing out the obvious about this unconventional pope of ours who insists atheists go to heaven, Mary at the foot of the Cross felt the angel had lied to her, Jews don’t need to hear the Gospel, contraception to prevent the Zika virus is cool, and even popes need to chill out when it comes to gay priests. I don’t know what it is, but the main problem I have with Father Longenecker is his failure to be forthcoming about exactly who he’s targeting.
Instead, he just sort of lumbers out onto the World Wide Web and starts firing scud missiles in every direction and at all traditionalists—except for those few with whom he happens to agree... who must also remain nameless, of course. Yes, he says he’s on the side of the good traditionalists—evidently those who like Latin Masses, have no problem with the New Mass and can be counted on never to question anything Pope Francis says, no matter how offensive to pious ears it may seem.
All the other traditionalists, according to Father Dwight, are “fundamentalist, obnoxious and unlikeable people who get a sick thrill out of anticipating persecution.” (I wonder if my 7 children would agree that I’m obnoxious and unlikeable, and that I just can’t wait to see them all martyred. My little Sophia, for example, is just 6 years old and, according to Father Longenecker, I guess I get a “sick thrill out of anticipating her persecution!”)
Pardon me, but what exactly is this man’s problem!?
And of course Father kisses right up to the far-Left Southern Poverty Law Center when he writes that Catholic traditionalists are "tinged with anger” and “given enough rope will move from verbal violence to physical violence," since they are all, "paranoid hate mongers."
I kid you not! This judgmental priest actually went online and spewed this rot against Catholics he doesn’t know and doesn’t particularly like. No wonder anticlericalism is on the rise!
You like apples, Father? Well how about these apples: Your cool little goatee and carefully shaved head lead me to conclude that you are ready to move from Catholic priest to satanic priest, following after your hero, Anton Szandor LaVey. And on what evidence do I base this? Why the goatee and the shaved head, of course. Isn’t it obvious where Father Dwight is heading? To the Church of Satan, of course!
Does Father believe such calumny is the sort of thing in which Catholics are free to engage whenever they get really mad at somebody on the Internet? No? Then why did he just calumniate a couple of million traditional Catholics as “paranoid hatemongers” ready to turn violent? What was he thinking, and when is he going to issue his public apology?
Think of how Father Longenecker’s words fanned the flames for the Catholic-bashing Chirstophobes on the far-Left—folks who are out there every day trying to make the case that pro-life, pro-family, and pro-tradition Catholics are dangerous hate-mongers who need to be on every government watch list from now on. Now these same radical Leftists can point to Father Longenecker and say: “See, even their own priests are trying to warn the world that these haters must be stopped before they turn violent.”
For a Catholic priest to make such wild, unfounded and inflammatory statements is unconscionable. And yet this is the extent to which neo-Catholics are evidently willing to go in order to silence traditional Catholics.
Hardly the patient approach one would expect from a Catholic priest trying to reach souls traumatized by an endless series of priest/sex scandals in the Church today. Where’s the compassion these same neo-Catholics insist on trotting out when it comes to dialogue with homosexuals, Protestants, the Orthodox, atheists, etc.?
“Rack him", snarled Sir Richard Rich to Cromwell as he threw Thomas More under the horses hooves in a boot-licking attempt to curry favor with the enemies of the Church in 16th century England.
"Arrest them," implies Father Longenecker, “for sooner or later these traditional Catholics will resort to violence anyway.”
Since he names none of us, he is obviously accusing all of us. Father tells us he won't name names because he doesn’t wish to "wallow in the sewage", and so his readers are left to come to their own conclusions as to which of us he is referring. All traditionalists? Some? A few? Most? Many? Who knows! Father doesn’t say. He is non-discriminating in his calumny, which he attempts to justify on the basis that traditionalists "have no true repentance in their hearts, anyway, and are driven by the worse kind of pride: spiritual pride".
How does he know that? Has he interviewed them all? Has he heard their confessions? And, by the way, who is he to judge?
According to Father Dwight, traditionalists know better than the pope, which makes them no better than Protestant fundamentalists. (I guess ecumenism has its limits after all.) Traditionalists also think they are “the Remnant [Gee, I wonder why Father capitalizes that word] of faithful ones who remain,” and their response to his completely unproved attack will be to "retreat further into their self-made holy fortress and throw stones over the parapet at me—not addressing my point, but resorting to name calling".
We’re the ones given to calling names? The irony of this silly attempt to preempt any legitimate defense against his petulant attack is evidently lost on the guy who just penned an entire blog post calling fellow Catholics “paranoid, fundamentalist, hate mongers, conspiracy theorists with a persecution complex, who are angry and self-righteous, and given to violence.”
