Author Archives: Mundabor
Pope Francis, unhappily reigning, has made another rather strong remark about the possibility that he would resign, and hinted in that way used by old men who want to be told they will live many years on his now two or three years remaining. For a twist of fate, the statement were uttered just hours before Francis was informed of a horrible tragedy within his family, with his nephew and his two very little children perished in a car accident. As I was praying for the soul of the poor deceased – for two of them paradise is assured, assuming they were baptised – I could not avoid thinking Francis must perforce see in this tragedy another sign of how uncertain our permanence on this earth is. If he believes in God – which I strongly doubt; at least if by God we mean our God – he might have felt additionally motivated to resign when he reaches Eighty and go back to his cobbler and newspaper agent in Buenos Aires.
For this, it seems that no strokes or heart attacks will be necessary, nor the reaching of 84 and the third or fourth bypass surgery. It will be enough, we are told, that he feels he is not sufficiently strong anymore.
I cannot, in conscience, hide from you my spontaneous thought at the end of this reflection.
Please, Lord, please!! The sooner, the better! Before he appoints too many atrocious Cardinals! Before he attacks Truths not only with daily nonsense, but with extraordinary Synods! Before he confuses even more Catholics, and encourages in their error even more of the others!
Here's wishing to Francis a long, happy and healthy retirement.
You see? Don't say I am not the nicest guy…
I had to smile – though not always – at reading Father Blake's experiences with, shall we say, Italian administration. As a proud son of the Country, I think I should say a word or two; my short reflections will also, I hope, ground my argument about why Italians are good for the Church, and we need more of them.
Italy is a Country of contrasts. For reasons which have a lot to do with our historic past, we are a rather surprising mixture of an extremely dynamic, efficient, intelligent and productive mentality on one side and a stunning carelessness, inefficiency, stupidity or outright corruption on the other. Which is why foreigners wonder how the Country avoids sinking in the Mediterranean Sea, and Italians wonders where they would be if the various toxic influences polluting a good part of the population (which have their own more or less colourful names: furbismo, menefreghismo, favoritismo, leccaculismo among others) were expunged with a massive exercise in punishment of bad behaviour that the Country – even those who have none of these shortcomings – are ultimately too kind and gentle, too soft-hearted to implement.
But notice this: Italians aren't a mixture of Northern European virtues and Northern African shortcomings. In matters concerning work ethic, efficiency, and honesty they tend to be either 100% of one kind, or 100% of the other. In a country where many cut corners, the honest ones are truly honest; because they are honest out of deeply felt conviction, not out of fear of punishment like, say, pretty many are in Germany.
This polarity is why Italy has peaks or efficiency coupled with pits of inefficiency. This is why Italy as a Country has vastly outperformed England and France since the end of WWII. This is also why so many Italians are – also thanks to an excellent education system – in a position to escape from a country partially suffocated by nepotism and party card politics and can go abroad, and do rather well for themselves.
The matter is therefore, in my eyes, not whether to pick Italians – there is no doubt in my mind we are among the very best intellects on the planet – but rather in the picking of the right ones. Then Italy has many Pacellis, and at least an equal number of, shall we say, aspiring Bergoglios. Though I am sure even Bergoglio would not have been as bad had he been brought up in Italy, see below.
Italy also has traits eminently suited to the Church: the Anglo-Saxon oscillation between Puritanism and utter licence is foreign to them. Countless generation of dominant Catholicism have left them happily immune to the extremes. Never have I seen a bible-bashing street preacher in Italy, but the sense of sin is much more developed than in feminist England. Feminism, Vegetarianism, Environmentalism, animal rights activism, all these extreme “isms” are blessedly absent from Italy compared to most other Western Countries. These is the kind of people you want. Serene, solid-minded, lovers of (cough) God, Country and Family. Pick an Argentinian instead, and you might discover the man is a rotten fruit of Liberation Theology, an Italian in name only. And no, Italians aren't Puritans. But you don't need long to understand the Blessed Virgin looks at them with all their shortcomings and cannot but smile.
