Contact Us

Use the form on the right to contact us.

You can edit the text in this area, and change where the contact form on the right submits to, by entering edit mode using the modes on the bottom right. 

         

123 Street Avenue, City Town, 99999

(123) 555-6789

email@address.com

 

You can set your address, phone number, email and site description in the settings tab.
Link to read me page with more information.

Feed

Filtering by Tag: Liberalism

Drugs, Guns, Fake News and "Christian Supremacy": The School Shooting in Parkland, Florida

Vox Catholica

As I was driving through the frozen tundra of South Dakota this past Valentine's Day, the Rush Limbaugh Show, was interrupted with breaking news: 14 young men and women at a high school in Parkland, Florida, lost their lives at the hands of yet another deranged school shooter.

The same, tired, cyclical argument began again immediately on radio talk shows, and the regular alphabet soup of television channels, and probably continues as you're reading this. "We need gun control to prevent school shootings." "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." "Thoughts and prayers don't save lives, banning guns will!" "Muh' Second Ammendment!" "...If you don’t agree we need to do something about it, you’re obviously mentally ill." "What about people who like to hunt?" "Hunters don't need assault rifles!"

Blah, blah, blah. Automatic weapons. Semi-automatic weapons. Handguns. Bump-Stocks. 30 round magazines. Legislation. The NRA. The talking points are endless, but every one of them skirts the real issues.

The (Tranquilized) Elephant In The Room

If you watch television news, or read the newspapers, you will have missed that the perpetrators of 38 of the most recent school shootings were on psychotropic drugs (i.e. anti-depressants like Prozac and Zoloft, anxiolytics like Valium, Klonopin and other benzodiazepines, or stimulants like Vyvanse, Ritalin and Adderall). Even culprits older in age like Stephen Paddock, the man who fired on a crowd of concert-goers from the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay hotel in Las Vegas, was found with anti-anxiety drugs in his system.

Do drugs cause mass shootings? Obviously, not in all cases. But take a look at these side-effects:

  • Hostility

  • Irritability

  • Use of extreme physical or emotional force

  • Thoughts of killing oneself

  • Homicidal ideation

With every mass shooting that occurs (apart from what is known to be Islamic Terrorism) the connection with psychotropic drugs becomes more and more pronounced. A full list of drugs for which homicidal ideation is a side effect can be accessed here.

I AM NOT TELLING YOU TO STOP TAKING YOUR MEDS! But, two aspects of this problem cannot go without comment.

First of all: We live in a society of immediate gratification. Hard work means nothing to someone who glorifies Ariana Grande, and made a small fortune in the cryptocurrency market. Physical labor is frowned upon, while Hollywood and the music industry turn degenerates into rappers and demi-gods. And, since marriage has been all but destroyed by divorce, contraception, homosexuality and sex-ed, waiting for "the one" has been replaced by an app where you can swipe right for casual sexual encounters, practically on-demand.

Why spend generations building a grand cathedral, when you can build one on Minecraft (a video game) in less than a week? Why spend time learning your grammar, when you can just use spell check? Why take the time to continually prune away your vices, develop your virtues, and spend time refining yourself spiritually and emotionally, when you can just pop a few happy pills and forget about your problems?

Drugs don't cause emotional instability. Irreligion, decadent culture, and broken families do. Drugs merely suppress the symptoms... for a time. Until they stop working, and the emotions boil over and, like an atomic bomb, level relationships and/or the lives of innocent bystanders close enough to ground-zero.

This unhealthy, drug addled, "quick fix" is just one of the many fires burning in the collapsing building that was once Western Civilization, and this fire is being fueled by gasoline being poured by all our politicians arm in arm with Big Pharma.

