Culture

Justice Anthony Kennedy Is A Satanist

Anthony Kennedy, while sitting as a Supreme Court Justice, in an infamous ruling wrote, “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

This is satanism.

I don’t mean the bloody red demon exorcist green-pea-soup satanism, though that certainly exists and is the true darker side of it, and I don’t mean the LARPy dress-up ackshually satanism of redditors. I mean in the worst sense, the Luciferian Freemasonic sense, where man thinks himself Godlike. This is beyond the idea that man sole measure of all things, but that man is also the creator of things.

It’s trivial to disprove Kennedy’s argument, and many have done it, so we won’t spend much time on it, except to emphasize that his sentiment is now deep in every breast. We want to know why.

Oh? You haven’t seen a disproof? Okay, here’s a short one.

It is my concept of existence, and of meaning, that I have to right, nay duty, to eviscerate my enemies and use their bowels as casings for sausages. This answers the mystery of life to me. That is why I am here. If you disagree with me, you are my enemy. And if you are my enemy, start this paragraph over again to see your fate.

If Kennedy is right, you have no foundation, no basis at all, to prove me wrong. You may only disagree. Your disagreement means nothing. It is mere air. Especially if you are weaker than I, and it is dinner time.

As idiotic as this disproof is, it is valid because it relies on ideas we all have embedded into us, or we quickly learn, which are certain universal notions. It is that now we (especially the young) deny them. Or pretend to. It is the retreat from universalism that led to Kennedy and to us.

We can thank especially William of Ockham, he of the dull razor fame, for this. At the peak of Realism in philosophy, the glorious Middle Ages (an apt term), certain academic thoughts occurred to those impatient with the rigor of the schoolmen. Thoughts of doubt. Which became a mark of sophistication. Which, through the passing of years and encrustation of theory, led to the considered-brilliant solution: we are certain we can never be certain.

Anyway, Ockham was the father of nominalism, which is the denial of universals, and therefore of underlying fixed Reality.

This isn’t the time to tell that story, or to describe in detail the competing philosophies. But it’s plain enough that if you deny universalisms, you are not only free, à la Kennedy, to make up your own definitions for things, you must do so.

Nominalism is why we have spectacles such as this:

I don’t know, and don’t care, if Walsh’s interlocutors were men pretending to be women, or women pretending to be men. I do care whether or not they are crazy. They aren’t. They are, however, satanists. Satanism is the religion that is rapidly replacing Christianity. The religion also called Woke. I don’t mean that in any sensationalist way, but as a statement of the metaphysical beliefs shared by our coming masters.

Reality says the universal sex exists and has the characteristics we know, even if, perchance, we don’t know all of them. Knowing universals exist does not imply we always get particular instances correct, or know them fully. The opposite result, skepticism, that therefore we can never know them at all, is absurd. Yet believed.

Broken instances of universals also don’t disprove universals. We don’t say a cat lady who forgot to go to the market, falls asleep, and has her foot gnawed off by a pack of ravenous felines is a non-lady because she lacks a foot. She’s just a broken lady.

The people Walsh talked to said “Transwomen are women”. Walsh made great sport of the pair (later) because they couldn’t define woman. Yes they could, and can.

They lied.

Of course they know what a woman is. They believe in the universal. But they also follow Kennedy’s satanism and believe they can create a new kind of universal, a transwoman. But to create that, they first necessarily have to know what a woman is to pretend to be one.

And because they know they are not what a woman is, they have to pretend to have created something else, a new thing. But only Reality, which is to say, only God Himself, can create a universal. So they are satanists.

I’ve forgotten who said it first, but God creates, man can only discover. That is no longer believed.

Buy my new book and own your enemies: Everything You Believe Is Wrong.

Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card or PayPal click here

Categories: Culture

43 replies »

  1. Briggs, you go from strength to strength.

    New revelations explode daily but theocratic patterns are recycled. Masks. Apocalyptic visions of flooding. Catechisms. Authoritarianism. Worshiping multiple times a day before your choice of media. We don’t seem to be ritual posturing towards Mecca yet but maybe it’s coming.

