Recent posts

#21

Forum-Related / Thank you.

Last post by justjeff - February 04, 2026, 11:27:27 PM

Thank you.

That did in fact fix it.

#22

General Discussion / Re: AI poised to be the indust...

Last post by Geremia - February 04, 2026, 11:25:29 PM

far fewer would be needed

Intelligent, moral humans would be needed.

In his book, Economics in One Lesson, Henry Hazlett has some excellent counterpoints to the arguments that have historically come up regarding industrialization taking away human jobs. The dire predictions about the drastic reduction in jobs never turned out to be correct in the grand scheme of things. They certainly might cause job losses in some places, but would result in job gains and a greater standard of living for more people.

His book contained many examples of that counterintuitive fact. My father-in-law's situation was a striking example of that phenomenon. He was a carpenter as a very young lad after WWII. The carpenters union fought against the use of power tools on the job. Using electric saws and drills would reduce the number of carpenter hours needed to build a home, quite obviously. But they lost that battle, and it turned out that far more carpenters had jobs after those time saving tools boosted their productivity. The relative cost of homes dropped, allowing more people to purchase new homes, or to have older ones renovated or expanded.

Interesting example.
Yes, technology is morally neutral, but its use isn't.

#23

Forum-Related / Re: «The World Brain: Google's...

Last post by Geremia - February 04, 2026, 11:13:43 PM

Google changed their former, rather unusual motto, "Don't be evil"

That's only half of the first principle of natural law (Wuellner, S.J., Summary of Scholastic Principles p. 382):

A. Good is to be done and evil is to be avoided (as far as possible).
B. Do the necessary good; avoid evil, confer 336 [="The primary and unifying principle of the law is: Do the necessary good; avoid evil." (p. 335)]

Alphabet's new motto "Do the right thing" is better.

#24

Dogma & Doctrine / Re: Is Pope Leo XIV a true pop...

Last post by Geremia - February 04, 2026, 11:06:17 PM

We have had bad popes before, but even Pope Honorius was not a heretic "in intention". He was "just" negligent in defending the faith as was his duty.

Correct. See what St. Robert Bellarmine says on Pope Honorius in Papal Error?: A Defense of Popes said to have Erred in Fatih ch. 4.

#25

Forum-Related / Re: Is there a way to adjust t...

Last post by Geremia - February 04, 2026, 09:52:52 PM

It should be here: https://isidore.co/forum/index.php?action=profile;area=theme;u=261

#26

General Discussion / Re: AI poised to be the indust...

Last post by justjeff - February 04, 2026, 05:51:35 AM

humans are no longer needed for labour

Humans will always be needed.

Sure, but his thesis, despite that snippet, wasn't that no humans would be needed in the future because of AI advances, but that far fewer would be needed. That seems almost self-evident to me.

The question, really boils down to whether that will be a boon to society and to the world, or whether it will lead to a more dystopian society.

From my perspective, it is a tool, and like all tools it can be used for good or evil.

I would bet that he is right in saying that we are coming to a big decision point and things could go extremely well, extremely badly or anywhere in between... in a relatively short time.

John Senior lamented the destruction the industrial revolution inflicted upon Catholic Culture. He felt that although that revolution brought about great increases in productivity and upon material wealth in general, it turned society on its head at the time, creating much misery in some quarters... poverty in some, and a great concentration of wealth in others. Over time, that material wealth and the benefits of that productivity "trickled down" if you will to the masses, resulting in a standard of living unprecedented in world history. But Mr. Senior would probably posit that the tradeoff was not really worth it. That the moral fabric of society and of families was stronger before that particular economic revolution and that people are not really in fact better off now than when they didn't have the material wealth now available to virtually everyone. They were happier then, didn't have the suicide rates nor the mental derangements or moral depravity that is all too common now.

I can see and understand his point of view, though I'm not convinced that Satan's attacks on the Church and upon humanity would not have had similar deleterious effects even without the industrial revolution. But he may be right.

In his book, Economics in One Lesson, Henry Hazlett has some excellent counterpoints to the arguments that have historically come up regarding industrialization taking away human jobs. The dire predictions about the drastic reduction in jobs never turned out to be correct in the grand scheme of things. They certainly might cause job losses in some places, but would result in job gains and a greater standard of living for more people.

His book contained many examples of that counterintuitive fact. My father-in-law's situation was a striking example of that phenomenon. He was a carpenter as a very young lad after WWII. The carpenters union fought against the use of power tools on the job. Using electric saws and drills would reduce the number of carpenter hours needed to build a home, quite obviously. But they lost that battle, and it turned out that far more carpenters had jobs after those time saving tools boosted their productivity. The relative cost of homes dropped, allowing more people to purchase new homes, or to have older ones renovated or expanded.

Despite that fact, there is still uncertainty as to whether that same phenomenon will play out in the future. I love using the nascent AI tools at my disposal. They save me time in digging through a lot of web pages or books to find an answer. They have the promise of making everyone more efficient, and improving our lives in countless ways.

But it is also true that we see powerful people in powerful groups who have been calling for world depopulation on a grand scale. Some have called for cutting world population by some 90%. Evil organizations such as Planned Parenthood have no shortage of wealthy sponsors. Powerful eugenicists funded Margaret Sanger from the beginning, and have promoted people like Peter Singer. The idea of breeding a race of thoroughbreds or of an elite class that really doesn't need so many of the "useless eaters" has not died away. The idea that humans are a scourge on the earth has grown in popularity, if anything.

#27

Forum-Related / Re: «The World Brain: Google's...

Last post by justjeff - February 04, 2026, 05:04:28 AM

Google has some great tools, but seems rather dangerous.

