Skip to content

“Elementary, Dear Ivereigh”

Not everyone has received the flair of Sherlock Holmes or his inexorable logic. Mr. Austen Ivereigh was certainly not endowed with these gifts of his illustrious countryman. He cannot say about himself what Sir Arthur Conan Doyle put on his character’s lips: “I am a brain, Watson. The rest of me is a mere appendix.”

In a tweet of 8 May, referring to the Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira Institute’s document titled “The Most Monumental Social Engineering and Ideological Transshipment Effort in History,” he wrote:

Which was followed by a second tweet:

The fact that young Alexander Tschugguel held his first American conference at the TFP headquarters in Washington after his beau geste of launching the Pachamama statuettes into the Tiber, and claimed that Revolution and Counter-Revolution is the book that most inspired him after his conversion does not mean that TFP was the source of his initiative. Its merit should be attributed entirely to his militant Catholic fervor.

Mr. Ivereigh, a journalist, also teaches courses in contemporary Church history at Oxford. Had he followed the rules of his profession, he would have paid more attention to the statements of the young Austrian. The latter repeatedly explained he had decided to remove the idols exposed in the church of Santa Maria in Traspontina because he was indignant after a conversation with militants of REPAM, the Pan-Amazon Ecclesial Network and after consulting a priest friend.

Mr. Ivereigh could also have cited from numerous, solidly documented articles published by TFP’s alerting about the penetration of pagan cults and beliefs into the so-called Indigenous Theology, whose leading exponents had been appointed by Pope Francis as consultants for the event. But he most likely did not take the trouble to read them.

The above episode shows that Mr. Ivereigh does not seem to have grasped the profound subtlety of one of Holmes’ teachings to his friendly collaborator, Dr. Watson: “You know my method. It is based on the observation of trifles.” Mr. Ivereigh showed perhaps a lesser inclination to make distinctions in the second episode mentioned in his tweet: the alleged influence of the document of the Brazilian Institute on the petition promoted by Archbishop Viganò and signed by some cardinals and prelates. At first sight, both documents have some important elements in common:

– Denunciation of the disproportionate nature of the coronavirus panic generated by the WHO, national authorities and media, and disapproval of catastrophic economic and social consequences that the major lockdown will produce;

– Using these factors for a large-scale social engineering maneuver;

– The cooperation of sectors of the Catholic Hierarchy in the creation of this climate and its political use; and

– Asserting the rights of the Church vis-a-vis the State.

But if Mr. Ivereigh had a better investigative sense, he would have realized that there are large differences between the two documents. The IPCO study, always based on abundant documentation, denounces the essentially ideological agenda of the “new normality,” whose main beneficiaries are, on the one hand, communist China and, on the other, the ecological, globalist, and ultra-leftist currents. Archbishop Viganò’s petition, on the other hand, denounces a markedly economic agenda for the financial benefit of a sector of globalized macro-capitalism: large pharmaceutical laboratories, which draw much of their profits from vaccines.

That is the kind of detail that would not escape Sherlock Holmes, but which Mr. Ivereigh does not fully understand because of anti-TFP ideological prejudices acquired in his youth when he frequented progressive Catholic circles in Latin America.

He again manifests the same prejudices by defining as “homophobic” protests that TFP Student Action organizes in Catholic places that welcome the pro-LGBT preaching of Father James Martin.

In TFP documents, Mr. Ivereigh will never find any disrespectful or outrageous sentence against homosexual people. All he will find is a doctrinal condemnation of homosexual relations based on the traditional teaching of the Church, and consequent opposition to their legal recognition. Is the defense of the natural order created by God a symptom of “homophobia,” that is, an irrational and persistent fear of those like oneself?Apparently, Mr. Ivereigh’s logic is far from being “the most perfect reasoning and observing machine that the world has seen,” as Dr. Watson put it when describing his friend.

 In light of these tweets, and after an imaginary meeting with Mr. Ivereigh, Sherlock Holmes would probably grumble with a gesture of contempt: “I’m a little exhausted; I wonder how a battery would feel when it discharges electricity into a non-conductor?”


Recent Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.