There is more. Italy is a country of people smart in ways foreigners not always see. Father Blake notices the small commercial premises where all the family is more or less – more often less – usefully employed; what he has not noticed is that this is the way the wise Italian parents keeps their children busy, teach them duty and responsibility, keep them away from the street and bad company, and keep an eye on them all the time; it may seem inefficient, but it isn't; particularly in places where there would be no other realistic opportunity of employment. Then, these parents will try to help the cousin, the future son-in-law, or the oldish uncle who has lost his job in the foundry. It's the way it works, at least in the healthy way. It can be worse than this, and it often is. But we must consider the constraints of the economic environment if we want to understand how it works.
More Italians, say I. And let them be very patriotic and a tad nationalist as a people (we are), and utterly persuaded of their own awesomeness as individuals (we are that, too: mamma has persuaded us of this from the cradle). You only have to pick the right Italians, and you can do no better.
As the (cough, again…) Duce said: a people of poets, saints, navigators and transvolators. Sure.
But a people of great saints, too, and great warriors who built huge empires, the Church not excluded. And a people with a great common sense, allergic to fanaticism, and with a great sensus catholicus.
But please choose them wisely.
Another very confused blog post from a rather confused blogger priest, who will not profit financially – as he normally does – from a link here.
The priest in question feels his duty to criticise those Catholics who point out to a very simple truth: Protestants cannot receive a Catholic funeral in any way, shape or form. This is not me, or my cat, or Mrs Johnson down the road. This is Canon Law and, even before that, it is common sense.
Canon Law – and Catholicism, comes to that – is not about emoting; it is about thinking. A Protestant cannot have a Catholic funeral because, with his dying a Protestant, he has visibly put himself for all the world to see outside of that (only) Church outside of which there is no salvation.
Now, it can happen – I do not know how rarely; but I do know that it would be senseless temerity and self-righteous arrogance for anyone to presume he does not need to convert – that the dude or dudette in question does die within the Church, because that very Christ to Whom the final decision is given admits him to be part of the only Church in the last moment of his or her life, and the dude or dudette therefore dies a Catholic and avoids hell. But the fact remains that for the world he has died a Proddie, and therefore he will still – whether he has saved his backside from eternal barbecuing, or not – not be entitled to a Catholic funeral, lest scandal be given.
Is this so difficult to grasp? No. It makes perfect sense. Until one stops thinking and starts emoting.
Then, this person will reflect that the deceased Proddie might have been – as human standards go – a better man, a more faithful husband, a more thoroughly recycling and better driving citizen than the Catholic small crook who died on the same day after a life of expedients, but in the fear of the Lord and at peace with Him. Which, the reasoning goes, would not justify the double standard and make it unjust, or unreasonable, or too “pre-age of Mercy”.
But this is not an argument. There is a double standard for those “in” or “out” of the Church because there is only one Church; and this Church makes – she must make, if she is to be the Church – a very clear distinction between in and out, and must attach to it a concrete risk of horrible, eternal consequences for those who choose to die… out.
In this respect – that is: considering whether one died in or out – how “good” one was is neither here nor there. He wasn't good enough to be entitled to a Catholic funeral, for sure, and he should be happy enough if he has saved his ass; which, seeing his death as a Protestant, is ipso facto uncertain.
This mentality that “goodness”, not right thinking and right choices, entitles one to something – a Catholic funeral but, by extension, salvation; which is the big underlying issue, and the one that gives rise to the prohibition – is a very emotional, very irrational, and very effeminate one. It is the thinking of the emoting wussie, who does not get that adults make choices and pay the consequences.
The atheist “missionary” who spends his life fighting Ebola and dies in his atheism will still go to hell, because the offence to God of dying in one's atheism is infinitely – as in: infinitely – graver than any brownie point his humanitarian activity might earn him in one million lives. It is humanitarian effort without God, and therefore without any charity, and therefore voiding – as far as the issue of salvation is concerned – any contrary argument.
Is this difficult to understand? No. Is it rational? Quite. Is it uncomfortable to hear? You bet.
But this is what Catholicism is: as hard and as beautiful as a diamond. He is wise who understands that the diamond will not become soft for the sake of the Protestant glass. He is a fool who thinks that he is quality glass, and the diamond will have to yield to him.