According to OpenSecrets.org, there are 1,274 (Update December 2018: 1,407) registered lobbyists working for the major pharmaceutical companies, being shared by the 535 members of Congress that write the laws that govern their industry. That's 2.38 lobbyists assigned to each member of Congress. But, in my (award-winning) research, interviews, and dealings with people and groups advocating for pharmaceutical reform, the total number is actually closer to 8,560 lobbyists in Washington D.C.. That's 16 people advocating on behalf of Big Pharma, for each and every member of congress. And there's a lot of money spilling out of the drug companies, and into the pockets of our representatives.

Now, do you see why the powers that be want to keep the debate firmly fixed on guns?

Just like these poor people suffering from emotional distress, that use (prescription) drugs as a crutch instead of taking the time to deal with their problems, Congress sits idly by placating their lust for power by taking Big Pharma's money, to help ensure that they have enough resources to win re-election the next time around.

Mark my words: Congress will never willingly work to reform our current disaster of a medical industry, and this will result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of more people. Whether it's from a mass shooting, facilitated by psychotropic drugs, or the tens of thousands of people dying from an opiate addiction which began with a prescription for OxyContin (a drug made legal, because a Jewish pharmaceutical mogul lied on their patent), there is definitely blood on the hands of the Washington D.C. political class.

Fake News Strikes Again

At the first available opportunity, I pulled over on the frozen highway (don't text and drive) and I feverishly checked the Drudge Report to satiate my need for more information, when I was confronted with this:

I sat back in the drivers' seat in horror, imagining the reports I would no doubt be watching later on CNN and MSNBC, as Don Lemon and Rachel Maddow blame "literally" ALL white people for this horrible atrocity.

More digging around on the web, revealed that Nikolas Cruz (the Valentine's Day shooter) was allegedly a member of a White Nationalist group called "Republic of Florida," and that he had taken part in military training with these alleged supremacists.

According to the Independent

"A representative of the Republic of Florida named Jacob Jered initially told multiple outlets that suspect Nikolas Cruz was a member, though later in the day Mr Jereb undercut his previous claim with a statement saying there had been a misunderstanding due to his group having multiple people with the same first name."

It turns out, however, that this was all just a steaming pile of Fake News. What really happened, according to websites like FMShooter.com and Politico, is this: The SPLC and the ADL were tricked into believing a "prank" created on a website called 4-Chan, where an anonymous post stated that the shooter was a member of this "Republic of Florida" group, and tricked Jacob Jered (leader of Republic of Florida) into confirming the shooter's membership. It's long, and complicated, but in the end these radical Leftist groups (the ADL and the SPLC) told their media cohorts to run the story without getting sufficient confirmation, in an effort to prove a point, and create a political narrative that white people are evil, that guns are bad, and ultimately that if the President does not take away the right to bear arms, he's a dirty, racist, white supremacist.

This Fake News traveled around the world thousands of times over, being blogged and re-blogged, tweeted, and posted everywhere, before retractions were made, that nobody noticed anyway. Mission Accomplished.

The Real "Supremacy" The Left Wants To Demonize

As I continued my investigation into the Parkland shooting, I headed to Twitter, to see what the conventional wisdom of the internet was at the time, and I checked the trending topics.

Obviously, the hashtag #GunReformNow was the number 1 trending topic. Even Nostradamus could have predicted that one, but #2 trending on Twitter was the word "Christian." I wasn't sure what this was about so I clicked on it.

What followed was a barrage of Tweets about Joy Behar (co-host of The View) calling Christians, specifically Mike Pence, mentally ill for believing that he can talk to God. Or that God can talk to him. Or something like that. This specific incident is worthy of its own article, but this isn't what I'm really trying to get to, and believe me, I'm going to bring all of these (seemingly) disparate elements together for you in just a moment.

Amongst the deluge of Tweets bickering about Joy Behar's anti-"Christian" bigotry, I came across a Tweet from @AmericanAthiest, a verified account representing an organization fighting for freedom from religion called American Athiests. The tweet, which I have embedded below, confirms a suspicion I've held for the past 5 months.

