Julian Kwasniewski #fundie #wingnut #conspiracy crisismagazine.com

It’s funny to be writing this on a typewriter; but truly, I think there is a great deal to be said for the slogan “be different.” Pope Francis infamously told a World Youth Day audience to “make a mess,” and that is exactly what I’ve been doing with this typewriter for the past thirty minutes.

Spurred on by an editorial in the latest issue of The European Conservative, I have been marveling at the paradox we have arrived at: the new “normal” of the untethered radical Left is the result of their being different. What is now truly different is the old way of doing things; rebellion has become a rather drab and uniform affair of everyone being “different” in essentially the same rainbow way—all the while professing their diversity.
Pouring oil into oil doesn’t make a dressing; but pouring vinegar into oil does; and pouring vinegar into baking soda makes an explosion. Perhaps more lessons could be learned from exploring the condiments on our shelves, but for the time being let’s explore the contents of ourselves instead.

Have we become sufficiently different (in the modern sense) that we are much too similar to everyone else? Are we allowing the drab (even when rainbow) relativism of our postmodern, consumerist America to catch up with us?
I fear most of us are becoming homogenized fat. Symptoms include:

Forgetting what natural fruit juice tastes like
Reaching for our phone within the first few minutes of waking up
Only quoting movies, not books
Forgetting that fried chicken nuggets were once live animals
Forgetting that the current pontiff is a controversial figure
Not thinking of “having kids” and “having sex” as two sides of the same coin
Not knowing what the word esoteric means
Thinking of walking to work as inconvenient
Not batting an eye when you realize work is so far away that you can’t walk to work
Putting prayer off for tomorrow…or better yet, the weekend

S.A. McCarthy #wingnut #fundie #transphobia #conspiracy crisismagazine.com

It’s an election year in America, which means that the political Left is trotting out its favorite fearmongering apparatuses again. For the past few years, politicians and pundits alike have leaned heavily on terms like “far right,” “bigoted,” racist,” “transphobic,” and “extremist”; but topping the list of late has been “Christian nationalist.” But what is a Christian nationalist?
If the defining characteristic of a Christian nationalist were a belief that “our rights as Americans and as all human beings do not come from any earthly authority” but “from God,” then the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution would be tantamount to Christian nationalist manifestos.
While Christianity has suffered a drastic decrease in recent years, a new religion has risen to take its place: Leftism. Yes, Leftism is a religion. Much like Catholicism, it even boasts a clergy, sacraments, and dogmas. Its clergy are elite power brokers: media personalities are its preachers while politicians serve as priests, legislating sacrifice to their gods. Its sacraments are multitudinous: from transgendering children and stocking school libraries with pornographic picture books all the way to its highest (or, rather, lowest) form of unholy prayer, abortion.
Despite all the hyperinflated fearmongering, those derided by the White House and its media mouthpieces as “Christian nationalists” are not trying to force all Americans to attend Mass weekly; we are not endeavoring to install altar rails in the Capitol building; nor are we attempting to replace the Star-Spangled Banner’s stars with rosary beads.
Certainly, we want to legislate Christian morality—to end the slaughter of unborn children, to ban the scourge of pornography, to keep little boys and little girls from having their sex organs hacked off or hacked open. These are measures which the Founding Fathers might have called “the basics” had they ever lived to see the horrors of the modern age.