Those who understand Truth know what the Church is: a barque helping us, wretched sinner as we all are, to cross the perilous sea of our sinful lives and safely reach the opposite shore. What profits the Proddie that he is a better swimmer than most Catholics on the barque if he is still out there, in the cold, swimming? Many a swimmer dies, who thought he had no need for the barque. Many a horrible swimmer lives, who with the grace of God understood where he had to be in order not to perish in the cold water of sin. The Protestant “virtuous” man may fancy himself better able to face the cold water; he can, in fact, be undoubtedly the better swimmer. I do not doubt many of them are. But in the end, he is still there, swimming alone in the cold, whilst the awful swimmer was smart enough to stay or get on the boat. Many a virtuous swimmer will, therefore, perish; and many an awful one safely reach the other shore one day.
Ultimately, then, who is the more virtuous? Since when has it become virtuous to be a heretic? Invincible ignorance certainly excuses; but if we look around us we will see very little of it, and an awful lot of presumption and arrogance or, if you prefer, a lot of idiots who want to swim alone because they think they are too good for the Barque, which is so full of hideous sinners, or uncomfortable rules, or both.
At the end of the day Heretic is who heretic does, and heresy can never be good, or pleasing to God, or in any way desirable. It is not cruel or unreasonable that the Church refuses a Catholic funeral to those who die in their heresy. It would be cruel and unreasonable if she did otherwise, because in this case the Church Herself would set up to massively confuse the faithful about what is right and what is wrong.
What some priest – many, in fact – must understand is that Catholicism is neither easy nor comfortable. On the contrary, by its very nature it will cause the harsher conflicts where the commingling of Catholicism and Protestantism, or of Catholicism and Atheism, is more pronounced. I grew up in an environment deprived of even one single Protestant, and Catholic Truth about heresy never divided my family. But if in the middle of a family Catholicism and Protestantism mingle, then the Catholic Truth will perforce cut through it like a knife, or if you prefer like the above mentioned diamond cuts the lies of Protestant glass. Any attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable will, then, only water down the Truth, damaging – to little or great extent – the very Catholic members of that family; which, let it say it, is another reason why it is desirable that there be no Protestants among that family in the first place.
All very simple, very logical and very Catholic. But not if you depart from the straight and narrow, and start to reason about how oh pious the Protestants are, and how oh inflexible – generally one adds here “judgmental”, “self righteous” or another of the adjectives loved by those who have no argument – the orthodox Catholics.
To die a Protestant is a serious threat to one's eternal salvation. It is a threat that does not have to end in tragedy, but leaves one exposed to this risk. It is, besides, a scandal that encourages other to believe that it be allowed, even normal to die in one's heresy. And therefore, rightly and wisely the Church forbids that such people may have the Protestant cake and eat the Catholic funeral.
That V II priests seem unable to see such self-evident truths tells you a lot about your V II priests.
The Remnant website has the usual intelligent and very pertinent reflections about several issues also touched on this blog; but this time, the issues are seen in the light of the upcoming Synod, for which the preliminary liberal cannonade is now well and truly ongoing before the Great Offensive starts in October.
The Remnant has, at the end of the article, a petition to stop the synod in the first place.
I do not need to tell you that such initiatives are not relevant according to their probability of success, but according to the signal they send. “Without me”, is the signal that should be sent.
I invite you to follow the link, read the excellent article and sign the petition.
I am following, in the usual fashion (half terrified of the next bomb, half bored of the usual platitudes) Francis travel to Korea, where he is tirelessly promoting Francis and making clear he is not there to promote Christianity.
One issue in particular stroke me as odd, even for the man.
One day he laments that poverty is rising, whilst the rich get even richer. I do not know whence he has the figures and if he is every worried by facts, but this is what he said.
The day after he is on record with saying that poverty is a treasure.
Now: I was always told that poverty can certain help one to develop humility and avoid hell through that avenue. I am perfectly fine with that, and I think this corresponds to traditional Catholic thinking. But traditional Catholic thinking has also always been based on the serene acceptance that the poor will always be with us, that being poor is in itself no stairway to heaven, and that in the same way as poverty helps the poor to develop humility, wealth allows the wealthy to nourish their poverty in spirit, and to grow in charity. What counts is the humility, the poverty in spirit, the love of God. The arrogant poor, or the resentful poor, or the entitled poor, is certainly not on his way to anywhere for being poor; actually he runs the risk, if he allows his resentment to destroy charity, of being both poor and damned. Conversely, the rich who is poor in spirit and uses his wealth wisely is, in fact, well on his way to avoiding hell.