Did you catch that? The Left is now using the term "Christian Supremacist" as a derogatory term against the religious Right. Do not doubt me: All this talk of "White Supremacists," "Nazis" and "Fascists" were all just euphemisms for what the Left really wants to say: Christian Supremacist.

I started to realize that this pejorative labeling of Right Wingers was really about attacking anything at all that smacked of Christianity during the Roy Moore senate run in Alabama. Moore, for all his faults, was branded as an enemy of the Left, not because he allegedly had some sexual misconduct in his past, but because he advocated for Christianity (albeit Protestant) above all. 

Take, for example, this article from the Revolutionary Communist Party of America. The article titled "Goose Stepping Towards Fascism: Roy Moore and the Advance of Christian Theocracy," states:

"... the candidacy of Roy Moore, who has effectively been endorsed by Trump, is a new, major and deadly serious offensive by Christian fascists."

Now if you look at the policies and positions of Judge Moore, you'll find that he was seeking to allow the Christian religion back into the public school system, to uphold the 10 Commandments in our courts and laws, and to preserve traditional marriage here in the states, instead of this LGBTXYZ mess that we currently have. There is nothing "fascist" about that, but the Left overplayed their hand, they showed us their cards, and we should be paying close attention.

A priest I know once said that the soft persecution of Liberalism always turns bloody in the end, and I believe he is right. The Left and the Media are doing their darnedest to conflate anyone on the political right with "Supremacism," they are radicalizing our youth, who are joining violent communist organizations like Antifa, to "bash the fash" and one day they will come for us. For Catholics, for Protestant "Christians", for anyone that does not get on board with Critical Gender Theory, Critical Race Theory, Islam, gun control, or anybody who believes that Jesus Christ is God. We need to get ahead of this. We need to be prepared. We need to keep our eyes open. The Left won't care about distinctions, nuance or truth. They care about domination.

And with that, I will now leave you with the article that sparked the labeling of Todd Starnes, a Fox News contributor, as a "Christian Supremacist." 

If this piece is enough to provoke the ire of the Left, imagine what they think of the dogmas of our faith? "Extra ecclesiam, nulla salus est."

Another American high school has been turned into a killing field. And the nation wonders why. What has happened to our country?

Well, I’m going to answer that question for you. And the answer may leave you a bit unsettled because the answer is politically incorrect.

You see – I believe there is a God — but I also believe there is a Devil. And I see his hand at work in our country. And I have no doubt that he is smiling at the chaos and the carnage that has scarred the land of the free.

We’ve raised a generation to believe that truth is relative – that there is no right or wrong.

And the Devil smiled.

They kicked God out of the public marketplace, banned Bibles and prayer in school.

And the Devil smiled.

Tens of millions of unborn babies have been slaughtered in the name of choice.

And the Devil smiled.

The traditional family has been redefined, broken homes raising broken kids.

And the Devil smiled.

We’ve taught a generation there are no consequences for bad behavior — no personal responsibility.

And the Devil smiled.

Our movies and music and games glorify violence and gore. Relationships have been poisoned by pornography.

And the Devil smiled.

What’s happening across America is about wickedness – a war with the forces of darkness – good versus evil.

The politicians and pundits would have you believe this is not about God – it’s about politics and mental illness and gun control.

And the Devil smiled.

War On Christmas: Jesuit Priest Spouts Modernist Heresies In New Liberal Propaganda Video

Vox Catholica

Another Christmas, another chance to attack Jesus Christ, and His One True Church. This year, tragically, the culprit happens to be a radical liberal Catholic priest.

Last week, Father Kevin O’Brien, dean of the Jesuit School of Theology at Santa Clara University, recorded a video with the pro-sodomite, pro-abortion, Marxist propaganda website Mic.com in which he proudly declared that there is no such thing as a "War On Christmas", and that the idea of said "war" is just a "distraction".

Right... I guess the following are just "distractions":

Yep, the war on Christmas is totally fake, not real, a figment of our imaginations. It's not like members of a certain “religion of peace” are plowing trucks into Christmas markets, trying to kill as many Christians as they can.