Sean Fitzpatrick #fundie #wingnut #conspiracy crisismagazine.com

September 11 is a day when we remember the victims of terrorism, especially the 2,996 Americans who were killed by the unthinkable al-Qaeda attacks of 2001. But the “war on terror” abroad has only seen new faces of terrorism find footholds in our cities and neighborhoods, tearing Western civilization apart from within instead of without. If terrorism is defined as an act of intimidation for political or ideological ends, the reality of terrorism extends to cultural pressures and even attacks that don’t involve crashing planes into towers. And many American Catholics are too afraid to push back.
As Catholics devoted to truth (hopefully unflinchingly), we are under near-constant coercive pressure to accept what is deeply false, threatened with social and professional excommunication at every turn in the name of ideology and politics.
When we hear the Lord’s Name taken in vain, do we ever say in return, “Blessed be His Holy Name”? How many times do we bend the knee in silent submission under the godless, woke banners and progressive approvals in everyday life? What blind eyes are turned on psychosis-affirming slogans and advertisements? How often do we shy away from denouncing climate change as a hoax of market manipulation? Or pause before saying abortion is murder? Or cringe to call the war in Ukraine a civil war that America has largely fueled and has no business fomenting?
hat aggressive Catholic attitude should give no philosophical or societal quarter in the attack against reality and religion, even if giving no quarter draws looks, insults, or shock. The concern shouldn’t be for what may be considered proper or politically correct. Despite the disturbance, Catholics should resist these terrorisms with a fervor that cares more for what is right than what is acceptable and keep the national spirit of 9-11 alive for the sake of the truth.

Greg Cook #fundie #wingnut #racist #transphobia crisismagazine.com

Someone might object by asserting that this immigrant invasion is not military but rather one of humanitarian need. That objection helps make my point, which is this: our compassion for the desperate stranger is no longer tied to Christ’s Gospel, and this ersatz compassion is now our downfall.
While we don’t exactly have labor camps and gas chambers, we do have widespread abortion and infanticide (aka “late-term abortion”), inner-city killing zones, spikes in deaths of despair, and drug overdoses, all in large part due to ersatz compassion. That is the compassion that empowers our government to allow millions of noncitizens into this country.

It may be objected that every one of these immigrants is a person with human dignity, and to a point that is true. They are also, as humans, afflicted by original sin and prone to concupiscence. Ersatz compassion seeks only to focus on rights uncoupled from responsibility and obedience to laws.

In the past, we would have helped people; now we enable them. This humanitarian invasion comes from spurning God. Consider American cities such as New York, San Francisco, and Seattle. Ersatz compassion in those places has resulted in crises of the common good. Residents do not feel safe in the midst of aggressive homeless tribes, and the beauty of iconic urban settings are defaced by garbage, graffiti, and human waste.
Drag Queen story hour? Sure. An eleven-year-old thinks he’s trapped in the wrong body? Help him! “Engaged” couples living together for seven years and with three children? Who am I to judge?! Entering the country under false pretenses or without going through the legal processes? What’s the big deal?! Fidelity (like punctuality) is a vestige of an earlier, privileged culture, right?
Thankfully, God’s justice is a true
Unless we—Americans and Catholics—reject a false, Christless compassion, we will continue to suffer the sting of God’s justice via the invasion we deserve.

Austin Ruse #homophobia #fundie #wingnut crisismagazine.com

A month of the Sacred Heart—has been taken over by perversion. The love that dares not speak its name screams all month long in our faces. You cannot get away. Rainbows everywhere. You are tempted to stay inside, lower the shades, like the three days of darkness, praying for the demons to pass by.

You can count on seeing their anti-Christian hate rainbow everywhere. There will be a rainbow sticker on the ATM at the bank. You want cash? You get the rainbow, too.
You have to hand it to the rainbows. They make up no more than 1.6 percent of the adult population. That’s a mere four million people who “identify” as rainbow, about the size of Los Angeles or the state of Oklahoma. There are more Methodists. Of course, they want you to think they make up 10 percent of the total population, roughly 33 million. That was always a lie ginned up in the criminal work of wicked Alfred Kinsey, high priest of the Rainbow Zeus.

So successful has been that lie that youngsters now believe that 25 percent—83 million—of the population are rainbow. Of course, calling yourself non-binary gets you cost-free into the Rainbow Club, and it is a safe harbor that comes with all sorts of societal huzzahs. Even if the numbers lie, hats off to the rainbows for their achievements. They have made us all if not worship Rainbow Zeus, at least acknowledge him or grit your teeth as you look away.

“Rainbow Zeus” was coined by my friend Professor Matthew Mehan, Associate Dean of the exalted Hillsdale College’s D.C. campus. Rainbow Zeus is a false god, an angry god who demands our attention if not our worship. This is why so many people think they have to bend the knee.