If this is correct – and I believe it is – we are in front of another example of Francis’ thinking: confused and resentful at the same time.
On the one hand, he never misses an occasion to bash the rich (the ones who are not his buddies, that is; his buddies can be very rich or even have private jets and it will be receiving, video-ing and high-fiving all round), showing that at the core of his social thinking is a resentment for the un-befriended wealthy that would do him honour in Moscow circa 1921, but not among Christians.
On the other hand, he seem to embrace a kind of sanctification of poverty at the same time as he condemns it. It does not make sense. The Church seeks to alleviate poverty, which means that poverty in itself – I mean here involuntary and not willingly embraced: the poverty of the poor and destitute, not the poverty of the monks and hermits – is not seen as anywhere near good. Which Francis also says, with one corner of his mouth. The other, as so often, disagrees.
Poverty that makes one suffer can’t be good in itself, but God can use everything to lead one to Him, even bad events and negative situations. Disease is the same. War, famine or bereavements too. But what Francis does is in my eyes nothing else than an attempt of sanctification of the poor – which is, as I get it, the underlying message, and the message he wants amplified by the press: “look how good you are: rejoice, because you are poor and therefore Christ’s favourites”) that is in the end nothing more than a bashing of the rich (“be afraid, because you are rich; unless you are buddies of mine, that is”) with the excuse of the poor.I never heard him say that those Countries who are at war have found a great collective treasure, either.
I never thought it a coincidence that among the beatitudes, poverty has the qualification ” in spirit”. The meek are blessed qua meek. The peacemakers are blessed qua peacemakers. The poor are, emphatically, not blessed qua (financially) poor. They are blessed only if, and because, they are humble. As are the rich, and those in between.
It seems to me that Francis has his gaze always firmly fixed on this earth, and that on this earth he has long-nourished resentments he now can freely vent, sure in the knowledge an army of sycophants will praise him for whatever he says from both corners of his mouth.
Even if they contradict each other.
I read somewhere that when in Canada the percentage of children born out-of-wedlock reached 40%, a magazine gave the news a cover with the rather politically incorrect title of “A Nation Of Bastards”, or the like. Of course, the fact is true, but it is very insensitive to say the truth, and therefore such inconvenient truths should be rather ignored in favour of inclusiveness and sensitivity.
Some days ago the same percentage for the UK was announced, and it was (by memory) north of 47%, certainly abundantly in the Forties.
Inconvenient truths come to mind as to what a nation this here is, but in the case of England at least another phenomenon certainly plays a role: Islam.
The Mohammedans are of the opinion that a husband must be able to ditch his wife rather easily if he thinks it fit. I suspect it even applies to the wife, though in this case the temptation must be somewhat less frequent and far less strong. Still, the Mohammedan idea of the sacredness of marriage clashes a lot with the very feminist praxis of the tribunals of these isles, which actually share the conviction that not even pre-nuptial agreements must be allowed to come between a woman and the half of the assets of her husband once the marriage has proven itself for a while. Therefore, the number is probably so high also because a substantial number of Muslim children are officially
bastards born out-of-wedlock, whilst unofficially they are the product of a stable marriage of the heathen kind; heathen, yes, but far more stable than many marriages of their once Christian counterparts.
Another evidence of this is in the frequency of the name Mohammed, now the most frequent child’s name in Britain.
Contrarily to what the article states this fact has been known for years now, but the fact still remains: no boy’s name is as popular as Mohammed, or one of its many variations.
Therefore, this is a Country of and more… children born out-of-wedlock, who are in non irrelevant part belonging to a religion that will make them carry rather thick beard, and of whom some are destined to become, at least in their aspirations – may their wish not come true – specialists in brutal killings.
A country of bastards, many of them with future beards, some of them aspiring to beheadings.
This is Britain in 2014.
Apparently, Pope Francis has made a “strong”, “silent statement” against abortion because he… stopped in front of a monument to aborted children in Korea. He even – we are told – “bowed his head in prayer” before the monument; which is rather big news because, as far as I know, it is more than he does in front of the Blessed Sacrament.
Again, it turns out this Pope is never weary of doing what is comfortable on the moment, provided he does not land in an uncomfortable position himself. Short of speaking sternly against abortion and become a clear target of the liberal masses from which he wants to be adored, he will do whatever it takes whenever it is convenient.