Thank goodness, Father Longenecker isn't into name-calling. That would be really bad!
As the walking wounded of what's left of the Catholic Church must now endure the homosexualization of their priesthood, the protestantization (‘trivialization’ was the word Pope Benedict used) of their liturgy, the “silent apostasy”, the falling away from the faith of their children, and the bizarre spectacle of a pontificate that has clearly gone off the rails—it’s Father Dwight to the rescue in a rather desperate effort to demonize those with whom he disagrees while, at the same time, demonstrating to the powers that be just how thoroughly he can be counted on to carry their water for as long and as far as they wish.
As soon as he’s through anathematizing the scattered sheep, perhaps Father Longenecker will be good enough to issue a retraction of his libelous claim that we are about to “move from verbal violence to physical violence.” Surely in the present climate, where domestic terrorism is a top priority for law enforcement everywhere, Father can see how his words could so easily be used against good Catholics around the world, threatening their priests, children and homeschools.
Whether or not he’s referring directly to The Remnant in his attack, in the name of traditional Catholics everywhere we demand a retraction from Father Dwight Longenecker.
We are calling today's REFORM CHURCH movement a FAKE movement as too with REFORM JEWISH----REFORM MUSLIM because it is driven by FREEMASONRY/GREEK which is behind ONE WORLD ONE RELIGION ----NO RELIGION for science sake.
These are the SCIENCE------SOCIAL DARWINISM-----TRANSHUMANISM-----humanist and atheists.
Without coincidence these are the SOVEREIGN CITIZENS thinking it is fine to ignore all US SOVEREIGN LAWS because they are WORLD CITIZENS.
Below we see how THE CATHOLIC CHURCH was filled with FREEMASONRY----so too, the JEWISH synagogues. Edicts banning freemasonry were never enforced ergo, today our CHRISTIAN/JEWISH/MUSLIM leaders are all NOT RELIGIOUS---and they are the same people behind REFORM CHURCHES---REFORM CHRISTIAN CHURCH movements globally.
Christian attitudes towards Freemasonry
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Catholic ban on Freemasonry since the Second Vatican Council
In 1974 Cardinal Franjo Seper, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, sent a letter which seemed to relax the previous absolute ban on Freemasonry which caused confusion and led many Catholics to become Freemasons.
In 1981, the Congregation clarified this stance in a letter to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, entitled Clarification concerning status of Catholics becoming Freemasons which said the private letter of 1974, on becoming public, had "given rise to erroneous and tendentious interpretations" and affirming that the prohibition against Catholics joining Masonic orders remained. In 1983, the Church revised the Code of Canon Law in a way that did not mention Freemasonry directly causing some Freemasons to claim that the ban on Catholics becoming Freemasons may have been lifted, although the ban was reaffirmed in the same year by the Vatican. In 2000 a letter written by Father Thomas Anslow, a Judicial Vicar, indicated a more permissive attitude, although this was retracted by Anslow in 2002 because the "analysis was faulty."
Allegations of DeismOne of the persistent Catholic criticisms of Freemasonry is that it advocates a deist or naturalist view of creation.
This WIKIPEDIA article makes a list of churches and their stances----many called REFORM saying they are against are as likely to be PRETENDING they are against. Remember, global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS----love to lie/cheat, steal, have no morals or ethics---no attention to RULE OF LAW-----and certainly have no ties to GOD'S NATURAL LAWS.
Please don't just look at these LISTS-----be aware this REFORM MOVEMENT is tied to KILLING WESTERN RELIGIONS.
There is a range of intensity among those Protestant denominations which discourage their congregants from joining Masonic lodges. Most of these denominations tend to be either evangelical Protestant or other neo-Protestant. Denominations that, in some form or other, discourage membership of Freemasons include the small Evangelical Lutheran Synod, to larger Protestant church bodies. Among Protestants opposed to Freemasonry are the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, the Church of the Nazarene, the Salvation Army, Mennonites, The North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod, Christian Reformed Church in North America, Church of the Brethren, Assemblies of God, Society of Friends (Quakers), Free Methodist church, Seventh-day Adventist Church, Orthodox Presbyterian Church, Free Church of Scotland, Baptist Union of Great Britain and Ireland, Presbyterian Church in America, Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland, Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa (NGK). Most of these condemnations resulted from the work of church committees appointed only in recent decades. Many of these Protestant condemnations have never been enforced.