You have to light the candle to get along, not get fired. You must wear the rainbow lanyard, salute the rainbow flag, even if you utterly reject the gay rainbow; even if you understand that the LGBTQ+ rainbow is a giant middle finger to the Triune God. It is. The rainbow is His. It was His promise that He would not destroy mankind again.

Francis Magister (pseudonym) #fundie #homophobia #elitist crisismagazine.com

Assuming, as I do, that there is an influential number of homosexuals, or those sympathetic to homosexuality, in the priesthood, I want to ask not so much how this has come to be but, more importantly, why it continues to be so. In other words, why would a young homosexual man today choose the priesthood?

Let me posit another possibility. It is admittedly conjectural and anecdotal, but does, I believe, have some basis. After giving it, I shall qualify it, so bear with me. It has to do with how we have come to view the priesthood and priests in the time since Vatican II. It may be that before Vatican II we viewed priests as almost demigods. A priest was a mysterious figure in a cassock and baretta, aloof from the life of others.
My argument, therefore, is that many homosexual men are drawn to the priesthood because with the Novus Ordo Mass it offers a safe, frequent, and immediate gratification of this need for attention and affirmation. In extreme cases, it can be a craving for adulation.
Having said this, let me state clearly what I am not saying. I am not saying that all priests who prefer the Novus Ordo are homosexual. I am not saying the Novus Ordo was designed with the homosexual in mind. The origins of the Novus Ordo are troublesome enough without putting that on the plate. There have been problems with homosexuality among clergy celebrating the Latin Mass.
Again, I’m not saying the Novus Ordo was made for this but only that this is possible in the Novus Ordo while it is impossible in the Traditional Mass.

So, get rid of the Novus Ordo and we won’t have homosexuals in the priesthood? This is clearly not the case. Again, there are many chaste, self-sacrificing, wonderful priests who celebrate the Novus Ordo, and the traditional community has had its scandals. The Latin Mass, however, offers—one could say requires—an idea of the priesthood that is self-abnegating and self-effacing.

Fr. Robert McTeigue, SJ #fundie #wingnut #transphobia #kinkshaming #conspiracy crisismagazine.com

2010s: The remaking and erasure of the individual. The individual (sacred in Christianity; one among the undifferentiated masses in Marxism) cut off from past, future, and fellows, has nothing left but an unsatisfied and unsatisfactory self.
The isolated individual rejects the self as having been found in “the wrong body” (transgenderism) or “the wrong species” (variously known as transspeciesism, such that one identifies as an “otherkin” or a “furry,” i.e., as a member of a non-human species). Or the unsatisfactory and unsatisfied self rejects the limitations of body and mind and so advocates for transhumanism, with the individual “augmented” by various technologies in a man/machine hybrid

2020s: Narcissistic cannibalism—the unsatisfactory, unsatisfied yet self-obsessed individual is running out of realities to reject, alter, or destroy. Caught in the grip of enraged and insatiable disappointment, the empty self demands that remaining realities be destroyed more completely, more absolutely. So now we see the narcissist step into a kind of cannibalism. That which is affiliated with the failed human project must be absorbed into the empty and implacable self.
The narcissistic cannibal, caught in an unbearable present, aims his appetitive rage at the past and the future. We see this repudiation of the past in the recent advocacy o
f human composting. The human body and all that it represented may be broken down into its component parts and then absorbed by the hungry living. At the same time, we are being urged to cannibalize our future by reducing our children to the status of sexual consumables by normalizing pedophilia.

The human rejection of God and man, the destruction and even the devouring of the past and future—these lead to the nihilistic dynamic.

Elise Ehrhard #fundie crisismagazine.com

Some contemporary studies have made a connection between gender “dysphoria” and autism. A recent article in The Atlantic uses these studies to push the idea that “transitioning” is a healthy, even necessary, option for those on the spectrum who want it. The author asserts that any effort to discourage such “medical care” to those with special needs is callous. In this way, The Atlantic interweaves natural sympathy for the growing autism awareness movement with transgender ideology.

