Conspiracy theory, or conspiracism, is the anti-journalism in which the narrative decides the facts.

It's a paradoxical thing: the conspiracist maintaining an overarching narrative to which he subordinates malformed and isolated facts, doesn't actually build a grand narrative, but he ends up making a narrative that does nothing but continually subordinates and malforms facts as they happen to come along. Which means that all narrative is squandered in the abuse of facts. Because the narrative refuses to change or develop in light of facts, the narrative is always changing (in order to abuse and neglect them).

The conspiracist actually makes the construction of a real narrative and thus clarity impossible. Because he disrespects facts, he also disrespects any sense of narrative (which in journalism is what reconciles seemingly contradictory facts).

Half-truths don't just exist, like they were waiting around to be made into full truths. Half-truths are half-truths precisely because they are truths that are truncated in order to fit a prepared narrative. The worst form of conspiracism is the Qhristian/Qatholic one. It is worst because it abuses the "narrative" of the Gospel. Conspiracism is anti-Gospel, and those that engage in it will be answerable to God.

Conspiracism is both anti-Gospel and anti-journalism. Christians have been made vulnerable to this through sectarianism: they believe that truth is only what they perceive the "mainstream" as suppressing.

People speak of "going down the rabbit hole", and "Deep" this and that, referring to conspiracy theory. The gist is of this elaborate crazy network of people, symbols, things and events making this grand arc, and that normal people just can't deal with such strong truth. It's the same deal with radtrads who think that their going to Mass in the Extraordinary Form is just too much meat and potatoes for the "Novus Ordo" mewlings.

The conspiracist is just too much for the sheeple to handle: that's what the conspiracist loves to imagine about himself. But the actual reality is that the conspiracist doesn't even get on the diving board. The conspiracist doesn't even put on the diving suit, let alone get on the boat.

The boat and the suit and the diving board are all in on it. And everyone swimming in the pool telling those on the deck to come on in, the water's fine, are all sheeple.

Take Vigano for example. He went into hiding and never made himself available to the scrutiny of the McCarrick investigation. After the report was released, he then whined to Raymond Arroyo in a pre-scripted interview that he - who went into hiding - was never contacted by the Vatican investigation.

It is the isolated conscience. Effectually, all roads of conspiracy theory lead to the Lizard People.

Real journalism is when facts decide the narrative. Or as they say, "Let's see where the story leads."

One could say that Jesus gave his blessing to journalists - real journalists - when he said, "He who is faithful in a very little thing is faithful also in much"

Why didn't Our Lady of Fatima tell St. Jacinta and St. Francisco about essential oils?

The reason I ask is because St. Jacinta and St. Francisco both died from the 1918 influenza pandemic.

I ask this because Mark Mallett, who regularly and indiscriminately carpet-bombs his readers with alleged apparitions and anonymous locutions the world over, cited especially one locutionist who put words into Our Lady's mouth about how one should take certain essential oils to immunize oneself against the virus - the virus that, according to yet another anonymous locutionist, comes from The Enemy.

No words did Our Lady speak to Jacinta and Francisco about essential oils, who both died from the 1918 pandemic. Yet Our Lady took the time to guide them in such temporal matters as to tell them to remove the penitential ropes from around their waists at bedtime, so that they could get their proper sleep at night.

So Our Lady of Fatima did not say anything to Jacinta and Francisco about essential oils and they both died from the pandemic. She told them to remove the ropes from around their waists so they could sleep properly at night. And yet, today allegedly Our Lady is telling one to take essential oils to immunize one against the pandemic.

Why do I say this? I am not anti-Fatima, and I am not anti-essential oils. It's just by way of simple contrast, because you have some locutionist/seer saying Our Lady is telling us to take essential oils to immunize against the coronavirus. It's just one of those things where you go, "Now isn't that odd", and, "Huh, imagine that."

Obviously, the conspiracy theorist answer-for-everything sectarians, subjectively and forcefully wishing their dubious anonymous apparition/locution to be real, would say something like, "Our Lady was wanting them in Heaven immediately - that's why she didn't tell them about essential oils!" LOL. So she effectively remotely man-slaughtered them by mental reservation you say, eh? Okeeydokeey then.

To repeat: I think the apparitions of Fatima are legit and I also take essential oils, typically oregano oil, every so often. But that gets me on another thing. You see, these essential oil fanatics are very irresponsible. They say take this and that without any sort of instruction or detail. For example, you are not supposed to take 100% pure oregano oil, not unless you want to damage your kidneys and liver. You're supposed to take it mixed with another oil, such as the olive oil 3:1 mix.

But these fanatics don't go into such things with their readers. Not only are they spiritually dangerous, they are physically dangerous as well. They are physically dangerous - now isn't that something? Who would have thought, what with their anti-masking anti-safety restrictions anti-vaccine propaganda. And here they are trying to force Our Lady into their death-dealing ways, into their ideology.

Do we live in confusing times?

What does that even mean? It's such a tired banality piously repeated by the devout. It's right up there with "He/she is in a better place." If you see clearly enough to see that "we live in confusing times" then why do you have constant recourse to repeating the phrase? Why don't you live from the center of your clarity and own it?

I find it interesting how those who say "we live in confusing times", like reality was at their beck and call, have nothing coherent to offer that would actually show the reality of what's occurring in any present situation. They deny development to what is in a present state of slowly or quickly becoming, which is what all time is doing all the time. Their response to crisis is a gnostic cop out; their preemptive crystallization, which is manipulation, is highly annoying. Their premature safeguarding is destructive. This has the effect of both downplaying a crisis (leading to irresponsibility) and exaggerating it (leading to unresponsiveness). Anything that they aren't able to instantly categorize within their false sense of certainty they relegate to the "temporal realm".