    Will a leader arise to save us? I’m not Christian, but watching the evil stalking among us makes me wonder.

  2. Satan has a lot going for him; sex, drugs, rock n’ roll, money, fame, power, freedom,
    — all the fun of the world without any pangs of conscience, but rather a full sense of pride. Little wonder the sly devil does so well recruiting dupes into his ponzi scheme. Of course, when the bills come due, the bubble bursts, and the chickens come home to roost amidst metastasizing metaphors, the poor fools howl, Oh you tricky Devil, you lied to me!

    Same as it ever was.

  3. I’m not sure that Justice Kennedy’s comment that you cite is in error. It seems to be that it is a redefinition of the word “liberty.” A definition is only an abstract statement, neither true nor false. As long as he is consistent, he can define the word as he pleases. It is not until you apply the definition to something in reality that it can be true or false.

    Of course, I am basing that just on the single sentence you cite. If he later went on to apply his redefinition to some legal principle that made use of the word “liberty” then that would be the fallacy of equivocation. If he went on to claim that his redefinition of liberty was a something to be persued to obtain a good or virtuous life, then that would be a error of fact. To accept a “concept of existence” that is in conflict with reality would be a great evil. And, as you write, make an idol out of yourself.

    But I think you need to cite a little bit more of his statement to show that he is in error.

  4. Robert Yoho: ”Will a leader arise to save us?”

    The Leader has already arisen, to save us. If we would only follow Him.

  5. Briggs, if you can so easily to conclude and broadcast that Kennedy is a Satanist, you should be able to accept my conclusion that you are evil. (You know you are evil, and I can justify my conclusion if you wish, though I rather read a novel.

  6. It is my concept of existence, and of meaning, that I have to right, nay duty, to eviscerate my enemies and use their bowels as casings for sausages. This answers the mystery of life to me.

    Your argument doesn’t disprove anything. The fact that you can decide on a meaning to your life that I might not like doesn’t prove that you can’t have your own meaning to life. Not even slightly. It’s just an argument from consequences fallacy.

  7. Reality is real. Reality was created by God. Anyone who opposes reality, who denies the very existence of reality, has therefore placed themselves in opposition to not only reality, but God. QED

    The words of Moses in Deuteronomy 29 still hold. Therefore: It is time and past time to reinstate the Inquisition. It is time and past time for a Crusade, a Reconquista of our own.

  8. @BB: “The question is, ” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty. “which is to be master—that’s all.” – Through the Looking Glass, L. Carroll

  9. BB — my first thought was that your opinion was worthy of a Supreme Court talmudist. But on further reflection, it’s not a bad point. There is a narrow sense where Justice Kennedy’s statement is simply stating the necessity of man’s discernment in making choices, given man’s free will. We are not programmed as are animals. There is Gods Truth, but it is left to man to seek, weigh, and choose it. Usually badly, it seems. Justice Kennedy can emanate clown-suited penumbras all he likes, but when his clown car crashes into the guard rail of reality, and plunges off the roadrunner cliff of truth, smashing into the bedrock of terminal metaphoric euphoria, then perhaps he may issue a dissenting opinion.

  10. Swordy, for gods sake can you just get out of the minor key for once? Go to your piano and hit a crashing C-major chord, man! It’ll do you good.

  11. You are neither a swordfish, nor a trombone. Having the “liberty” to define yourself as such is a meaningless frivolity. To insist anyone else respect or even pay attention to such a meaningless frivolity is insanity. Hence, Kennedy.

  12. I remember seeing (circa 2010) an article in an academic journal that went at length about the differences between “sex” and “gender.” As was vogue at the time, “gender” meant non physical characteristics and “sex” meant physical characteristics. It was then described how a “transgendered” person simply had a gender that didn’t match the sex, and how while we might be able to say things about that person’s sex, we had to respect absolutely a personal determination of gender.

    So far this is at least logically consistent, if divorced from reality.