'The Masonic author Mackey called Freemasonry "a science which is engaged in the search after the divine truth"'
Without coincidence MACKEY is founder of WHOLEFOODS-----partnering with AMAZON
We shared today discussions of CATHOLICS HATING JEWS----JEWS becoming CHRISTIAN and REFORM PROTESTANT MOVEMENT looking a lot like ONE WORLD 3000BC HINDI-BRAHMIN.
All this is connected to this week's discussion of SOVEREIGN CITIZENS -----and how that LEGAL term in US has been corrupted to allow that MASSIVE ROBBER BARON few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA.
'Sovereign citizen movement - Wikipedia
Sovereign citizen "legal name fraud" billlboard in the UK
Part of a series on Libertarianism Origins Anarchism Libertarian communism Libertarian socialism Social anarchism Concepts Anti-authoritarianism Anti-capitalism Anti-militarism Anti-statism Civil disobedience Civil libertarianism Class struggle Communes Decentralization Decentralized planning Direct action Economic democracy ...'
FOR GOODNESS SAKE-----IT IS ONLY THESE FEW DECADES OF ROBBER BARON FRAUDS BY GLOBAL BANKING 1% CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA AND THOSE 5% FREEMASON/GREEK PLAYERS/POLS
Now, to end this discussion we like to remind our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE-----the 99% of WE THE REAL RELIGIOUS citizens-----the 99% WE THE NEW TO US IMMIGRANTS wanting ALL-AMERICAN freedom, liberty, justice, and quality of life------
GLOBAL BANKING 1% OLD WORLD KINGS MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD FOR ONLY THE GLOBAL 1%---HAVE NO INTENTION OF KEEPING MAGNA CARTA----NO INTENTION OF KEEPING SECRET ORGANIZATIONS LIKE FREEMASONRY OR GREEK
All information will be in the hands of only those .00014% of global citizens which may be FAKE JEWISH---FAKE CATHOLIC---FAKE PROTESTANT--FAKE MUSLIM----FAKE HINDI-BUDDHIST------sorry, AVATARS will replace all MINI-MEs.
'Today, the second sovereign wave (1999 to present) can include anybody:
black, white, rural, urban, Asian, Hispanic, young, old, armed, unarmed, male, female, conservative, liberal, semi-literate, college-educated, from any walk of life'.
This movement exists only because global banking 1% are killing our US sovereignty and bringing Western nations to colonial status to include KILLING OUR RELIGIONS.
Feb 13, 2012, 12:53pm
What is a Sovereign Citizen?
JJ MacNab Former Contributor
This article is more than 2 years old.
On February 6, the Federal Bureau of Investigation held a news conference about a growing problem faced by local law enforcement agencies. According to the FBI, police all around the country have been contacting the Bureau with requests for information and training on the sovereign citizen movement.
Over the next week, the online reaction to the Bureau’s statements ranged from confused to outraged. Conservative pundits were wringing their hands, fearing that the FBI is going to target their Tea Party readership as enemies of the state, while liberal pundits expressed glee that the FBI now considers Tea Party supporters to be domestic terrorists.
For example, conservative commentator Glenn Beck aired a 12-minute segment on his show last week in which he concluded that there is no such thing as a sovereign movement, since he’s never heard of it, and that the government is using this fictional group as a boogeyman in order to do nefarious things to Glenn Beck’s fans.
“I’m in the news business. I don’t even know who they are. Sovereign citizens?” -- Glenn Beck
Today In: Investing Alas, Mr. Beck, sovereign citizens do indeed exist. And sorry, both sides of the political battle field, they aren’t the Tea Party.
The good news for Beck is that the overlap between his fan base and the sovereign movement is probably minor. The bad news for the rest of us is that state and local law enforcement agencies are having a heck of time educating their officers about how best to identify and deal with this very real and potentially violent group.
So what’s the definition?
The short answer: a sovereign citizen is someone who believes that he or she is above all laws.
The long answer is a bit more complex.
Think about a law you don’t like. Any law, at any level of government. It can be a big law, like paying income taxes, or a tiny one, like licensing your pet Chihuahua with the county.
If you’re a member of the Tea Party movement, the solution to this bad law is to protest your opinion in DC and in other metropolitan areas, write angry letters to your Congressmen, and vote for politicians who agree with you that such a law should be scrapped as soon as possible.
If you’re a member of the sovereign citizen movement, your approach is a bit different. You start by looking for a combination of quotes, definitions, court cases, the Bible, Internet websites, and so on that justify how you can ignore the disliked law without any legal consequences. Be imaginative. Pull a line from the 1215 version of the Magna Carta, a definition from a 1913 legal dictionary, a quote from a founding father or two, and put it in the blender with some official-sounding Supreme Court case excerpts you found on like-minded websites. Better yet, find someone else online who disliked that same law and pay them $150 for a three-ring binder filled with their word salad research.