Rigidity.

Three really good articles I have recently read

D.W. Lafferty does a thorough consolidation of the origins and history of LifeSiteNews. I very much agree with his conclusion:

"Practical efforts to make a real difference in the world by helping to protect unborn life would effectively be replaced by apocalyptic fantasies, dualistic thinking, and tactics that are meant to provoke antagonism. Such a movement would only function for the benefit of its adherents, rather than the benefit of the unborn."

Emmett O'Regan writes about the apocalypse streamlining service, Countdown to the Kingdom, how they attempt to wash themselves of their own millenarianism.

"The authors of Countdown to the Kingdom thus attempt to bypass the charge of millenarianism by confining the doctrinal error to the idea of Jesus physically returning in the Flesh, and assert that a spiritual version of Chiliasm is an acceptable teaching that was held by the Early Church Fathers."

Rebecca Bratten Weiss writes about the latent providentialism among Catholics that has been revealed by the pandemic.

"The wave of providentialist unrest in the face of these precautions betrays a perspective on divine will and human reason that is not theologically sound or helpful.

But this type of thinking has percolated in Catholic circles for a while."

I've always preferred The Day of the Jackal to A Man For All Seasons. The latter got fair play at home when growing up, as it does in a lot of Catholic households, and watching it the first time I was like, "Man, this guy is impeccable, unimpeachable! He's a tight, tight, well-oiled morality-in-action machine! He's fantastic! Super, super spotless!" while the dim shadow running alongside was like, "Huh, imagine that."

Every once in a while the scene comes to mind - from the atheist playwright's own words the film was based upon - you know the one with the "hard-hitting" super-truth monologue from Thomas to his Neo-Marxist future son-in-law - and it's like "Something, something something, and where would you stand then in the winds that would blow!!!" and I'm all like "Yeah, Yeah! That's it! You tell it to Meathead, Archie!"

But the Day of the Jackal is just more of a film. Not a morality play managing the medium of film using a historic figure canonized by the Catholic Church as a puppet for rather cut-and-dry depictions of conscience. That's the way plays work, or mediocre plays I suppose. I'm only going by the film, since I haven't watched the play; but it's kind of like, well, it's not much interesting to watch a diamond being formed under pressure, when it's already a diamond to begin with. Yawn. I'm pretty sure the film adaptation of A Man For All Seasons - the attempt to copy that play's impeccable fictional representation - is responsible for a good deal of the self-absorbed promethean neo-pelagianism one encounters today in rigorist Catholics.

Hey everyone look at MEEEE!!! I wear my scapular on the outside of my shirt! I wear my miraculous medal on the outside of my shirt!

After making my way through the germ-ridden masses to re-opened Mass, the reunion in communion - after two and a half months, imagine the pain! - was so rapturously ecstatic I heard the words in my heart, "This day shall be our own Solemnity - a Solemn Feast Day recognized in heaven as such, though the Popes know it not" and I was like, "Really? Holy smokes!"

Wish I could communicate the feels of tearful bliss to you sheeple, but you're just not fervent enough!

Ha ha ha!

FYI

Rejecting the development of doctrine means that you distort teachings of the church, not that you abide by them.

This is one reason why absolutists are the absolute worst relativists.

Some links of interest

A great article here by Scott Eric Alt:

Pope Francis Derangement Syndrome XXIV: Cardinal Burke’s Rebel Yell

a resource for which was this excellent thread by Dawn Eden Goldstein.

C. Burke is:

-- swimming in ambiguity

-- teaching pervasive heretical errors

-- sowing confusion and division

Some people like to think they're really getting their meat and potatoes with this guy. It's all pseudo-orthodox bullshit. The blind leading the blind.

Also, here is a great article - the first excerpt from a book by Nicolas Senèze - concerning Pope Saint Viganò the Just, current reigning pontiff at New Kingdom Hall Skybalon Site News (though of course they have two popes, the other being Pope Saint Burke the Clear):

'How America wanted to change the pope.' Chapter 1: The man of scandal

This is an actual example of real investigative journalism, real research and reporting - not steaming hot vulture excrement.

There's also this excellent thread by Mike Lewis on the 3 main arguments used by anti-Francis Catholics who court the fantasy - such an uber lucid dream too! - that he's not really Pope.

I also found this tweet by D.W. Lafferty very apt:

There is an epidemic of genteel philistinism within Catholic conservativism which makes those affected completely unable to process documents like the Instrumentum Laboris of the Amazon Synod or Laudato si'.

Those affected are also completely unable to process documents such as Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum together with Letter to the Bishops on the Occasion of the Publication of the Apostolic Letter "Motu Proprio Data"

The latter letter a perfectly fine example of how clarifying a previous letter completely falls on willfully deaf ears and gets totally ignored by the Inquisition of Perennial Clarity and Professionals at Appropriation.

They basically read the two letters and couldn't discern anything over their own shrieks of, "The letters are all about MEEEEEEE!!!"

"The Pope is one, it is Francis" --Emeritus Benedict XVI

Morning bell set to some Evangelical station and absolutely certain and clear guy rambling about the ecumenical church of the anti-christ and Pontifex Maximus and diabolical hot cross buns and in my half-woke state I'm all T. Marshall and Co. is that you? 

Listening some more I'm all Ah, I see, it's your run-of-the-mill the Catholic Church is the wh--e of Babylon type. Oh wait a minute.

Huh, imagine that.