    But in the last few paragraphs of the paper it declared that even “sex” could easily be changed by surgery, and that there was good reason to say that it had changed if a transgendered person merely started acting differently or dressing differently. After all, who are we to say that a penis must necessarily indicate a male sex?

    It was an eye opening experience that taught me that the advocates of transgenderism are not merely deluded, but actively dishonest and anti-reality.

  13. May God bless you Briggs, for standing up and stating what in a saner age would be considered obvious.

    You’ll get a load of grief for it!

    Three Ave’s for you!

  14. Re: ‘nominalism’ vs ‘realism’

    Of course, the classical ‘realist’ position begs the question (“begging” in the original sense of already supplying the answer) as to whether (and if so, how) one can arrive at a sure knowledge of universals.

    But that was one of the key questions in the argument: can one truly arrive at a sure knowledge of universals? And what is the basis for that attestation? Or does ‘induction’ prove itself?

    One ought to remember that William of Ockham (c. 1287-1347) was far from the first ‘nominalist’; two centuries prior, Peter Abelard (1079-1142) certainly taught a strong form of it for much of his career. And one also ought to remember that Ockham was a ‘realist’, in the sense that he never doubted that our senses told us about the real world.

    One should also remember that Ockham was, and remained, a Catholic priest, and never repudiated his faith, in transubstantiation, or in any other of the truths of the faith. But he differed, perhaps with reason, from the ‘realists’ in his account of those truths.

    And transubstantiation came to be, not an edge case, but the test case, for the whole debate. After all, from the ‘outside’, as it were, transubstantiation seems the height of nominalism: you take bread and wine and you change their name.

    The bread and wine look and act exactly the same after you change their name. But by changing their name, they become what you say: the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord. The very essence, the ‘form’, the ‘substance’ of the bread and wine are ‘transubstantiated’: this is the faith of the Church.

    Nor could anyone seriously argue that the transubstantiation of the bread and wine is a ‘miraculous’ event; for, very much different from a miracle, the transubstantiation of the bread and wine at each and every valid Mass to the end of time is perfectly predictable, consistent, and regular. A miracle is scarcely a thing that directly contradicts the most fundamental laws of the universe predictably, consistently. regularly — and on spec.

    Is transubstantiation thus not a direct repudiation of the stable relationship between things and words that classical ‘realists’ so prize?

    This was the kind of question that animated the argument between the ‘realists’ and the ‘nominalists’ in the late Middle Ages.

    Questions like these were, and are, serious questions, not lightly dismissed or answered.

  15. Q: What is a woman?
    A: Someone who menstruates with some degree of regularity, it’s not complicated.

  16. Your argument doesn’t disprove anything. The fact that you can decide on a meaning to your life that I might not like doesn’t prove that you can’t have your own meaning to life.

    Here’s where you screwed up:

    The difference between “meaning” and “reality.”

    We can both look at a rock and each derive our own meaning of a rock, its existence, its feeling. But the rock remains a rock.

    The rock is the reality.

    That you may see in it a useful paper-weight, and I may see it as a useful weapon to put in a sling and hurl at your head, doesn’t change the reality. The reality is fixed. It is a hard thing and does things hardness is useful for.

    But if you want to redefine that reality that a rock is a trans-sponge and identifies as very soft and don’t get out of the way when you see me slinging it at you… well… you’re about to experience the cold hard reality smashing the very thing you use to give things frivolous “meanings.”

    So it stands to reason that your “meanings” should be consistent with reality. Paperweight and weapon align with the reality of the hard quality of a rock, but a sponge and a snowball do not, no matter how hard you try and how giddy you feel in your god-like power of imagination.

    This is going to start giving your life more problems, but instead of correcting your botched meaning, you then start blaming everyone else for being very mean to you, and demand society rearrange itself and science and meaning to cater to you, which will eventually find more people wanting to stone you to death to end that insanity if you don’t do yourself in by putting on your swimming trunks and diving off a cliff into a quarry.

