Skip to main content

Does Taylor Marshall Show Guest 1P5 Writer Ryan Grant want to "Eviscerate" or Disembowel the US Constitution & Capitalism?

Does Taylor Marshall YouTube show guest Ryan Grant, who appears to be a distributist, want to "eviscerate" or disembowel the United States Constitution and capitalism?

According to, the political meaning of eviscerate is the following:

"[E]viscerate means to disembowel or deprive a thing of something essential to its survival."
(, "What is meant by 'eviscerate the proletariat'"

Grant, who writes for Steve Skojec's One Peter Five blog, in the comment section of his book review of Chris Ferrera's book "Liberty the God that Failed" for the online Distributist wrote:

"Ferrera does not argue that the entire [U.S.] constitution must be eviscerated [disemboweled] (although I do personally, but that is neither here nor there), he simply argues... acknowledge Christ the King, and... Divine positive law and natural law."
(Distributist, "Liberty the God that Failed Part 1, by Ryan Grant )

From this article and other writings of Grant it appears that he is a Francis traditionalist distributist.

Does he if he is a distributist want to "eviscerate" the United States' "natural economy" or "free enterprise" system as Francis envisions in his anti-capitalist teachings?

Scholar Timothy Gordon in his book "Catholic Republic," which makes the case that many of America's founding principles are based on Catholic philosophical teachings, thinks distributism appears to "probably" be moral consequentialism" which attempts "to make right out of wrong." He writes:

"[D]istributist authors admit... 'they were advocating the redistribution of the means of production...'"

"... At it's very best, distributism equals natural economy- capitalism- under a renewed, moral, republican form... At its worst (and most probable), it is the old beast: collectivism."
(Catholic Republic: Why America will Perish without Rome," by Timothy Gordon, Pages 163, 164-167)

Distributists tend to be Francis Seamless Garment liberal Catholics in sheep's clothing who claim to be anti-abortion, but often support abortion candidates.

They claim to be traditionalists and conservatives, but are actually liberals who equate redistributistic economic issues with the genocide of abortion thus many of them such as distributist Dale Ahlquist's collaborator Mark Shea promote abortionist political agendas and are Never Trumpers."

Remnant editor Michael Matt once, I believe, said I honestly don't know what motivates the traditional Catholic Never Trumpers.

Hopefully, now traditionalists like Matt understand what motivates the traditional Catholic Never Trumpers.

Distributist Shea once called Trump supporters Ever Trumpers. Does that mean that distributist Francis traditionalists can be called Ever Franciser?

Might Ever Franciser Grant be a Never Trumper?

Has anyone ever asked every single Francis is definitely pope traditionalist (because it is their highest dogma of the Francis traditionalist creed) directly if they support President Donald Trump the way a Mitt Romney does or the way a Michael Matt does?

Remember that Romney once groveled in front of President Trump in an attempt to be appointed his secretary of state.

Making statements on occasion in support of Trump doesn't necessarily mean one isn't a Never Trumper.

We need a definite list of which Ever Franciser is a Never Trumper.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the for the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate of Mary.


Debbie said…
I did see a FB posting of Steve's a few months ago where he did defend Trump.
Dad29 said…
Since 'distributism' has never been perfectly defined, "employee ownership" of companies fits within the apparent parameters. That's something one could support wholeheartedly as a capitalist.

Popular posts from this blog

Taylor Marshall finally admitted that "Francis teaches HERESY," now, the question is will he do a Skojec & a Schneider Cop Out

    Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation: "[T]he Pope... WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic , he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him , or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See." (The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306) Taylor Marshall finally admitted that "Pope Francis teaches HERESY: Pope Pius XII condemned the heresy of Francis": Pope Francis on Feb 2 2022, taught, "that in Christ no one can ever truly separate us from those we love because the bond is an existential bond, a strong bond that is in our very nature...who have denied the faith, who are apostates." Pope Pius XII taught the exact opposite when he wrote of those: "who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or b

Wernz-Vidal: "One cannot consider as Schismatics those who Refuse to Obey the Roman Pontiff because they would hold his person Suspect or, because of Widespread Rumors, Doubtfully Elected"

    Pope Francis is tottering on the precipice of Hell. None of this means he isn't the pope, and such talk among the laity is scandalous in its own right. Not a single cardinal in that 2013 conclave has come out and said the election was rigged and Bergoglio isn't the pope, that he is in fact an anti-pope . If he is, a future pope can declare that, when Jorge Bergoglio will no longer be a pope. But if the very men gathered in conclave haven't made that public accusation,  anyone who is suggesting that better take into account that they too will have to give an account of themselves to Almighty God when they die . Such talk adds to the scandal of the "little ones," the simple, even potential converts, who, when they hear big-mouth Catholics on social media saying he's not really the pope, draw back from approaching the Church. Do any of us desire to stand in front Our Blessed Lord as the Supreme Judge and explain why, in our desire for more c

The Nuremberg Trial-like Excuse which Cardinal Burke has so Staggeringly, so Stereotypically Proffered on the Promised “Formal Correction”

Does Cardinal Burke think Francis is an antipope? On at least five occasions, Cardinal Burke has rejected the magisterial nature of official papal teaching (in one case, pre-emptively dismissing a hypothetical official teaching of the Magisterium): Cardinal Burke has rejected the official teaching of Pope Francis in the new Apostolic Constitution Episcopalis Communio concerning the possibility that a pope can raise the final synodal document to the level of ordinary magisterium, if the pope chooses. (We covered the Episcopalis Communio here .) The whole apostolic constitution on the Synod is problematic. … This idea that either the Pope on his own or the Synod together with the Pope can create some new Magisterium [i.e. a new teaching of the ordinary Magisterium], is simply false. The Synod is a consultative body, to help the Pope to see how best to present the Church’s teaching in time. It’s not able to create ordinary Magisterium. As a canon lawyer, Cardinal Burk