The Atlantic has it backwards. To help and protect individuals on the spectrum, there needs to be greater awareness of transgenderism’s lies and why those on the spectrum could be susceptible to its manipulation. Encouraging sex-change or an alternate gender identity is destructive to individuals with autism or Asperger’s (previously in a separate diagnostic category), only furthering their private pain.


For a pseudo-religious movement to target this vulnerable population of youths for their own ideological ends is nothing less than child abuse. The latest Atlantic piece is just another shot across the bow. If we do not remain vigilant in speaking the truth, young people with special needs will just be the latest victims in the left-wing cultural assault against human biology.

Joseph Nicolosi #homophobia #quack crisismagazine.com

As a psychologist treating homosexually oriented men, I’ve watched with dismay as the LGBT movement has convinced the world that “gay” requires a revised understanding of the human person.

The psychological profession is much to blame for this shift. Once, it was generally agreed that normality is “that which functions in accordance with its design.” There was no such thing as a “gay person,” for humanity was recognized as naturally and fundamentally heterosexual. In my 30-plus years of clinical practice, I have seen the truth of that original anthropological understanding.

Homosexuality is, in my view, primarily a symptom of gender trauma. Although some people may have been born with biological conditions (prenatal hormonal influences, inborn emotional sensitivity) that make them especially vulnerable to such trauma, what distinguishes the male homosexual condition is that there was an interruption in the normal masculine identification process.

Homosexual behavior is a symptomatic attempt to “repair” the original wound that left the boy alienated from the innate masculinity that he has failed to claim. This differentiates it from heterosexuality, which arises naturally from undisturbed gender-identity development.

The basic conflict in most homosexuality is this: the boy—usually a sensitive child, more prone than average to emotional injury—desires love and acceptance from the same-sex parent, yet feels frustration and rage against him because the parent is experienced by this particular child as unresponsive or abusive. (Note that this child may have siblings who experienced the same parent differently).

Austin Ruse #fundie crisismagazine.com

Time to Knock the Supremes Down a Peg or Three

Besides doing something about certain lawless decisions made by our black-robed masters, something must also be done about how we came to such a place where they can cast their gaze across the fruited plain and whatever catches their fancy becomes the law of the land, indeed higher than the Constitution.

Roe was bad enough, a joke of a decision made out of whole cloth after Justice Blackmun consulted with phony history and the opinion of his young daughter. But Obergefell is much worse, coming as it does after twenty years of everyday Americans making their views abundantly and overwhelmingly known that they reject faux marriage of the same-sex.

Sitting in their august temple they did what they had wanted to do for some time, and to hell with the democratic process so faithfully adhered to by regular folks. They imposed faux marriage on the whole country with the majority opinion written by Justice Kennedy getting snickers from left, right, and center though not from gay guys who are using some of it in their faux wedding ceremonies.

What got us here is an extravagant and despotic notion called judicial supremacy, the case against which is getting a nice airing out by noted legal scholars. One of them gave an important lecture recently at the Washington DC campus of Hillsdale College, what may eventually be one of the last bastions and protectors of the founding vision.

Matthew Franck has taught constitutional law and runs the Center on Religion and the Constitution at the Witherspoon Institute. He begins his lecture (to be published in full in a future issue of the quarterly National Affairs) with his own view that “Obergefell presents us with judicial aggrandizement on a truly grand scale—and not just because its impact on the institution of marriage is so devastating, nor because of its fallout for the family, for religious liberty, or for the foundations of a free society. What was stunning about the decision was its peculiar brazenness. The sheer boldness of the pretense that the Constitution guarantees a right of same-sex marriage was breathtaking. And the blundering incompetence of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion, which almost defies analysis because it answered to no legal norms or categories, was infuriating.”

Franck says in their dissents the four justices in the minority have issued a “call to arms,” a call to resist the decision. He says, “The dissenters directly attack the legitimacy of the majority’s decision, and should be read as inviting their fellow citizens to resist it.”