Well, you see, that doesn't count because that's not in America. It's not like we have people in America trying to blow up a subway station because of its Christmas posters...

Maybe, I'm missing something here. Maybe this Father O'Brien makes a good point in his video that is eluding me. It won't hurt to watch it, right?

Wow. Wrong again. That was actually painful to watch. It's like watching somebody try to explain why it's okay to allow his wife to cheat on him. Pathetic.

Let's thoroughly dismantle Father O'Brien's entire premise here, shall we?

"I don't think Jesus would care much about whether we say Merry Christmas or not, because He was not concerned with promoting Himself...

Okay, Father might have a point here. It's true, Jesus wasn't concerned with promoting Himself and frequently told His Apostles not to tell anyone what they had seen [Matthew 17:9Mark 7:36Mark 9:8]. But, Father, there's one obvious caveat you're kind of missing here. Promoting Jesus Christ and His Church is your job, and two-thirds of the verses I just cited specifically state that Christ wanted His Apostles to make known His identity as the Messiah, and the Son of God, after His Resurrection, which in turn would save many from the fires of hell [Mark 16:15-16]. 

Let's continue with Father O'Brien's drivel:

"We have to be careful about the language we use in a pluralistic society like ourselves. Because in it, we encounter people of different "faith traditions". Pope Francis will often speak about a culture of encounter, not confrontation, and this means listening to people and respecting people who are different than us. We listen to them not just simply to be nice, but to learn. He also said, 'Whenever we encounter another person in love, we learn something new about God'."

215uxl.jpg

In other words, Father O'Brien thinks we should refrain from possibly offending heretics and adherents of false religions. And, it's certainly not a good thing to just go around bashing people over the head with your religion, but when push comes to shove, we can't give in to political correctness and social pressures. Right is right, wrong is wrong, and it's not a sin to be charitable. Since when is "admonishing the sinner" something "hateful"? How is "instructing the ignorant" (i.e. non-Catholics) an offensive act?

Confrontation is not always a bad thing. If you take Father O'Brien's (and Pope Francis', for that matter) new doctrine against "confrontation" to its logical conclusion, I guess we should just let Uncle Albert continue to drink himself stupid. It would probably be better if we let sister Jane starve herself to death because she thinks she's fat. And sure, why not let Jack go ahead refashion himself as Jill...

You see? Absurd, unrealistic. This priest is living in La-La land. If we don't confront those who find themselves marching under the banner of the antichrist, in charity for the salvation of their souls, they will most certainly confront us, and they won't be as well-intentioned as we are (see: Islamic Terror AttacksThe HolodomorThe Guillotine/Reign of Terror).

Finally, we move on to the biggest whopper of Fr. O'Brien's propaganda video:

"Now Christians, like any people of faith, need to defend the right to practice their faith in our society, but it's just not about promoting or protecting Christians. If I'm to be called 'Christian' or a good citizen, I need to be as protective of the rights of Muslims, for instance, in this country to practice their faith. I need to be as vigilant to protect their rights in their communities as I do my Christian community."

This. Is. Evil. Through-and-through, pure evil. The scary part is that people are already doing this.

First of all, ask yourself: Are Muslims protective of Christians' rights to practice their religions in their countries?

No. The answer, dear Father O'Brien, is no. 

So if we continue to allow and protect Islam in Western societies with Western birthrates as low as they are, and with Islam growing as fast as it is, we can only be even more assured of the destruction of the Kingship of Christ on earth, and the destruction of the soul, with billions ending up in hell.

You may be asking yourself, "How can someone stray so far from the truth of Catholicism, while still believing that they are Catholic?" The answer is simple: MODERNISM.

What is going on in Father O'Brien's head is Religious Liberty gone wild, mixed with a hefty dose of Freemasonry and the idea of Universal Salvation.