Hhmm…let us see…
Today is Saturday.
I wonder if I should not gather one or two buddies and go to Stringfellow’s, or to another such establishment where rather fetching professional strippers exercise their trade.
After which I could always “bow my head” before, say, the statue of Thomas More in Chelsea.
It would clearly be a “strong, silent statement” against strip clubs, wouldn’t it now?
The press has reported that some young Muslim cretins have spread leaflets on London’s Oxford Street, informing their correligionist of peace that a new Caliphate is now ongoing, and the duties of the unfaithful are, among others, to give moolah and, possibly, to move there. All rather neutral, of course, and certainly reviewed by someone versed in law.
The cretins have, though, conveniently omitted to say the “caliphate” appears to be the worst example of mindless homicidal fury since Pol Pot, or the massacres in Rwanda and Burundi in 1994. Perhaps in their mind the locals aren’t dangerous, and – as the owner of the Rottweiler said – they only want to play.
Put down that head.
Those who read the leaflets, though, and were to decide to move there, are certainly in no doubt as to the nature of this new quasi-statual organisation born out of Obama’s senseless “peace and freedom” rhetoric. They are, therefore, moving there with the intention to take part to the jihad in some way or other (say: part-time beheader, or junior massacre operative).
I do not think anyone like that would live in the UK and renounce to give trouble. It is, in fact, very reasonable to think anyone moving to ISIS territory is already a full-blown terrorist mind, waiting for the occasion to spread death on our shores. This prompts in your truly some considerations and a heartfelt, half tongue-in-cheek, half deadly serious encouragement.
Move to Iraq, my violent Arabic friend. Do not stay here in the UK. The weather is horrible, the food mediocre, the cost of living far too high, and half the girls very fat or severely obese. The trains are often cancelled because of “signal failure”, (=copper theft?), the buses drive you to despair, and there’s a speed camera every three blocks. You can’t rape a little girl like your so-called “prophet” did, and the beer is excellent, which is a constant temptation. why live with all that?
Take the next plane to Jordan, my violent friend, and hence bring your sorry Muslim ass to Syria or Iraq. We will need no expensive trials with you; no damn human right lawyers fighting your extradition if you happen to be a foreign citizen; no costly investigations.
A guided bomb will take care of you all right. If will give you what you most crave: being stuffed in the backside, big time, for the sake of the child-raping prophet of yours. Don’t fret: it will all be very fast. You will barely have the time to think “I’m …..”, and you will be already in the next world, where 72 extremely hairy and extremely horny sodomites believe you are the male virgin they have been promised they will enjoy.
Make haste, my violent friend. Don’t delay! Think of how difficult, expensive, and time consuming would be to deal with you here in the UK, where decades of high-security detention would make you cost vast sums. Be a good Muslim, and make it easy for us and for you. I promise you: the end will be swift, and no beheading.
You want to be a martyr. Who are we to judge?
In case your priest has not told you and you are in doubt, today is a solemnity, which means that you can eat meat even if it falls on a Friday.
It is, put it another way, a day in which the feast character of the Assumption overcomes the penance character of the Friday.
Enjoy the feast day, then. We can still do so without open persecution. For how long, is another matter.
Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:
Just in case your local trendy priest has not informed you of the fact, here in the United Kingdom (and, I am sure, pretty everywhere else) the feast of the Assumption is a day of obligation, in the sense that the obligation is not moved to the following Sunday, (in which case is no obligation anymore: every Sunday is obligation) but must be fulfilled on the day.
It might be good to plan in advance, and if possible have a plan B if the train fails one.
Again, in normal times there would be no need for this post.
We do not live in normal times.
The “religion of peace” Reblog …
Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:
One of the two men who savagely butchered Lee Rigby in Woolwich (yours truly has reported) made a first appearance in court today. In an astonishing show of the level of stupidity now reigning among us, even the newspapers call him “suspect”. There is, in fact, the suspicion that the two men who remained near the man they had just butchered, inviting passers-by to take videos of their feat, might be involved in the fact; but we don’t know, of course. We merely suspect it.
This utter failing of common sense and sane judgment instantly reminded me of another phenomenon familiar to all Catholics: the near-inevitability of salvation. I wonder how many would dare to say today that a sane person shooting himself in the head without one of those very rare, extenuating circumstances to do so (say: the general who knows he will be tortured and executed after his…
View original 235 more words
We are informed that 33% of “Catholics” are “very satisfied” with the LCWR, and only 4% “very dissatisfied”.
