Platonic Guardian

@nabtweets @FCC Absolutely no paywalls for material broadcast on the public airwaves. That means no IP requirements to watch TV and no DRM @BrendanCarrFCC!

📺⚾ When games move behind paywalls, fans pay the price. The @FCC is asking for public input on the future of how fans watch sports. Make your voice heard and help keep live sports free and accessible on broadcast TV! speak4.app/lp/va01mn3r

@FeserEdward You're obviously miffed that people are rejecting your analysis of the facts. Much like your initial posts on the Venezuela operation, you have left out key facts that undermine your conclusion.

It’s astounding how many people (including many Catholics) treat the question of whether the Iran war meets just war criteria as if the burden of proof were on the critics of the war rather than on the defenders. This is like saying that when deciding whether to execute someone, the burden of proof is on those who say that the condemned man is innocent, rather than on those who say he is guilty. Most would never take this insanely reckless attitude if the other party were in power, even if the issue were less momentous than war. For example, most of these same people (rightly) did not take this ridiculous “the burden of proof is on the critics” attitude where lockdowns were concerned. This alone shows how corrupted by partisanship and emotion their judgment on the war has become.

Dragons? Yes.

@RAZ0RFIST "I get no respect, I tell you. When my parent's got divorced, they had a custody hearing, and nobody showed up."

"What a childhood I had. My parents sent me to a Child Psychiatrist. The kid didn't help me at all."

@TaylorRMarshall Yup, Republicans don't hate Jews enough for Traddies and, of course, resisting Mohammadean aggression and oppression is unjust. The pre-Vatican II manuals of theology really are helpful aren't they. 🙄

Republicans will lose more Catholics. Over the last 2 decades, Republicans began to attract Catholic voters on issues like marriage and pro-life causes, but the rabid Republican zeal for Zionism and unjust wars will push Catholics back away. Seems like Republicans love to lose.

@ThomasConnorsJr You know what's a good palate cleanser? Reminding @THR and @Variety how much @onebattlemovie made at the box office. 😌

*sigh

@howaboutafresca You're watching "Weekend at Bernie's"? 🤔

Walking in to theater for the 2 1/2 hour documentary on the Jets franchise!

@EricRSammons @CrisisMag Nope, it fits the criteria when the facts are all taken into account rather than selectively analyzed.

To claim we can’t know if this conflict satisfies the criteria of a just war is an insidious error. We can know if the Iran War is just or unjust, simply by applying Catholic teaching to the public facts. Spoiler: It's unjust. My latest for @CrisisMag: crisismagazine.com/opinion/why-i-…

@AlexBerenson Pathetic Troll: Trump set up an insane deadline! Trump: The Islamic fascists are capitulating, so we won't bomb their power plants. Pathetic Troll: See! Trump humiliated himself!

Looks like the old man chose B, humiliating climbdown. (Does he think it's less humiliating in ALL CAPS?) Whew

@FeserEdward It wasn't for Bill Clinton, it won't be Trump. Crippling the civilian massacring Mohammadean government will be just.

A reminder from George Weigel, well-known for defending various U.S. military interventions, that just war doctrine rules out deliberate attacks on civilian infrastructure. What Trump is threatening to do to Iran’s power plants would be a war crime.

@wil_da_beast630 It's all Trump's fault of course, because killing terrorists makes them want to commit more terrorism.

Where my International Law Enjoyers at?

@JackPosobiec Sharing Chinese propaganda now, I see.

Iranian missile impacts through air defenses

@FeserEdward @CatholicPods Considering how often you throw around the absurd accusation of jingoism, you are the least justified in calling TDS a fairytale. Throughout the numerous rants you've posted, many of us posted facts in contradiction to your conclusions which you go on to ignore.

No reasonable person could read the thread and say that. Even if you disagree with the conclusion, it is obvious how a reasonable case against the war would follow from the principles cited from the manuals. The truth is that you are invested in the silly fiction that only "TDS" could motivate someone to oppose the war.

This thread settles it as far as I am concerned. The war is unjust.

@Variety They aren't putting the woke away, so we're putting the press away. breitbart.com/the-media/2026…

Chuck Norris Was a Great Action Star -- but Politics May Overshadow His Legacy variety.com/2026/film/opin…

@AThinksAloud Christians are happy to accept the risks. I support Israel, but they have no right to keep Christians from worshipping at their holiest site during the holiest part of the year. Freedom of religion matters or it doesn't.

It’s because the jihadis are trying to bomb it and massacre all the Christians inside, but don’t let that stop you from being mad at the JOOOOOS

@wil_da_beast630 @GiffLasta Failure to read Aristotle is how you end up with condescending posts like this one.

Heh heh. I mean, that is where (1) bodies with (2) brains come from, yes. But, as re the story-book stuff: if your faith imagines some kind of immortal metaphysical spark inside people - beyond pure food energy that animates neurons and moves matter -this raises quite a few MORE questions, eh? Does God create a new spark for every human ever born? Do you believe all of these living sparks go to "Heaven" or "Hell" after a life that lasts a global average of 68 years...and simply stay there for the remainder of time? For our Eastern brothers, with a slightly better cosmology: YOU think they come back to animate new people - but how are there 100x as many ensouled people as there used to be? Are all people "ensouled," for that matter? At the most basic level, where are Heaven and Hell located? These are often dismissed as "Reddit atheist" sort of questions - but the greatest religious divine of many peoples and two hemispheres seem utterly unable to provide non-glib answers to them :).

There are a lot of very PRACTICAL problems with religion. For my Buddhists and very trad Christians: the global population has increased from 50M to 8B over just a few years. Where are all these new "souls"......coming from?