Here's how the error goes:

There is a God, but different people experience Him in different ways. These different experiences amalgamate themselves and manifest in different "faith traditions". Each "faith tradition" is equally valid for each individual, because no two people are exactly the same and people experience one and the same object in different ways. Maybe my red is your blue, and your blue is my red. Since I can't be you, and you can't be me, we can't know if your blue is my red, and my red is your blue. Therefore, differences in religions are nothing to fight about because, ultimately, we're all talking about the same thing. You do your thing, I'll do my thing, and neither of our things are better than the other; so I'll respect you and you'll respect me, and live happily ever after.

For Father O'Brien and his ilk, it is not absurd to believe that there are about as many "faiths" as there are genders (hint: we're talking more than 2 here). This, of course, is preposterous and completely against the Catholic religion, which is the true religion of God, and the only religion whose mysteries are truly unfathomable by man. This is so because they weren't created by man, which means we must have supernatural faith to believe what our finite minds cannot fully grasp: One God, Three Persons. Father. Son. Holy Ghost.

We do not get to choose what is true, and what is not. We do not get to define reality. We cannot pick and choose what to believe and what to reject, and it is certainly impossible to claim that man has the liberty to choose his own religion, according to his own personal inclinations.

As a matter of fact, this whole concept has already been condemned for quite some time. Take, for example, this erroneous statement, condemned by Pope Leo XIII:

[The State] is bound to grant equal right to every creed, so that the public order may not be disturbed by any particular form of religious belief. And it is a part of this theory that all questions that concern religion are to be referred to private judgement; that everyone is to be free to follow whatever religion he prefers..." - [Immortale Dei]

Or this one, from Gregory XVI:

"We now come to another and most fruitful cause of the evils which at present afflict the Church and which We so bitterly deplore; We mean indifferentism, or that fatal opinion everywhere diffused by the craft of the wicked, that men can by the profession of any faith obtain the eternal salvation of their souls, provided their life conforms to justice and probity...

"From this poisoned source of indifferentism flows that false and absurd or rather extravagant, maxim that liberty of conscience should be established and guaranteed to each man" - [Mirari Vos]

Or yet another condemned statement, this one denounced by Blessed Pius IX:

"... the liberty of conscience and of worship is the peculiar (or inalienable) right of every man."

"[This right] must be proclaimed and guaranteed by law in every properly constituted society." - [Quanta Cura]

Father O'Brien, dean of a theological school, is so rife with Modernism, Liberalism and error, I'm surprised he can tell the difference between his shirt and his pants. And to make matters worse, he isn't even calling just for the liberty to choose your own religion. He is asking us to actively defend, protect and help propagate what we know to be a false religion, concocted by a man named Mohammed, whose "god" is the devil.

If you've made it this far into the article, without getting triggered, or succumbing to ADHD and clicking over to another site, I must ask you to pray for this poor priest, Father Kevin O'Brien. And when you're done with that, arm yourself with the truth about the false notion of Religious Liberty.

Capitalism vs. Distributism

Steven Bachmann

Capitalism is not Catholic. It's not the default, simple system that many people assume it to be. It has its roots in Enlightenment thinkers, and necessarily requires classical liberalism to justify itself. It begins in the theories of those like John Locke, Adam Smith, and Turgot, and has no tested lineage beyond these innovators. I've never heard of the definition of capitalism outside of circles fundamentally opposed to the Church. And yet distributism, which is in-line with Catholic teaching and based in the market practices of Catholic medieval Europe, is excused as a second-rate economic theory by a grave many believers?

Distributism uses a subsidiary hierarchy of moral authority, of ecclesiastical, political, social, and economic parts respectively, to create an organic society by which its participative members are compelled to distribute the factors of production as widely as possible amongst themselves.Capitalism is the establishment of free enterprise, in the hopes that anarchistic properties of the market mechanism distribute capital in a circulating flow from two separated classes - producer and consumer - as efficiently as possible. The emancipated focus of each system is its human members and capital, respectively. 