    Frankly I find the trans-inanity hilariously outdated by their own criteria.

    If there is no such thing as a woman, then it stands to reason that they need not be held back by limiting “women” to need to be called she/her or even need to have the “wo” either nor need to dress or act as one normally does. Who says a “woman” can’t just be “man” and be called he/him and dress and behave as a “man” and therefore be that for the sake of convenience and social justice and equality? Whatever those words mean…

    So we should be more progressive and trans men to women should become trans-trans and be trans-trans-man-woman-man and keep their penises and just do everything that normal men behave and do. I mean, why hold yourself back by outdated re-definitions of woman. Why can’t woman be man and man who wants to be woman just take woman to be just a man, man?

    Like… free your mind!

  17. Swoshfish contd:

    Also Briggs already addressed you in paragraph two:

    If Kennedy is right, you have no foundation, no basis at all, to prove me wrong. You may only disagree. Your disagreement means nothing. It is mere air. Especially if you are weaker than I, and it is dinner time.

    So Briggs never said…

    you can’t have your own meaning to life.

    Of course you can! You just won’t go very far with it by having a stoopid one. Like having your cake and eating it too. And by ‘cake’, you may mean a trans-rock with a candle.

    Anyway, this again serves as another fine example of how fak-chakers work… by not addressing the point, but some trans-point they thought you trans-meant to trans-say so that they may present a trans-fact, which should not be confused with an actual fact or an actual fact-check.

  18. Liberty is simply I choose for me and you choose for you. Consequences usually follow but are not part of any reasonable definition (IMO).

    I accept the existence of universals as a hypothetical thing; as a practical matter I only require proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is unreasonable to assume I was created 5 minutes ago complete with a lifetime of memories. It’s possible, but so what? I work with what seems to be real.

    All definitions are working definitions. Here in internet comments definitions tend to be less defined.

    One thing is certain and self-proving; in order to claim to be a woman (or anything) one must define the properties of woman (or that thing) so that anyone can determine whether you do indeed meet that definition.

    If there’s an irony here, it is that for decades women’s liberation was trying to persuade everyone that there is no meaningful difference between a man and a woman. If that were true there would be no point in announcing one or the other since they are the same.

    But it seem they are NOT the same and some people wish to be called woman and some people wish to be called man. Perhaps they have a definition.

    Liberty includes me NOT going along with your definition.

  19. Let’s be charitable and steelman the argument for them.

    Woman: a person who feels they ought to have a vagina and/or prefers to behave in manners traditionally associated with vagina-bearers.

    Clumsy, sure, but it’s a definition. What problems arise from this definition? (other than the assumed philosophical nominalism)

  20. The meaning of my life:

    I identify as a superstar MLB player, making $200,000,000. a year, I demand that everyone treat me as such…

    Reality:

    I’m a schlub in my 60’s who can’t throw from third base to first base, & I only have a couple thousand in the bank…

    In life, reality ALWAYS wins…

  21. “The bread and wine look and act exactly the same after you change their name. But by changing their name, they become what you say: the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord. The very essence, the ‘form’, the ‘substance’ of the bread and wine are ‘transubstantiated’: this is the faith of the Church.

    Nor could anyone seriously argue that the transubstantiation of the bread and wine is a ‘miraculous’ event; for, very much different from a miracle, the transubstantiation of the bread and wine at each and every valid Mass to the end of time is perfectly predictable, consistent, and regular. A miracle is scarcely a thing that directly contradicts the most fundamental laws of the universe predictably, consistently. regularly — and on spec.”

    Jesus Christ, True God and True man is the One Who proclaimed the words the first time, “THIS IS MY BODY. THIS IS MY BLOOD. ” And He said “DO THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME.” Read the passage in Scripture.
    He changed the bread and the wine into His Body and into His Blood, yes, while He was sitting there, before His Crucifixion. God can do whatever He wills to do, and this He did do.