Et voilà, not only have you proven that you don’t have to obey the law you dislike, heck, it’s your patriotic duty to disobey it, and anyone who tells you otherwise is just plain un-American and is probably part of a world-wide Jewish conspiracy to ensure that Chihuahuas are slaves to the US government.
When you can pick and choose which laws to put through your special blender, you are effectively putting yourself above all laws.
So why are they a problem for state and local police?
Sovereign citizens are true believers. They generally entered the movement by buying into a scam or conspiracy theory that not only promised them a quick fix to their problems, but wrapped such solutions in a heavy layer of revolutionary rhetoric. Once a sovereign feels the flush of excitement and self-importance that comes from acting as the David to the U.S. government’s Goliath, they know, with all of their hearts and souls, that their research is correct, that their cause is just, and that anyone who disagrees with them is a criminal who deserves to be punished.
These sovereign citizens are also doomed to failure; the tax collector, prosecutor, and judge have all heard these same legal theories dozens of times already and understand that they are bogus.
When a person believes his cause is just, yet he meets failure over and over and over again, there comes a point where he has to make a decision: he can admit his theory is wrong and walk away, or he can fight dirty.
Non-violent retaliation against government employees and law enforcement is the most common response, and can take the form of filing false liens, filing bogus Forms 1099, sending threatening correspondence, suing government employees for millions of dollars, and cyber-stalking individuals in government who disagree with the sovereign’s legal theories.
Some sovereigns plot a violent revenge, hoping to inspire others in the movement to reach their breaking point sooner. For example, after twenty years of attempting to persuade the IRS and the Tax Court that his blender salad of legal theories was accurate, in 2010, private pilot Joseph Stack flew his airplane into an IRS building in Austin Texas, killing one tax collector, and injuring thirteen others.
“I saw it written once that the definition of insanity is repeating the same process over and over and expecting the outcome to suddenly be different. I am finally ready to stop this insanity. Well, Mr. Big Brother IRS man, let's try something different; take my pound of flesh and sleep well.” -- Joseph Stack’s suicide note
Other such planned events have included bombings, shootings, murders, and armed standoffs.
Most sovereigns who act violently, however, have no grand plan in place; they simply lash out when they’ve failed one too many times. Some commit suicide, but for most of them, the final straw can be something as small as being pulled over by a highway patrolman for having a busted tail light or something as big as being evicted from their home when the bank forecloses on their property.
Since most people don’t have any direct contact with government other than with local law enforcement, officers are at a particularly high risk of bearing the brunt of sovereign citizen anger.
Why do officers need training?
On the surface, sovereigns believe some pretty outrageous things, and to an outsider, their legal theories seem fairly silly. Up until the recent wave of violence, most police officers who encountered sovereigns found them more amusing than anything else. Following recent police shootings in Arkansas, Florida, Texas, and Pennsylvania, officers now need to rethink their opinion of this group.
Also, sovereign citizens don’t call themselves that. In fact, if you ask a person if she is a member of the movement, she is likely to respond that the “sovereign citizen” label is an oxymoron, and that she is an individual seeking the Truth. She may then launch into a ten minute lecture about 18th century ideals of individual sovereignty. A non-sovereign simply answers, “No.”
Perhaps the most difficult hurdle for law enforcement is dealing with stereotypes. The first generation sovereign movement (from 1970 to 1995) was comprised mostly of middle-aged, high-school educated, white men with some military background, and extreme-right, often racist values, located mostly in in rural communities west of the Mississippi.
Today, the second sovereign wave (1999 to present) can include anybody: black, white, rural, urban, Asian, Hispanic, young, old, armed, unarmed, male, female, conservative, liberal, semi-literate, college-educated, from any walk of life. For example, dentists, chiropractors, and even police officers all seem drawn to the movement in recent years.
Sovereigns are also difficult to identity because there is no membership group for them to join, no charismatic leader, no organization name, no master list of adherents, and no consistency in the schemes they promote and buy into. There are hundreds of sovereign legal theories being peddled in seminars, in books, and on the Internet, and many of these theories contradict each other.
The sovereign citizen movement is big and is growing fast, thanks to the Internet. There are an estimated 300,000 people in the movement, and approximately one third of these are what I would call hard-core believers – people willing to act on their beliefs rather than simply walk away.
While there is no guarantee when it comes to officer safety, police departments do indeed need to teach their front-line officers how to identify sovereign markers and take appropriate precautions in case a particular encounter becomes a sovereign’s “final straw.”