Let's observe these two definitions. Each is an unbiased definition of what that ideology does, and what is favors. The distributist systems aims clearly at a cohesion that is beyond the act of making money, the goal is literally transcendent from profit. Profit is used as a means to build the social order that promotes its industry in all. Because people are born into a form of social fabric, they become more involved than a mere hireling, and the result transforms into a market that may be slow, but is sustainable for a thousand years. Capitalism is a functional opposite in every way: it favors the elimination of any social caste that would even remotely hinder the sacred goals of profit and turnover. It separates people into argumentative groups of producer and consumer by nature instead of unifying, fosters competition and successive elimination of businesses rather than cooperation, and creates a massive disparity of vision and wealth between industrial business owners and the employed consumer. A review of some of its further champions can vouch for its moral track record.

Capitalism has endorsed usury, which, as we know, is the charging of interest out on loans, as a standard practice. Condemned by great ecclesiastical minds like Thomas Aquinas (he explained that interest is like charging a man for a bottle of wine, and then charging him again to drink it), interest is a tool that has been used by scrupulous bankers throughout the ages to take advantage of those in desperate straits. While forbidden in medieval Christian Europe, our Modern world is built upon the necessity of debt so thoroughly that it's practically required for normal existence, but yet few question the morality of generously taking from - and trapping - individuals who have no other option.

Due of its solid beliefs in the most fluid and efficient flow of capital achievable, capitalism encouraged policies that enable the affluent, monied classes. Concessions for business like private property ownership and equality before the law are frequently toted as heralding symbols of our Modern economic system, but were nothing more than simple heirlooms, already assumed requisites and working parts of the markets in the Old World. Leo XIII iterates this forgotten fact perfectly in his encyclical Rerum Novarum, distinguishes the two by condemning capitalism and relentlessly defending property rights in the same instance. And His Holiness was completely consistent in arguing so; because to say that capitalism exclusively endorses private property rights is like trying to claim that Modern feminism exclusively endorses women. This sort of preferential claim is against all other forms of thought is an ignorant one. 

The fundamental understanding of capital as this live asset of investment within hyperactive markets is what distinguishes capitalism from the preceding guild systems of Europe. The invisible hand of free enterprise governs people, rather than people governing business. Money is in control. This set of ideas and its related venture use of capital were not feasible until the eve of the Renaissance, when an excess of prosperity brought the beginning of joint ventures of exploration and trade. New ventures like these birthed investment and some of the first corporations, agitating and ultimately changing the structure of the preceding economy into something wholly new. It's impossible that capitalism existed as some abstract-standard-with-a-different-name before the Enlightenment philosophes called it capitalism. To think that capitalism pioneered property rights or the ownership of the factors of production, for instance, or that these features were the showcase of its definition, is to be a little mistaken. It merely inherited both of these practices from its predecessor, from which commentators like Hillaire Belloc and G.K. Chesterton created the economic theory of distributism. Economic systems were entirely different during the Middle Ages - but for some reason, I'm pretty sure the townsmen then still understood freedoms like private possession just as well.

Now while capitalism does have an overwhelmingly different character, it does confusingly share much in common with the distributist ideal. The difference, primarily - and what made capitalism boldly different, which it did invent itself - was an absence of a certain control. But this isn't control from a centrally controlling power, like a privately regulatory government in the socialist theory. The primary control missing comes from the moral authority created both within the echelons of society, and the Church. If you think hard enough about it, it's curious how the structures within society that businesses serve mean nothing to those businesses today. Only through best profit, through money, is any decision relevant. What makes our margins higher? In that way, capitalism has actually done well to erode social distinctions and the ethics that they create. For profits to be most efficient, industry of scale necessitates the concentration of resources into a centralized corporatism, which many distributists accurately criticize for inadvertently leading into socialism anyway. That's where we are today in the United States, isn't it? In this sense, capitalism is just as unsustainable, perhaps only as possible in theory as communism is. The state of capitalism is not a state of being, but a state of inevitably transforming into something else.