The sense of the Court’s self-importance can begin to be checked by the congressional reinstitution of some aspects of the Judges’ Bill. Such changes “could do a world of good by doing a world of mischief to the dogma of judicial supremacy.” Specifically, Franck proposes the reinstitution of the “state’s traditional right of appeal with mandatory review by the Supreme Court in cases where a state law was declared contrary to the federal constitution by a federal court”: the Court would not be allowed to summarily dismiss such cases. Every such case would have to be placed on the docket, receive briefs, hear oral arguments, and publish decisions.

At the same time, “any such adverse judgment of lower federal courts, holding a state law unconstitutional, could be automatically stayed in any class of cases Congress chooses to define—”

Franck says under such a regime “none of the federal court judgments against state marriage laws would have gone into effect” until the Supreme Court heard and decided each of the cases separately. What that would mean is the Court could not take one case and decide all of them based on that single one.

Franck says such changes could be enacted today, “and would effectively restore the marriage laws of any state not explicitly governed by the order in Obergefell—which technically affects only the four states of the Sixth Circuit—if public officials in the other states have the courage to act on their oath to the Constitution without confusing it with an oath to follow the latest pronouncements of the Supreme Court.”

Such changes would require creative, heroic and inspired congressional and presidential leadership. Both branches have been content for decades to shuffle off their most controversial issues to the courts. After all, controversial issues get you sent home. Such leadership is hard to imagine in the clown show we so frequently see on Capitol Hill.

But I do know this. I relish the thought of our black-robed masters having to slave away in their august chambers on 200, 300, or 400 cases a year. Taking away their time and forcing them to work on legal issues of less than “national significance” might deservedly knock them down a peg or two: in the process, they might not stay quite so long on the court, and our system of checks and balances might end this despotic system of judicial supremacy.

One of our hopes is the creative thinking of people like Matt Franck. More please.

Bro- Rob #fundie crisismagazine.com

Comment on an article about Richard Dawkins being "on the path to belief".

I think that is WONDERFUL news if Richard Dawkins’ soul is seeking God after all— His conversion will be a MOST profound witness to an unbelieving world!! So I say: Go Lord go! Do your wonderful work of conversion in his heart and soul! And then his mind will gradually catch up as well— As for me I always found myself somewhere in the “literalist fundamentalist” camp in general—even though I don’t agree with every detail they say—and even though I’m now Catholic not Protestant. But with regard to the plain scientific of evolutionism and also the LITERAL truth of Genesis in general—.to me it’s a clearcut stonewall case, no-brainer—period. The more I studied it, the more conclusive it gets, point by point. I lamented that so many Christians, even Popes, never saw through the lies and spurious claims of Darwinism—it’s as if all mankind were HYPNOTISED by it! But No problem— No problem for me, that is – but LOTS of grief from EVERY side from those deluded by Darwinist pseudoscience—including from plenty of my fellow Christians. (Bless ‘em). How craftily the devil has sown the seeds of doubt lies and confusion in human minds! (The Protestants lost a lot of the true christian spirituality, but they sure have compensated by being better intellectuals than their Catholic peers! At least in relation to Darwinist heresies, that is!) But anyway, no matter – it is the SOUL which matters much more deeply than the rational mind in the person. It is the soul that most needs God and needs salvation. Therefore, Halleluyah for Richard Dawkins!! Come Lord Jesus, come! Holy Spirit, have your way with him! And let many stand in awe when he “comes out” as a believer! (I always have hoped and prayed for his conversion myself).

Sam Scot #fundie crisismagazine.com

Great point on the connection between addiction and defensive, incoherent rage. That rage is characteristic in a new way with the entire public Left. When I was young, the real screaming vitriol was the old stuff from the pre-World War II labor agitators. From the 50s, 60s, and 70s, you can find Leftist essays that are fairly literate and urbane, contain no slang or curse words, and make sequential arguments, however misguided.

No more. Is there an addiction to some sin endemic to the Left that inspires this circling of the wagons? Perhaps Red rage is connected to personal dependence on abortion, contraception, drugs, and adultery. And perhaps by the despair that one is not God, and the fear that God is. What do you think?