The CIA funded them in a big way, and Google was certainly a tool of the state in locking down discussions during the covid lockdowns and so on. The Obama/Biden admin seemed to become quite draconian and the CIA funded organizations were all quite compliant in helping them quash discussions and information dissemination that they didn't want.

Of course, when Google changed their former, rather unusual motto, "Don't be evil", it raised some eyebrows.

Their hoovering up of so much info, such as these millions of books, apparently through deception in some/many cases, and their obvious disregard for the law, and their deceptive tactics in locking down their hold on all of that information is concerning. It seems to follow on their tactic of scanning all of the roads, which which led to a great tool in Google Earth and street view, but also using that opportunity to also hoover up info from private networks.

Red flags should be popping up all over. It is giving them power and the opportunity to use it for good or evil. I don't want to bet the world that they in fact will not use it for evil.

#28

Forum-Related / Is there a way to adjust the t...

Last post by justjeff - February 04, 2026, 04:53:04 AM

Sorry if I'm missing some basic setting on here.

#29

General Discussion / Re: Ernest Hello and Leon Bloy

Last post by 1v1lolonline - February 04, 2026, 04:32:35 AM

Hello's mentorship and his shared belief in the visions of Marie Roulet suggest he was the primary source for the "Paracletist" and millenarian ideas that later led to Bloy's controversial "Luciferian" reputation.
1v1 lol

#30

Dogma & Doctrine / Re: Is Pope Leo XIV a true pop...

Last post by justjeff - February 04, 2026, 03:53:17 AM

What are your thoughts on this?

I think Leo XIV is at least validly elected, thus at least a material pope; cf. Des Lauriers, O.P.'s Cassiciacum thesis.

Thank you for your response and the link.

Does that mean that you are a sedeprivationist?
As a side note, I'm struggling a bit to follow along, as this is largely new territory for me & I'm not even familiar with the basic terms. For instance, I had to look up both "Pythagorean and its relationship to Freemasonry" and also sedeprivationism.

I haven't had time to read through most of the information on your link yet, but it appears to be a back and forth discussion with respect to sedeprivationism. For instance, it starts off with: Is sedeprivationism a revival of the Waldensians', Hus's, and Wycliffe's heresy?

If I understand it correctly, sedeprivationism seems somewhat similar to the situation the early Christians were faced with during the time of Christ.:

Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.
...14 "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither enter yourselves, nor allow those who would enter to go in. 15 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you traverse sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.
...31 Thus you witness against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers. 33 You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?
(Matthew 23:1-3, 13-15, 31-33)

Of course the image of a viper is an allusion to Satan, and his spawn would be a brood of vipers. Our Lord makes that allusion even more specific in the Gospel of John:

You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. (John 8:44)

I've heard it said that we get the rulers that we deserve. In any event, we know that none would be rulers unless Our Lord at least acquiesced in letting them assume that position of leadership, as we see when Our Lord addressed Pontius Pilate:

Jesus answered him, "You would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above, (John 19-11).

The Church has always greatly valued obedience, even when orders are unfair and apparently against what we think Our Lord would will. Some examples would be saints who were prohibited from offering public Masses or hearing confessions. They always submitted to the will of their superiors, no matter how absurd or even seemingly in contravention to Our Lord's Great Commission to his Church.

and yet I struggle to understand how we are to have this play out in our own lives on a practical, day to day level. In yet other places Our Lord warns us to beware of wolves in sheep's clothing:

15 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? 17 So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. 18 A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will know them by their fruits. (Matthew 7:15-20)

and St. Paul says:

But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8)

The bottom line, it seems to me, is that at some point there is a line that will be crossed when a false prophet/heretic is, or will be, in the Chair of Peter. We have already had at least one instance where a duly elected pope has been proclaimed a heretic, albeit after the fact:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm#VI

 Pope St. Agatho sent legates to preside at a general council which met at Constantinople on 7 Nov., 680. ...In the final acclamations, anathema to Honorius, among the other heretics, was shouted. The solemn dogmatic decree, signed by the legates, all the bishops, and the emperor, condemns the heretics mentioned by St. Agatho "and also Honorius who was pope of elder Rome" ...Honorius was not condemned by the council as a Monothelite, but for approving Sergius's contradictory policy of placing orthodox and heretical expressions under the same ban. ... The fault of Honorius lay precisely in the fact that he had not authoritatively published that unchanging faith of his Church, in modern language, that he had not issued a definition ex cathedra.

Though he died before the council concluded, Pope St. Agatho agreed with the council's proclamation of Pope Honorius as a heretic, & his successor, Pope Leo II in his letter of confirmation wrote ""We anathematize the inventors of the new error , that is, Theodore, Sergius, ...and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted."

and in a letter to the Spanish bishops Pope Leo wrote: "With Honorius, who did not, as became the Apostolic authority, extinguish the flame of heretical teaching in its first beginning, but fostered it by his negligence."

Pope Honorius was subsequently included in the lists of heretics anathematized by the Trullan Synod, and by the seventh & eighth ecumenical councils... also in the oath taken by every new pope from the eighth century to the eleventh

"He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact;"

We have had bad popes before, but even Pope Honorius was not a heretic "in intention". He was "just" negligent in defending the faith as was his duty. It seems to me that Pope Francis was intentionally trying to undermine the faith, and some are contending that Pope Leo XIV is also trying to undermine the faith, but is more subtle about it than his predecessor. I don't think there is any precedent for a pope or popes trying to destroy the faith handed down to us from the Apostles.

If that is true, would such a pope really be the pope? If the False Prophet or the Antichrist were to ascend to the throne would he in fact be the material pope?