Hi Wolf, I very much enjoyed your conversation with Dr. Haugen, I appreciated your sincerity and didn't misinterpret your self-evidently knowledge and truth based opinions as personal hubris since I have independent verification of many points. Your honest style mostly carries one over pieces of information that may be new and concerning. Having said that I would like to hear a conversation that presents evidence, for example, of your assertions about +Williamson. A fair criticism to make of you (I believe) is that anonymous revelations such as these may at least appear to carry the risk of being calumnious (I assume that you have good faith reasons for believing they are not), but in what way are they not amounting to detraction, unless these facts (my assumption, assuming your good faith, but I've not seen other sources so cannot be certain) are actually quite widely known, sufficient at least that disclosure to a wider audience is not detraction.
You won't be surprised to hear that you divided opinion, men tend to strongly approve as do particularly robust members of the fair sex who no longer entertain nice illusions in any significant degree. Doug seemed nervous in the first half but got in his stride later. I expect he feared you might be a loose cannon. He need not have feared, I know from having followed you for a while and reading all your content that you have a masterful command of the metanarrative. In some posts you stamp on our toes mercilessly but in others reveal glimpses of being conciliatory to the genuinely ignorant. There is a challenge for us, I think I've subscribed and later unsubscribed at least twice because of some particularly forthright post with which I felt exasperated. But I came back seeing another post of exceptional quality.
My point being that a two hour conversation is a much more holistic opportunity for your great strengths to greatly outweigh any weaknesses. Doug has the humility and sincere desire for truth to give you your head and there is strong support from his audience for more. I'd like to see you working cooperatively together which will take work as, like me, you are choleric in temperament (I think), but he is not. Choleric tempered by age and experience, he does appreciate in my experience of him.
I'd love to hear conversations going in depth into the historic development of the ecclesia-simulacra. I believe a hatchet job on Catholic influencers is unnecessary and could sound off. We all know their faults. Let's have a few deep dives, maybe starting from the Scholastic summit?
Thanks for the very erudite and frank comment. As far as Bishop Williamson is concerned, I am profoundly disappointed in the man. As a successor to the Apostles, he should be a leader and an inspiration. Instead, he tends to be like Donald Trump, and has a knack for picking fights that seem to do much more damage than good. One example was his bombastic criticism of Julie Andrews in her role in "The Sound of Music" (by far the most popular film of Trad Women in America everywhere) as a Feminazi, especially when she stood up to the Captain and told him she was not going to answer to his flute calls like a Border Collie. (I never saw that as being a Feminazi, but as asserting human dignity.) Seriously your excellency, back in the '90's we had much bigger fish to fry. He was also downright cowardly when he was exposed at the airport in Argentina after trying to leave the country incognito by a perceptive reported. He also "lost it" and tried to grab the man's collar when being asked questions about his "Holocaust Denial". Hardly the dignified reaction of a Prince of the Church, I would say. Then, while he was more or less inlimbo in Wimbledon, he would make all manner of insinuations on his "Eleison Comments" blog concerning Bishop Fellay and how he was betraying the founding principles of the SSPX. Why not just come out and call a spade a spade and tell Fellay he is going to lead the SSPX on the path chartered by its founder, and all appearances of unity be damned. Still later, he betrayed Fr Pfeiifer and the Marian Corps by supporting Fr Zendehas and his underhanded machinations to steal a chapel and funds from the Marian Corps. He also publicly denigrated Fr Pfiefer and his "usurpation" at a Fatima conference with Fr Gruner. Now, whatever one's opinions of Fr Pfeiifer and the Marian Corps might be, skulduggery is skulduggery by any other name. It was stated to me by the Editor of the Recusant Newspaper- the press corps of the Marian Corps- that Bishop Williamson recommended a known pederast priests to a group forming a Traditional Chapel somewhere in England. Then there is Bishop Williamson's role in the whole Fr Urroitiouty Affair, which is really quite damning. But Bishop Williamson has his Amen Corner, especially over at Catholic Info- from which I have been formally excommunicated for mentioning some of these facts, and other dupes and operatives who just want to flush all these unsavory facts down the memory hole, and pretend Bishop Williamson is the second coming of St Athanasius.
My notifications on Substack lit like the proverbial Christmas Tree last evening, which was evidence to me that a lot of people saw the interview and appreciated it. Dr Deep State and I did not even scratch the surface. We could have had a lengthy conversation about why I think the Novus Ordo sacraments are invalid, for example, or how Pear Harbor was planned years in advance on both sides of the Pacific- any number of proverbial rabbit holes. We also could have had a long conversation concerning the Deep Church and how it works in tandem with the deep state, of which the good doctor is one of the very few who shares my views.
Yes, he was exceptionally nervous that first half hour or so. I suppose he was afraid I was going to start talking about Nephtilim, Space Monsters, Green Lizards, Kazaria, or any of those esoteric Batshit diversions Operation Mockingbird has crafted for those getting clued in to the true state of affairs.
Yes, I know I am controversial, and I also know there are a lot of Snowflakes out there, even in Traditional Catholicism- for which I mainly blame the priests, who seem much more interested in the dinner menu and the soccer field than Our Lady of Fatima or eschatology. The crop of SSPX ordinands of the '90's was indeed, on the whole, a sorry lot, and seemed more interested in long dicey conversations with women over the phone, than building Catholic Communities. Our Pilgrimages were basically junkets, as were the Catholic Conferences.
Yes, those of us fresh from the Bogus Ordo loved to share our war stories, but as the months passed we should have been spending more time before the Blessed Sacrament than rushing down to the Holy Coffee and Donuts.
Please God that I atone for all my deficiencies during the '90's, and continue to advance as an Apostle of Our Lady.
