Tag Archives: One Peter Five

Alinski’s Rules for Radicals, used against the Church

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Saul Alinsky was a radical Marxist Jew from Chicago, USA, who before his death, compiled 13 demonic rules for how to overthrow social groups, based on his experience in organizing collective action against established political, social and religious structures. He published these in a book entitled, Rules for Radicals. — Here, the word, “radical” means a Marxist of the Gramescian kind who seeks to undermine a non-Marxist society from within so as to bring down the system, rather than organizing the proletariat for open armed revolution.

Alinsky’s 10 Rules for Radicals are a sort of luciferian way of practicing deceit in the most concealed and vicious manner. They are the classical reflection of an distorted passive aggressive psychopathy which recognized no objective moral norm to respect, uphold or promote the common good, and contrariwise inverts the approach the individual should have to that common good by advocating what is directly opposed to it. These rules are, thus, truly demonic:

  1. “Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.”
  2. “Never go outside the expertise of your people.”
  3. “Whenever possible go outside the expertise of the enemy.”
  4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
  5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
  6. “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”
  7. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.”
  8. “Keep the pressure on.”
  9. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”
  10. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.”
  11. “If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside.”
  12. “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”
  13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

Since the Bergoglian revolution is being run by Marxists — that is undeniable — it should not surprise us that those fellow Catholics who recognize Bergoglio as their leader should either openly advocate Marxism or use the tactics of Alinsky to counter Bergoglio’s enemies — the chief of which are those Catholics who recognize the teaching of the Church regarding when a Pope duly resigns and when he does not. Since Pope Benedict XVI never duly resigned, he is still the pope. And profession of that historical fact is the chief and most destructive assault against the Big Lie, used by the Bergoglian Church, to present itself as the Church of Jesus Christ and deceive the Elect.

Errors of the “Recognize and Resist” Movement

Catholics are increasingly aware that these tactics are being used now by Trad Inc. to sustain their ridiculous position of “recognize and resist” — This position holds that a Catholic is morally, doctrinally and canonically obliged to hold that Bergoglio is the Pope, but that he is also morally and doctrinally obliged to oppose his errors. — In practice, the “Recognize and Resist” Movement is one which denies that Bergoglio has ever uttered a formal heresy or that if he has he is never pertinacious in adhesion to it. Furthermore, they hold that canon 1364 can never apply to him, because he is the pope, even though Canon Law makes for no such provision or privilege. They deny the entire teaching of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church that formal, manifest pertinacity in heresy causes a man to lose all membership, office and dignity in the Church. And they especially deny that the words of Canon Law or of the Declaratio of Pope Benedict XVI have any precise meaning or use if it contradicts their position.

Thus the “Recognize and Resist” Movement is more about recognizing and very little about resisting. And thus its effect is totally about causing Catholics to submit to the Bergoglian Church and practice non-think about the abominations, heresies and scandals which are going on, not to mention, about the failed renunciation of Pope Benedict XVI. Indeed, the “Recognize and Resist” Movement seems to be a position slightly to the right of Opus Dei, which is all about Recognizing and nothing about Resisting in public — they in fact tell their members to shut up and stop thinking about the problems and stop being active on social media.

Therefore, it should not surprise anyone, that the “Recognize and Resist” Movement has begun to employ Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, because in the defense of a lie there is no better tool that to employ the demonic.

Recent Attacks on Ann Barnhardt et alia

Ann Barnhardt is a pubic figure in the United States of America, who is famous for her commentary on current issues which cuts to the heart of the problem. Since the spring of 2016, she has rightly and sanely argued and demonstrated that the Renunciation of Pope Benedict did not separate him from the Papal Office and that the claims that he is no longer the Pope are the Big Lie of the present crisis of the Church. Countless Catholics today recognize Pope Benedict XVI because of the work of Barnhardt and those who came to know the truth of Church teaching and Canon Law about papal resignations through her. This is why the enemies of Pope Benedict seek to attack her more than anyone else. She blogs at Barnhardt.biz.

The recent attacks on Ann Barnhardt, chief of all, seem to be employing the Rules for Radicals. In Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, we have, for example, Rule 13, “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”  This means, in regard to persons, to dissuade the public from consideration of the truths professed by an individual by attacking that individual on personal issues.

Then there is Rule 5, “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon,” which has been honed into a fine art by Steve Skojec, editor and publisher of OnePeterFive.com — apparently a commercial site, because of its *.com, but in reality organized in US Law as a non-profit, where it appears from its tax filings 100% of funds raised, after expenses, go to Skojec or family members.*

Here is an example of that, in regard to Ann Barnhardt.


Then there is Alinsky’s Rule 6, “A good tactic is one that your people enjoy,” which seems to be the case with Skojec, because he would not revel so much in insulting others, if he did not enjoy it. It also seems to be enjoyable to the rest of Trad Inc. because NONE of them — to my knowledge — reprehend Skojec and others for doing this.