    When the ordained priest prays those words, the Holy Spirit changes the bread into the Body of Jesus Christ, and the wine into the Blood of Christ. The action is not a renaming game, but a genuine reality of a miracle that can be known without a doubt, though the change is not physically observable.

    Jesus consistently contradicted the laws of the universe with His miracles, and He did His miracles so consistently and regularly along with His claim that He is the Son of God, that plots to kill Him were put in place. Read the Gospels and see Jesus raising the dead to life, healing the sick and the maimed, casting out devils and more. Miracles all over the place. All within only three years of public life. And then of course, Jesus Christ arose from the dead Himself!!

    God bless, C-Marie

  22. As far as I know, C-Marie, there is nothing to suggest that Christ was seated at the celebration of the Passover that became the Last Supper and the institution of the Immemorial, Everlasting Sacrifice except for some representations by the likes of Da Vinci.

    As far as I know many “Jewish” converts have remarked that the Catholic Mass is astonishingly reminiscent of a very reverent Passover celebration. It seems reasonable to me that it might be so if for no other reason than that Jesus said that He did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfil it and that all those wretched Apostles were “true Israelites” who had been in Jesus’ footsteps complying with all the valid and lawful prescriptions that presumed the obligation to God as in the first three Commandments.

    G’donya, C-Marie, even a blardy ole curmudgeon like me can be softened by your generous persistence.

  23. Johnno,

    Here’s where you screwed up: The difference between “meaning” and “reality.”

    Wrong. Kennedy’s statement as quoted by Briggs doesn’t mention ‘reality’, it mentions things that are subjective, like ‘concept of existence’ and ‘meaning’.

    Incidentally, I find it amusing to be lectured on not being allowed to have one’s own reality by someone who makes up their own reality all the time: blood pumps itself / tattoo shop owners are pandemic experts / the Bible doesn’t condone slavery / the election was stolen / COVID vaccines don’t work / etc. You hardly ever mention anything real!

  24. Incitadus,

    Q: What is a woman? A: Someone who menstruates with some degree of regularity, it’s not complicated.

    What about post-menopausal women?

  25. Y’ seem to be getting a bit flustered and desperate, fishy.

    As far as I know no one can prohibit you from “having your own reality” that has nothing much to do with reality. Uh oh! Now we have as many “realities” as there are imaginations + 1 (the real). Poor, silly ole Martin Luther said something very similar way back.

    Most of us ordinary people (not you, of course) can be fairly challenged to do the right thing according to the best of what we know. Now that’s a funny thing! If you have “your own reality” then everything is a subjective judgement without any immutable standard.

    Hmm. I can easily see how the predatory noisy hunters could “justify” institutionalised cannibalism because reality is whatever you conjecture that works for your convenience; if you’re in a dominant role, of course. Most of us Christian types don’t accept that all of our remote siblings are slaves or food. “Progressivism” is certainly the the way to somewhere but I don’t think it’s anything connected with good and true.

  26. Swordfish – if you do not like Briggs writing, it is easy to just not look at. Nevertheless, I would defend your right to free speech. The significant challenge would be your projection statement /COVID vaccines don’t work/ which like the others is an ad hominem attack. So much evidence points to the opposite but if one just listens to the mainstream, such a person would conclude as implanted in their mind. The tell-you vision programing inculcates people to engage in revenge against those who question the nasty narrative.

  27. Matt 26:20 20. But when it was evening, he sat down with his twelve disciples.

    More and more men have been persuaded by Dr Hahn that the Last Supper was a Seder but that is wrong because the Seder had yet to be invented and the seder was eaten standing

    Seder just means order

    https://nesceinet.blogspot.com

  28. The Seder (Order) Meal was developed by Rabbinical Judaism after Titus had destroyed the City of Deicide as this Jewish author states:

    “Almost everyone doing serious work on the early history of Passover traditions, including Joseph Tabory, Israel Yuval, Lawrence Hoffman, and the father-son team of Shmuel and Ze’ev Safrai, has rejected Finkelstein’s claims for the great antiquity of the bulk of the Passover Haggadah. What is particularly significant about this consensus is that these scholars are not radical skeptics. These scholars believe that, generally speaking, we can extract historically reliable information from rabbinic sources. But as demonstrated by the late Baruch Bokser in his book The Origins of the Seder, practically everything preserved in the early rabbinic traditions concerning the Passover Seder brings us back to the time immediately following the Roman destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E.12 It’s not that rabbinic literature cannot be trusted to tell us about history in the first century of the Common Era. It’s that rabbinic literature—in the case of the Seder—does not even claim to be telling us how the Seder was performed before the destruction of the Temple.”

    http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/jesus-historical-jesus/was-jesus-last-supper-a-seder/#end02

    Further background

    http://tinyurl.com/kvtv5u6

    http://judaism.about.com/od/passover/a/seder_golinkin.htm

    What we do know from Catholic Tradition is that Jesus did not just lead His Apostles in the celebration of a meal but a passover meal followed by the Insititution of the Eucharistic Sacrificial Meal (to stay with the meal analogy for the moment).

    Here is the great commentary of Cornelius a Lapide on that question:

    Council of Trent (Sess. 22, c. 1): “After Christ had celebrated the ancient Passover, which the multitude of the sons of Israel sacrificed in memory of their going out of Egypt, He instituted a new Passover, that He Himself should be immolated by the Church (ab ecclesia), by means of (per) the priests, under (sub) visible signs, in memory of His passage from this world to the Father, when He redeemed us by the shedding of His Blood, and delivered us from the power of darkness, and translated us to His Kingdom.”

    http://tinyurl.com/k34adv7

  29. But by changing their name, they become what you say: the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord.

    It is not what “you” say. The Holy Holocaust is the action of Jesus as both priest and victim. He is the one who acts through His priesthood to confect the eucharist and change the substance but not the accidents of bread and wine.

    There really is only one high priest (Jesus Christ) and the ordained men act as His ministers on earth but it is Jesus Himself who acts in the Holy Holocaust/Holy Sacrifice of the Mass

  30. Wrong. Kennedy’s statement as quoted by Briggs doesn’t mention ‘reality’, it mentions things that are subjective, like ‘concept of existence’ and ‘meaning’.

    And when your concepts don’t match up with reality you’re gonna beeee innn tttrrrooouuublllee! But it still doesn’t change the fact that you responded to something Briggs never claimed. My correcting you was to point out the error you routinely rest on. It would do you good to amend that.

    Incidentally, I find it amusing to be lectured on not being allowed to have one’s own reality by someone who makes up their own reality all the time: blood pumps itself / tattoo shop owners are pandemic experts / the Bible doesn’t condone slavery / the election was stolen / COVID vaccines don’t work / etc. You hardly ever mention anything real!

    That’s because you are continuously wrong about nearly everything you comment on!

    -You couldn’t explain how blood locomotes throughout a body without the presence of a heart that develops later while an organism grows! You ran away!

    -That fully qualified pandemic expert just happened to own/run a tattoo-removal side business! I’m sure your beloved Dr. Fauci also invests money in other non-medical related fields! What’s wrong with that? What are you doing with your life? Are you depending on socialism and welfare?

    -The Bible DOES allow slavery as a form of punishment/debt repayment! Just like the IRS, your local bank, VISA, MasterCard, and your ex-wife’s child alimony/divorce lawyer! Settle your debts and you can once again be a free man! The Bible also put a hard date on when you can be free regardless of your settlement! Your secular banks and government and college/university let you stay in debt in perpetuity! And they add more on you by printing cash for all those noble and woke goals they want to pursue! Hey, you even voted for them!

    -But Brandon just agreed on live-tele that the current set-up allows for stolen elections! As did Hillary in the previous one! As did all the Big Tech Silicon Valley boys and their media organs you love and look up to who all admitted they had to work really really hard to “fortify” it! That’s why da most popular President evar by vote tally is also the least popular president ever by every other metric before year 1 began or even ended! Hmmmm…. what was that thing about personal meanings versus reality? Well I guess that just like how Clinton was the first “black president” and Obama was the first “gay president”, Brandon is the first “trans-president”! What a time to be alive!