Hi Wolf, I very much enjoyed your conversation with Dr. Haugen, I appreciated your sincerity and didn't misinterpret your self-evidently knowledge and truth based opinions as personal hubris since I have independent verification of many points. Your honest style mostly carries one over pieces of information that may be new and concerning. Having said that I would like to hear a conversation that presents evidence, for example, of your assertions about +Williamson. A fair criticism to make of you (I believe) is that anonymous revelations such as these may at least appear to carry the risk of being calumnious (I assume that you have good faith reasons for believing they are not), but in what way are they not amounting to detraction, unless these facts (my assumption, assuming your good faith, but I've not seen other sources so cannot be certain) are actually quite widely known, sufficient at least that disclosure to a wider audience is not detraction.
You won't be surprised to hear that you divided opinion, men tend to strongly approve as do particularly robust members of the fair sex who no longer entertain nice illusions in any significant degree. Doug seemed nervous in the first half but got in his stride later. I expect he feared you might be a loose cannon. He need not have feared, I know from having followed you for a while and reading all your content that you have a masterful command of the metanarrative. In some posts you stamp on our toes mercilessly but in others reveal glimpses of being conciliatory to the genuinely ignorant. There is a challenge for us, I think I've subscribed and later unsubscribed at least twice because of some particularly forthright post with which I felt exasperated. But I came back seeing another post of exceptional quality.
My point being that a two hour conversation is a much more holistic opportunity for your great strengths to greatly outweigh any weaknesses. Doug has the humility and sincere desire for truth to give you your head and there is strong support from his audience for more. I'd like to see you working cooperatively together which will take work as, like me, you are choleric in temperament (I think), but he is not. Choleric tempered by age and experience, he does appreciate in my experience of him.
I'd love to hear conversations going in depth into the historic development of the ecclesia-simulacra. I believe a hatchet job on Catholic influencers is unnecessary and could sound off. We all know their faults. Let's have a few deep dives, maybe starting from the Scholastic summit?
Thanks again and God bless you!
Thanks for the very erudite and frank comment. As far as Bishop Williamson is concerned, I am profoundly disappointed in the man. As a successor to the Apostles, he should be a leader and an inspiration. Instead, he tends to be like Donald Trump, and has a knack for picking fights that seem to do much more damage than good. One example was his bombastic criticism of Julie Andrews in her role in "The Sound of Music" (by far the most popular film of Trad Women in America everywhere) as a Feminazi, especially when she stood up to the Captain and told him she was not going to answer to his flute calls like a Border Collie. (I never saw that as being a Feminazi, but as asserting human dignity.) Seriously your excellency, back in the '90's we had much bigger fish to fry. He was also downright cowardly when he was exposed at the airport in Argentina after trying to leave the country incognito by a perceptive reported. He also "lost it" and tried to grab the man's collar when being asked questions about his "Holocaust Denial". Hardly the dignified reaction of a Prince of the Church, I would say. Then, while he was more or less inlimbo in Wimbledon, he would make all manner of insinuations on his "Eleison Comments" blog concerning Bishop Fellay and how he was betraying the founding principles of the SSPX. Why not just come out and call a spade a spade and tell Fellay he is going to lead the SSPX on the path chartered by its founder, and all appearances of unity be damned. Still later, he betrayed Fr Pfeiifer and the Marian Corps by supporting Fr Zendehas and his underhanded machinations to steal a chapel and funds from the Marian Corps. He also publicly denigrated Fr Pfiefer and his "usurpation" at a Fatima conference with Fr Gruner. Now, whatever one's opinions of Fr Pfeiifer and the Marian Corps might be, skulduggery is skulduggery by any other name. It was stated to me by the Editor of the Recusant Newspaper- the press corps of the Marian Corps- that Bishop Williamson recommended a known pederast priests to a group forming a Traditional Chapel somewhere in England. Then there is Bishop Williamson's role in the whole Fr Urroitiouty Affair, which is really quite damning. But Bishop Williamson has his Amen Corner, especially over at Catholic Info- from which I have been formally excommunicated for mentioning some of these facts, and other dupes and operatives who just want to flush all these unsavory facts down the memory hole, and pretend Bishop Williamson is the second coming of St Athanasius.
My notifications on Substack lit like the proverbial Christmas Tree last evening, which was evidence to me that a lot of people saw the interview and appreciated it. Dr Deep State and I did not even scratch the surface. We could have had a lengthy conversation about why I think the Novus Ordo sacraments are invalid, for example, or how Pear Harbor was planned years in advance on both sides of the Pacific- any number of proverbial rabbit holes. We also could have had a long conversation concerning the Deep Church and how it works in tandem with the deep state, of which the good doctor is one of the very few who shares my views.
Yes, he was exceptionally nervous that first half hour or so. I suppose he was afraid I was going to start talking about Nephtilim, Space Monsters, Green Lizards, Kazaria, or any of those esoteric Batshit diversions Operation Mockingbird has crafted for those getting clued in to the true state of affairs.
Yes, I know I am controversial, and I also know there are a lot of Snowflakes out there, even in Traditional Catholicism- for which I mainly blame the priests, who seem much more interested in the dinner menu and the soccer field than Our Lady of Fatima or eschatology. The crop of SSPX ordinands of the '90's was indeed, on the whole, a sorry lot, and seemed more interested in long dicey conversations with women over the phone, than building Catholic Communities. Our Pilgrimages were basically junkets, as were the Catholic Conferences.
Yes, those of us fresh from the Bogus Ordo loved to share our war stories, but as the months passed we should have been spending more time before the Blessed Sacrament than rushing down to the Holy Coffee and Donuts.
Please God that I atone for all my deficiencies during the '90's, and continue to advance as an Apostle of Our Lady.
In the Holy Hearts of Jesus and Mary.