@wil_da_beast630 @FeserEdward has you covered.

@ConceptualJames #Crashout

Liberals in the correct technical use of the word do not oppress Catholics. They extend them full equal, religious, and civil rights and defend those rights. Liberals in the misused sense, however, meaning Leftists and European-style liberals, very frequently ARE Catholics.

@phdhomeschooler @ConceptualJames Unlike prior Popes, Saint John Paul understood that Capitalism with a Christian conscience can serve the good of mankind. That's what he's saying in the texts you cited.

@PlatonicGuard @ConceptualJames Goals include redistribution of wealth on the global scale and world government coordination for said efforts.

So Integralism is in the discourse today. What is it? Integralism BEGAN as a Catholic political and economic doctrine in the late 19th century, first explained by Pope Leo XIII, et al. The short version is that it holds that there is proper justification for the state, Church, and economy (in a subordinate way) to be re-INTEGRAted. That is, it believes the Church and state should merge and control the economy for the good of everyone. The original point was that Catholic moral principles should structure the state and the economy for what it defines as the "common good." The reason given is that there are two spheres of authority, Temporal (political, State) and Spiritual (haha "not political," Church) that both need their own management but that the demands of the Spiritual sphere, thus Spiritual authority, supervene Temporal authority. In short, Integralists believe that political authority should ALIGN with Spiritual authority, which they just so happen to have a monopoly of legitimate control over, in their own opinion, of course. The reason for this is that the Spiritual goals of humanity are its highest calling. Therefore, the state must operate as the state but must be brought into alignment or be subordinated to the Church. In practice, this means that the Church authority will be able to use the temporal authority of the state to compel people in ways the Church, in its own sight, deems best for their spiritual circumstances. Humans, they say, have both temporal and spiritual ends, but the spiritual ones are higher, so the temporal ones have to serve the spiritual ones. They frame this as "promotion of the common good," which is also something they define. The view is that the state has the duty to promote "true religion" and to direct citizens to the right beliefs in and duties before God, as they see it. Part of this includes ordering the economy in which citizens engage in the management of many of their "temporal ends." (This could be managed, one might imagine, through something like Church-arranged social credit, for example. Indeed, a social credit system like they have in China is very much like a Communist Integralist system instead of a Catholic one, at least in how it manages the economy and using state power to coerce people toward what that faith believes is man's highest end, the fully realized completion of socialism.) Integralism goes on to include a critique and rejection of classical liberalism, religious liberty, economic liberty, modernism and modernity, and whatever they mean by "the" Enlightenment (as if there was just one). In its rejection of religious pluralism, Integralism often demands a single expression of faith in public. While it may tolerate or allow private belief of other faiths, it is the state's temporal role to urge citizens toward their one correct (in their opinion) spiritual end and to therefore prohibit and even punish public expressions or displays of other faiths as being generally damaging to social cohesion and unity and thus the magical "common good." Pursuant to that, while Integralism isn't specifically anti-Semitic in its expressed character, its open rejection of religious pluralism tends to make it anti-Semitic in practice, which tends to remind its adherents to look for theological and scriptural reasons to blame Jews for the problems of society. See, people practicing the unapproved faiths in public damages the public circumstance and the common good, and "being Jewish" counts. Finding theological or scriptural justifications for these odious beliefs tends to follow. Though Integralism began as a Catholic politico-economic doctrine, there's nothing in particular that would limit it to Catholic beliefs if you jimmy the underlying theologies enough. Protestants who believe in the state being the steward or shepherd of man's ends could very easily adopt an Integralist framework and, in recent years, have done so consciously and explicitly within the so-called "Christian Nationalism" movement. Due to political alignment, like a kind of Integralist Intersectionality, there is even now an "ecumenical Integralism" project where the Catholic and Protestant exponents pretend they can get along. What this really means is using the Schmittian friend-enemy distinction to ally themselves against their common enemy, which is the American Constitution and American religious liberty. This is an experiment that is being tried in America today, and it hasn't been going well. Look no further than Yoram Hazony's National Conservatism (NatCon) to see what "ecumenical Integralism" combined with a renewed religious nationalist model brought as fruit. Poor Yoram! Needless to say, most Catholics, especially American ones, do not subscribe to Integralism, and most Protestants not only reject it but laugh at the very idea as a kind of trick of Rome. Nonetheless, it has become a moderately significant movement that has a lot to do with the current idiocy many of us call the Woke Right. You may or may not recognize all of the names involved, but you'll probably recognize some of them. Harvard law professor Adrian Vermeule is probably the progenitor of this idiocy, having come to it after wanting to force Carl Schmitt's Nazi legal theories into American society to justify the tyranny we adopted after 9/11 and then finding Catholic Integralism as a suitable vehicle to subvert the American order and engage in the libido dominandi (lust for dominance) behind all authoritarianism. Aside from him, false luminaries like Chad Pecknold, R.R. Reno, Gladden Pappin, Patrick Deneen, Sohrab Amarhi, and their buddies Kevin Roberts and J.D. Vance are either Integralists or well within Integralist enclaves, among others. This doesn't count the raft of moronic "Protestant Integralist" hangers-on who don't realize the role they're playing or how it's going to work out for them in the end (these are hard to find because most of them have deleted most of the evidence that they publicly held such a dimwitted view, mostly in 2022 and 2023). So while the young neo-Catholics of today are out howling about attacks on them in the present, you barely have to scratch most of them a little to find out that they're actually defending Integralist tyranny in the name of Catholicism (hashtag NotOurShield). They're something else, though, and it's good to know what and what's really going on here.