One truly wonders firstly if such surveys are worth one tenth of the money they cost, and secondly what it means if they are accurate.
“Catholic” is a very broad word in a world where even Nancy Pelosi says that she is a Catholic. In times of non-instruction like these ones, Gandhi would have a sky-high approval rate among Catholics. Yes, he denied Christ's Divinity to the end, but who are we to judge? One can, therefore, draw some conclusion about the 33% of allegedly so satisfied Catholics.
But then there is the other question: whether the people who have been surveyed knew what they were talking about, what the LCWR really is, the ideas the hags who compose it really promote.
Methinks, it is far more probable that the people interviewed still link the nun with her traditional image, activity and mindset. I cannot imagine many have any idea of who these people are in the first place. They approve of them because they approve of nuns, period. If only they knew!
But then again let us play this game and imagine that the people surveyed really knew. Does this prove that the hags are right? No. It merely proves that they are popular among people as bad as them. Not much of a discovery, methinks.
In the meantime, we are informed the Catholic world who allegedly likes the viragos so much does not want to be like them. Actually, it is condemning them to extinction. I do not think the figures (from 180,000 in 1965 to less than 50,000 today) give the real proportion of the hags's catastrophe as does the old age of those who are still alive and kicking, or rather screaming, and the conservative attitude of many young sisters. These women truly are bitching Dinosaurs.
Again: the world out there might like them – because it rejects Catholicism – but it still does not want to be like them!
Not even young angry lesbians want to become nuns of the LCWR type anymore. This truly says it all.
Stellar article from John Vennari, that I got from Angelqueen. It is long, but well worth your time.
The alleged fact is described in this way:
“Father David told us that because Tony [Palmer] was not a Roman Catholic he had to ask his bishop’s permission to celebrate the requiem and though Tony’s wife and children are Roman Catholics, permission still had to be given for the requiem. The bishop agreed but said that Tony could not be buried as a bishop as he was not a Roman Catholic bishop. However, Pope Francis said he should and could be buried as a bishop, and so that put an end to that little bit of ecclesiastical nonsense
I do not know whether this is true, and I think the Vatican should make a statement on this. I suspect there is more to it, because I cannot believe Francis is as stupid as the man reports. Albeit… one wonders. If Francis has made himself culpable of such a heretical behaviour for the sake of his buddy, this truly tells you everything you need to know about his worth as a Pope. It would also mean that when he said “brother bishop” he really meant it. Heresy pure and simple.
The article goes on to discuss the particular view of the likes of Francis and the late non-bishop Palmer concerning “unity”. The operative word here is “convergence”. Convergence is, mind, not conversion. Every talk of “convergence” implies that there’s something wrong in the Church qua Church, and a new “something” will one day be created that is a fusion of Catholicism and Protestantism. To talk, or even think, in this way is to deny Christ’s Church, full stop.
No one has, in this perspective, to “convert” to anything, but rather they march in joyous heretical concord toward the creation of some vague and undetermined new entity; which, whatever it is, cannot be the Church of which Francis has said that he believes everything she believes and professes everything she professes. Quoting Vennari again: “Or as Francis says, “no one is coming home,” but we “meet in the middle” “.
Vennari says it very fittingly:
The new ecumenism that emanated from Vatican II, and that is fostered by Pope Francis, is a head-on-collision with the Catholic doctrine and practice of the past.  The Catholic Faith is not the personal plaything of the Pope that he can remold at will to accommodate the ecumenical spirit born of Protestantism. He is bound to teach the consistent doctrine of the centuries without change. To do otherwise is to be unfaithful, irresponsible and unpastoral.
I would add: heretical. I have written often on this blog that Francis works against Catholicism. He works against Catholicism because his mindframe is hostile to Catholicism. I am actually persuaded that he hates it, which is why he spends as much time as he can among Proddies and Heathens, disparages the Vatican as a place rich in leprosy, and freely insults all those who, with their pious behaviour and solid Catholic faith, remind him of Her Truth and Her beauty.
Please follow the link and enjoy the rest of this excellent article. It is consoling to know that the current madness meets such well-argued and articulated resistance.