    -Covid vexxines don’t work! All your experts and fak-checkas agree! That’s why they push up to 5-7 boosters, or forever, and none of them save you from the great and powerful Omicron, eater of nations, devestator of worlds! They don’t prevent transmission, they don’t guarantee prevention of illness, they don’t guarantee prevention of hospitalization and death, they don’t provide any long lasting immunity past a hypothetical computer-modelled 6 months tops even when they are supppsedly working, they leave you more vulnerable to anything and anything within the initial 2-4 weeks when you are required to quarantine after taking one (guess why!), and the more boosters you take, the more it undermines your natural immune system, which is why the W.H.O. is begging everyone to stop, and even Israel is beginning to admit it when considering vexxine #5, and in places like France, everyone who had 2 shots is now considered unvexxed again and loses their Mark of the Vexx privileges to ride a bus and buy food from a big big supermarket without the new booster for the vexxine that authorities admit doesn’t work! And Pfizer is so confident in tgeir prpduct they begged to allow them a very convenient 80 years before they release any information related to their recipe, testing data and other procedures! Amazing!

    Don’t pretend that no-one here has confronted you multiple times about any of the above! You are straight-up lying by pretending to!

    I can back up everything I said! Using your own mainstream sources who are all beginning to back-pedal now! I can even use your own favorite fak-checkas you don’t read but link to to back me up! I post the real-sheet! What do you have? “Lookee meee! I’m an atheist with feeeelllings!”???

  31. I always enjoy Briggs’ tirades ~ plunging his plummed quill daggers straight into hearts of evil. However, labeling Justice Kennedy as a Satanist (or his writing as Satanism) bridles my sense of fair play. The quote: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” has already been targeted for much scribbled opprobrium by scads of armchair juridical wordsmiths.

    ¶Below find 2 links to some deeper (legal/political) analysis of the infamous quote:

    *1st [Justice Kennedy’s “Notorious Mystery Passage”]. How Case Context is essential to why Kennedy still gets so much HEAT for his personal verbiage on Liberty.

    https://www.libertymagazine.org/article/justice-kennedys-notorious-mystery-passage

    *2nd [Liberal Androgyny: “Gay Marriage” and the Meaning of Sexuality in Our Time] forceful on the notions ofThick vs. Thick Liberalism; and the advent of Hate Crime Laws spawning Victim Culture (full version PDF).

    https://www.communio-icr.com/articles/view/liberal-androgyny-gay-marriage

  32. Pope Leo XIII Libertas

    corrects the ideology of false liberty so beloved by Americans

    Since, however, both these faculties are imperfect, it is possible, as is often seen, that the reason should propose something which is not really good, but which has the appearance of good, and that the will should choose accordingly. For, as the possibility of error, and actual error, are defects of the mind and attest its imperfection, so the pursuit of what has a false appearance of good, though a proof of our freedom, just as a disease is a proof of our vitality, implies defect in human liberty. The will also, simply because of its dependence on the reason, no sooner desires anything contrary thereto than it abuses its freedom of choice and corrupts its very essence. Thus it is that the infinitely perfect God, although supremely free, because of the supremacy of His intellect and of His essential goodness, nevertheless cannot choose evil; neither can the angels and saints, who enjoy the beatific vision. St. Augustine and others urged most admirably against the Pelagians that, if the possibility of deflection from good belonged to the essence or perfection of liberty, then God, Jesus Christ, and the angels and saints, who have not this power, would have no liberty at all, or would have less liberty than man has in his state of pilgrimage and imperfection. This subject is often discussed by the Angelic Doctor in his demonstration that the possibility of sinning is not freedom, but slavery. It will suffice to quote his subtle commentary on the words of our Lord: “Whosoever committeth sin is the slave of sin.”(3) “Everything,” he says, “is that which belongs to it a naturally. When, therefore, it acts through a power outside itself, it does not act of itself, but through another, that is, as a slave. But man is by nature rational. When, therefore, he acts according to reason, he acts of himself and according to his free will; and this is liberty. Whereas, when he sins, he acts in opposition to reason, is moved by another, and is the victim of foreign misapprehensions. Therefore, `Whosoever committeth sin is the slave of sin.’ “(4) Even the heathen philosophers clearly recognized this truth, especially they who held that the wise man alone is free; and by the term “wise man” was meant, as is well known, the man trained to live in accordance with his nature, that is, in justice and virtue.