Catholics, however, know that to insult others in public is the mortal sin of contumely, and so disdain it. Yes, insult an error or falsehood or behavior, but not a person.

Then there is Rule 11, “If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside,” by which Alinsky appears to mean that you keep disparaging and misrepresenting your opponent until the opponent thinks he has a problem, or at least the general public does. Here is an example of that, in action:


The truth is quite the opposite. As anyone and everyone knows, who reads Ann’s arguments, she always cites reality or Church documents. She never say that anyone should listen to her because she is the source of authority. She is always saying that everyone needs to confront and accept reality, and overcome their inhibitions to live by the teachings and faith of the Church. — Whereas, it is Steve Skojec who is constantly insisting that Catholics ignore Canon Law and the teachings of the Church and Saints as regards the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff and the indefectibility of his person, because some late Scholastic Theologian said something with the word “canonical” in it, but he, Steve Skojec, cancels out that word, and uses the statement as a new rule for discernment against which no teaching of the Church or canon law can be cited, without showing madness or insanity or a schismatic or heretical spirit.

The general attack, used most of all, however, even by pro-Bergoglian apologists, of the kind which Skojec is certainly not, is Rule 3. “Whenever possible go outside the expertise of the enemy.” However, this rule did them in, because little did they know, that there are Catholics out there who are far more capable of understanding Church teaching than they themselves are capable of crafting arguments against it. — Praise be to God!


As Catholics we should reject all the methods and lies of Satan. We should likewise reject the methods and lies of all false ideologies, especially Marxism.  When we see any individual or group doing things of this kind in the Church, then we have found a true cancer in the Church, because it does not live by the teachings of Jesus and the examples He has given us, or His Holy Spirit has given in the Saints.

Such individuals objectively are not in communion with the Church, nay, they work against it by striving to kill souls and deceive them. Perhaps they do not know what they are doing, because sin can blind the mind so much as to make it barely capable of discerning its own culpability. But we cannot ignore the fact that by such behavior, whatever persons or groups do such things, they are not in communion with the Church, morally or spiritually speaking, because being in grave mortal sin and working against Her, they have not the life of God in them.

Aiding and abetting such individuals and groups would be a sin of collaboration in the evil they propose. But helping them see their error is a great work of mercy, because it respects them as creatures of God, even if at times they might act like individuals unworthy of the pearls thrown at them.

Nevertheless, a sustained and constant attack by officers of corporations and media outlets against the teaching of the Church on any point must be seen for what it is. Catholics can no longer ignore that the “Recognize and Resist” Movement is at the service of evil in itself, and of even greater evil, inasmuch as it gives power to Bergoglio in sustaining his false claims to be the Pope and to not be a formal, pertinacious heretic.



+ + +


* In U.S. tax law such an approach is not fraud, if the monies are disbursed as salary for work done on behalf of the non-profit. But Mr. Skojec’s supporters are able to get a tax write-off — if they qualify according to IRS rules for being able to take itemized  deductions — for effectively paying him a salary to write articles for One Peter Five. Unlike, Save Old St. Mary’s Inc., the non-profit which publishes Br. Bugnolo’s books, which has never paid a salary to anyone. And unlike, Ordo Miltiaris Inc., a for-profit, which has never paid a salary to anyone. — Steve does quite well, according to the tax filings for One Peter Five, which show that in 3 recent years alone, his combined earnings in salary were near $500,000 USD. So someone is paying him to do what he does, clearly.


CREDITS:  The Featured Image is a screen shot of Steve Skojec’s public Twitter Page, which is used here in accord with fair use standards for editorial commentary. The embeded tweets from his Twitter timeline are likewise employed.

[simple-payment id=”5295″]

Siscoe’s Triple shell game


Recently at One Peter Five, a website which is subtitled, “Rebuilding Catholic Culture. Restoring Catholic Tradition”, Robert Siscoe has published an article to quell the raging doubts Catholics have about the legitimacy of Bergoglio’s claim to the papacy: the first part of which is entitled: “Dogmatic Fact, the One Doctrine which proves Francis is Pope“, and the second part of which is entitled, “For Each Objection, an answer why Francis is Pope“.

There is nothing much to be said for his article other than it’s a lawyer-esque attempt to convince his audience using 3 different shell games.  As you may know, a shell game is where you put a ball under one shell and then quickly shuffle the shells on a table top so that the onlooker loses track of which of the shells contains the ball, and then you ask the onlooker to guess under which shell the ball is.  In American popular discourse, a shell game, therefore, is a trick whereby you pretend that something is one thing at one time, when it really is not.