For those not thinking the MARXIST governments of USSR------CHINA------et al have always been controlled by those OLD WORLD KINGS-------just look at who comes away with EXTREME WEALTH EXTREME POWER after a bout of NEO-LIBERALISM goes to MARXISM. Yes, these WESTERN EUROPEAN ROYALS will disappear as FLIPPING THE EARTH'S ECONOMIC AXIS FROM WESTERN HEMISPHERE TO EASTERN takes down all Western sovereign nations---making them ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE------far-right wing global banking 1% corporate MARXISM-------FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES.
THE KINGS AND QUEENS will be riding that GLOBAL CORPORATE TRIBUNAL ---THAT ONE WORLD CENTRAL BANK.
The idea that our WESTERN religions---our Western ROYALTY -----our CONSTITUTIONS AND MAGNA CARTA will disappear in MOVING FORWARD----is what FOREIGN AFFAIRS means when they say
'About this website
This Time Is Different
It is tempting to pin the degradation of U.S. foreign policy on Trump, but the…'
'Characteristics of Constitutional Monarchy Explained With ...
The United Kingdom and its fifteen former colonies follow the ceremonial form of constitutional monarchy. So the reigning king or queen of the United Kingdom has very little to do in terms of administration. As opposed to this, Sweden, Japan, Bhutan, Morocco, etc., have executive constitutional monarchy'.
This ROBBER BARON fraud of hundreds of trillions of dollars did well for these POOR ROYALS---being sent to the BENCH. Those FAR-RIGHT GLOBAL CORPORATE MARXISTs will be working for the same people as those far-right global banking 1% neo-liberals----OLD WORLD KINGS.
Why I fear the monarchy will die with the Queen: A controversial view by a royal historian on the eve of the Queen's 90th birthday
By Anna Whitelock For The Daily Mail
Published: 21:04 EDT, 11 April 2016 | Updated: 04:20 EDT, 12 April 2016
As the Queen celebrates her 90th birthday our thoughts will turn to the future of the Royal Family
Next week, the Queen will celebrate her 90th birthday. As the nation marks that milestone, our thoughts will inevitably turn to the future.
I believe we must face the reality that, when the Queen’s reign comes to its natural end, there is likely to be an urgent debate about the role of the Royal Family in modern Britain — a debate whose outcome is uncertain.
Like no other public figure, the Queen has become part of our lives over the decades, a calm, reassuring presence above the bitter political fray.
Indeed, no Briton under the age of 64 has the experience of rule by any other monarch.
It is partly because of her dutifulness and longevity that the institution of British monarchy looks, to some, so secure. Even in our noisy, democratic age, where tradition is treated with suspicion and most politicians with contempt, there is no powerful opposition to her position as Head of State.
Even with socialist Jeremy Corbyn as Labour Party leader, the republican movement has never been at a lower ebb.
As recently as the Diamond Jubilee of 2012, the Queen’s approval ratings passed 80 per cent, a level of popularity of which prime ministers can only dream. Yet it would be wrong for monarchists to be too complacent.
A belief in the long-term security of the throne could be badly misplaced. For it is possible that the Queen’s longevity and fidelity may disguise much deeper misgivings about the role of the monarchy in the 21st century.
After all, admiration for the present incumbent does not necessarily translate into support for the institution itself.
So far, the debate over its continued existence has been largely suppressed out of respect for both Elizabeth II’s remarkable sense of duty and the fact that she is in the sunset of her reign.
But the questions will not go unasked once a new monarch ascends the throne. That event is bound to be the cue for a very public argument over the institution, one that could see the beginnings of wholesale changes in our governance.
There is no absolute guarantee about the monarchy’s long-term survival — particularly when so many aspects of our constitution are questioned and in flux (for example, leading to votes on Scottish independence and UK membership of the EU). The Queen may represent reassuring continuity, but current high levels of support for the monarchy could quickly evaporate.
There are several factors to consider. One is that apart from the Queen herself, there is growing suspicion about the legitimacy of an unelected, unaccountable ruler whose elevated position is based only on an accident of birth.
Throughout the world, there is now a deep antipathy towards governing elites that act in their own vested interests, as shown by the widespread anger about the revelations in the Panama tax scandal.
That feeling is particularly strong among young people, who have been brought up with the concept of social justice and have no time for the concept of hereditary privilege.
A central element of the Queen’s Coronation in 1953 (pictured) was her anointment by the Archbishop of Canterbury, a ritual that reinforced the ancient belief that monarchs ruled by divine right