Conversely, distributism necessitates as widely distributed factors of production as possible among the people, and employs social methods to do so. It implies a preference of owning your own business, of working for yourself, which sets the most economic liberty possible before each and every person. Meanwhile systems like Churches, guilds, and an artisan system, rather than industrialized economy, exert the presence of ethical existence that capitalism rids itself of. Guilds act oppositely of unions, and unite tradesman of a craft together in practice, rather than dividing the worker and owner from within. Social structure is as much a study of distributism as the "purely" economic side. So just like Modern science doesn't understand the existence of God, because its horizons are definitely limited to the physical existence, so capitalism is blind to distributism, because its horizons are limited only see the monetary, the economic existence below who uses it. As one distributist said, "In contrast [to capitalism], distributism seeks to subordinate economic activity to human life as a whole, to our spiritual life, our intellectual life, our family life."

Subsidiarity is also a belief that should get some attention, in order to ward off the wrongful idea that we're just reinventing socialism. Now obviously, as Catholics, we believe in the necessity of hierarchy. Socialism has organized central hierarchy, while capitalism does not. Socialism's hierarchy is tyrannical, unfounded, and repressive, whereas capitalism is equally damnable for having no idea of centralism. The distributist offers a third way. We recognize the authority invested in the Church, the undisputed authority of our souls and consequent details of life, but yet realize the freedom of the secular crown to exist and operate within their potential as regulators for the temporal existence of nations. And we're all patriotic and know that our king has precedence (The US is a little different with republicanism, but it's the same idea), but yet we all nonetheless recognize the right of the tradesmen to regulate their own members for fear of government corruption and heavyhandedness. And we all recognize the vast necessity of quality wares and fair pay for which the guilds are responsible for enforcing, but yet we understand that the free nature of the human conscience, and that God desires this to be, must be fundamentally respected. See, these echelons of power - and freedoms - exist together in the concept of subsidiarity: "that no larger unit (whether social, economic, or political) should perform a function which can be performed by a smaller unit."

With each different author, distributism has been articulated as being realized by slightly different mechanisms. Unlike capitalism, unfortunately, distributism has never been a mainstream Modern goal, so its manifestation isn't nearly as tangible. It remains very theoretical. So if you ever had an interest into the further working details of distributism, the best information you can find are at its sources: both the Catholic medieval period, and the authors that ultimately wanted to recreate the more just parts of it. But at any rate, the primary differences between capitalism and distributism remain the same. It's the fundamentals that tell the difference, all authors have agreed on that. After all, the proof lies in the pudding. Examples like the banana republic, the steel titans, the railroad monopolies, the establishment of enormous national banks, and even the excessive existence of insurance companies were not possible feats of the pre-capitalist period most associated with distributism. While most people measure all forms of economy on a two-way scale between capitalism and socialism, these are not good standards at all, and in reality should be on the same side of any scale they occupy! 

But even with in their times of their intellectual procurators, many Catholics were nonetheless still skeptic about the precepts of distributism in the face of mainstream economic thought. “Freethinkers” of the Enlightenment wrote extensively on the benefits and freedoms afforded to man in what became capitalism, which is why it’s still associated with the notion of freedom today. They made intellectual assertions about property in the hopes of defining their desire of equality, which translated into the destruction of the nobilities and monarchies that presided socially over the emerging class of traders and craftsmen, whom they favored. These treatises on “liberty, equality, and property” still exist romantically in the minds of many Americans today. It seems like these philosophical writings of theirs have many faithful hung up on how to differentiate the fundamentals of the two systems apart. It helps when you remove the boogeyman that they give to tradition in classical liberalism, to remove their ambiguous statements of freedom in order to observe the real working differences between the two. And those real working differences have absolutely nothing to do with having small details.