Here are Siscoe’s 3 Shell games:

The Church

In Siscoe’s mouth the verbal expression “The Church” has two distinct meanings: the Church founded by Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church, AND the mass of those who uncritically accept that the resignation of Benedict XVI is valid because they never examined its conformity to Canon 332 §2.

The Shell Game that Siscoe plays with these 2 senses can be reduced to a simple Sophistic argument (i.e. invalid syllogism), thus:

Major: The Chuch (founded by Jesus Christ) cannot be deceived about who is the Pope.

Minor: The Church (of all those who have not examined the resignation of Benedict) accept Bergoglio as Pope Francis.

Conclusion: Therefore, The Church (founded by Jesus Christ) accepts Bergoglio as Pope Francis.

This kind of argumentation is a false illation, because the term “The Church” has not the same signification in both the major and minor premises of the syllogism.  Aristotle calls this the Sophism of the undistributed middle term, or the equivocation.

Fallible Private Opinion

In Siscoe’s mouth, the phrase “Fallible Private Opinion” has two senses:  in one sense its a judgement about something wherein the judgement may or may not be correct, because its not based on objective reality but on an interpretation of reality.  In the other sense, its any fact of objective reality which he wants to ignore for the sake of his argument.

The Shell Game that Siscoe plays with these 2 senses can be reduced to a simple Sophistic argument (i.e. invalid syllogism), thus:

Major: No merely infallible private opinion about dogmatic facts can assert itself as more authoritative than the judgement of the majority of men and women in the Church, since the Church’s sensus fidelium and Her indefectibility protects Her from error.

Minor: That Benedict’s act of renunciation regards the ministerium and not the munus, is a fallible private opinion.

Conclusion: Therefore, no one has the right to sustain that Benedict’s resignation is invalid against the vast majority of the members of the Church.

The error of this illation is found chiefly in the Minor. Because, that Benedict said ministerio not muneri in his act of renunciation is NOT a private opinion, but a fact of history.

Siscoe may not know it, but the Science of Logic teaches that the verity of premises flows down to their conclusions in valid illations.  Thus:

Major: That Benedict renounced his ministerium, is a fact of history.

Minor: That canon 332 §2 requires the renunciation of munus, is not a fallible private opinion, but a fact of law, being the very text of the Law.

Conclusion: That Benedict’s act of resignation is not in conformity with canon 332 is a fact of history.

Siscoe might want to ignore canon 38, which says that any Motu Proprio which runs counter to the terms of the law, EVEN IN THE CASE IN WHICH the one positing the act is IGNORANT of the law, is invalid UNLESS there is an express derogation from the law by the competent authority (in this case by the Pope), but Canon 38 is there and Catholics cannot ignore to apply it to this case.  Thus the conclusion infallibly follows, since the act of resignation contained no derogation from canon 38 or 332, that:

Benedict did not validly resign.

Peaceful and Universal Acceptance

These words mean two things in the mouth of Siscoe: in one sense they mean universal and peaceful and CANONICAL acceptance by the Church (see last quotation in part II). In the other sense they mean peaceful and universal acceptance CANONICAL OR NOT by the Church (see the citation of Saint Alphonsus dei Liguori).

So Siscoe’s usage of both terms can be reduced to this syllogism:

Major: The acceptance (Canonical) by the Church of of a man as Pope requires that all accept him as validly elected.

Minor: Bergoglio has been accepted (even if it be unCanonically).

Conclusion: Bergoglio must be accepted by all the Church as validly elected.

Siscoe’s illation is false because he is using 2 different senses of accepted. If he used the ancient reflex principle in its proper context, as he cites it in the final citation of that article, and did so AT THE BEGINNING of his article it would be obvious that he is beating against the air, because since the controversy regards whether Benedict canonically resigned, the key quality to be examined in the resignation is its conformity to canon law.

In Conclusion

Siscoe misunderstands the notion of infallibility.  Infallibility as a quality is the natural property of God alone as Infinite Truth. Infallibility as a charism of grace is vouchsafed to only a validly elected successor of Saint Peter. But infallibility is a quality of every true proposition, on account of truth being per se infallible, even if the thing asserted be asserted by a non infallible created person without any gift of grace.

Siscoe also seems to not know the distinction between an opinion and a fact. One can have an opinion about whether there is life on Mars, because we yet do not know if there is or is not. But one cannot have an opinion of whether there is life on Earth, since that is a fact.  An opinion can be had when both sides, pro and con, are possibles. But when there can be no truth on one side of the judgement, an opinion is impossible.

NOTE WELL: In this controversy, there is a fallible private opinion which is being asserted by some as superior to truth, reality and law, and it is this: that the renunciation of ministerium effects a renunciation of munus. Those who hold this opinion have yet to prove it, and the only valid proof must be in accord with the norm of Canon 17.