    Irrespective of the truth of what Pope Leo XII teaches , it can not be objected that if Kennedy can claim man can define his own existence Briggs can certainly identify that inanity as satanism

  33. More Pope Leo XIII LIBERTAS Link:
    http://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_20061888_libertas.html

    “Liberty, the highest of natural endowments, being the portion only of intellectual or rational natures, confers on man this dignity – that he is “in the hand of his counsel”(1) and has power over his actions. But the manner in which such dignity is exercised is of the greatest moment, inasmuch as on the use that is made of liberty the highest good and the greatest evil alike depend. Man, indeed, is free to obey his reason, to seek moral good, and to strive unswervingly after his last end. Yet he is free also to turn aside to all other things; and, in pursuing the empty semblance of good, to disturb rightful order and to fall headlong into the destruction which he has voluntarily chosen. The Redeemer of mankind, Jesus Christ, having restored and exalted the original dignity of nature, vouchsafed special assistance to the will of man; and by the gifts of His grace here, and the promise of heavenly bliss hereafter, He raised it to a nobler state. In like manner, this great gift of nature has ever been, and always will be, deservingly cherished by the Catholic Church, for to her alone has been committed the charge of handing down to all ages the benefits purchased for us by Jesus Christ. Yet there are many who imagine that the Church is hostile to human liberty. Having a false and absurd notion as to what liberty is, either they pervert the very idea of freedom, or they extend it at their pleasure to many things in respect of which man cannot rightly be regarded as free.”

    God bless, C-Marie

  34. Re: Mass and the Holy Spirit …

    Link: https://www.catholic.org/clife/jesus/eucharist.php

    “Recalling these words of Jesus, the Catholic Church professes that, in the celebration of the Eucharist, bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit and the instrumentality of the priest.

    Jesus said: “I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world. . . . For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink” (Jn 6:51-55). The whole Christ is truly present, body, blood, soul, and divinity, under the appearances of bread and wine–the glorified Christ who rose from the dead after dying for our sins. This is what the Church means when she speaks of the “Real Presence” of Christ in the Eucharist.

    This presence of Christ in the Eucharist is called “real” not to exclude other types of his presence as if they could not be understood as real (cf. Catechism, no. 1374). The risen Christ is present to his Church in many ways, but most especially through the sacrament of his Body and Blood.”

    God bless, C-Marie

  35. The quote: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the
    universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

    ~ “the right” ~ {Constitutionally protected right; this is all which SCOTUS decides}
    ~ “to define one’s own concept of existence” ~ {Intellectually; without giving license to any consequent action}

    The sentence which Kennedy contributed was “dictum” (language in addition to but considered non-essential in the Court’s decision). So, the law which the (Planned Parenthood v. Casey) case decided was not legitimated by any “reasoning” contained in the sentence. Had Kennedy instead written the polar opposite: “There is NO Constitutionally protected right to define one’s own concept of existence…” this would have conflicted with The Establishment clause of First Amendment. One might argue that the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights is in part Satanic ~ but anyone making that ‘climb’ should be ready to risk a great fall.

  36. Dear Jan. One might argue that the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights is in art Satanic-

    Christopher A. Ferrara “Liberty, The God that Failed” wrote an entire book showing how that is satanic.

    Dr. Vieria explains how we have a La Coss Nostra govt and not a res publica

    http://www.devvy.com/edwin_20000710.html

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.