The gullibility of Catholics when presented with false opposition continues to horrify me

There has recently been a coup in Bolivia. If you only get your information from more established news sources, or even most Catholic alternative sources, you are probably under the opinion that it was an overthrow by the people of a violent government, instead of a military coup.  You are mistaken.

I had certainly heard of the protests in Bolivia for a while but I did not expect them to lead to the overthrow of the government. It took me quite some time after the coup to realise that it was actually a military coup the likes of which the U.S. had unsuccessfully attempted to implement in Venezuela, but which bore much greater success in Bolivia when the army issued what essentially was an ultimatum to Evo Morales: Resign or be removed, or worse.

It shocks me not one bit that the established media has carried the line of the U.S. government - selling state ideology being its primary role, with the choice of whether to use a leftist or rightist lens seemingly being the only one left open to debate. What has shocked me is how positively the news of a military coup, the violent consequences of which are ongoing, has been received by Catholics who should know better. I am not talking about EWTN types, who get their news from Fox News in Catholic drag, but from those who at first hand don't seem to swallow every government lie unquestioningly.

As anybody familiar with Evo Morales will know, he is the source of the infamous communist crucifix with which Bergoglio was gifted on his state visit to Bolivia, I would presume. I believe Morales has also been at the Vatican a few times. He is the first elected indigenous president of Bolivia, or so I have been informed. I have also been informed that Bolivia is about 60% 'indigenous' - i.e., the majority - with most of the rest presumably being either wholly or partially of Spanish descent. He was a 'populist' figure in the true sense of the word, as proved by his multiple election victories. He had just won his 4th term, reportedly with the required margin of more than 10% which prevents a candidate having to have a run-off election. Under his rule, the levels of poverty drastically reduced and the native population of Bolivia was left much better off, in a country which had experienced one of  the  highest rates of economic growth in South America under his leadership, if not the very best. In other words, we cannot accuse him of having failed his base, unlike many other populists, some of whom are quite popular with Catholics right now.

Those are the facts. Now comes the conjecture.

I do now know whether the man is Catholic. Nothing of his public behaviour has implied to me that he is - his close relationship with Bergoglio would naturally imply that he is not Catholic, but he may well be. I do not know anything about Bolivia's record on the rights of the unborn, nor of Morales' stance on killing or saving them, and I have not bothered to look it up as it is not relevant to this piece. He is said to have lost a referendum on running for a 4th term yet ran anyway as the ban was ruled unconstitutional by the high court - or something to that effect. Regardless of that, his victory margin was well in line with the vast majority of polls ( I have read figures of 5/6 from one source). Whatever people may have felt at the time of the referendum, that he would win the presidential election seems to have not been in any doubt.

It is widely assumed that the CIA was behind this coup, and I have not come across anyone - for or against - who even questions this assertion. The fact that Donald Trump - himself somewhat of a victim of a CIA coup attempt - was one of the first to congratulate the new junta in charge, and the fact that Juan Gaido - the self-appointed president of Venezuela, a CIA stooge - also joined in should be enough to alleviate any doubts about who was behind it.

One would expect Catholics who claim to be against globalism and in favour of nationalism and populism to support a man who was obviously popular in his own country, and who had obviously improved the economic conditions of the poorest sections of his country. Yet, that is not what seems to have happened. Here is where the dreaded pachamama comes in.

It has been reported that one of the leaders of the coup declared “Pachamama will never return”, which was evidently enough to get Catholics on the bandwagon . Then we had the self-declared president posing with what seems to be to be a liturgical book and what is reported to be the Gospels, and that was enough for others to give jump over to her side. Even Gloria.tv, which is generally against americanist interventions and American imperialism, has not criticised what is obviously an externally-orchestrated coup and has reported on the anti-Pachamama statements and the holding-the-Gospels show without much question or suspicion.

It seems that Catholics, even those against NOChurch, are quite easily fooled. All you need to do is utter some words against pagan statues, and hold a liturgical book, and all of a sudden you will have even battle-hardened Catholics jumping for a coup like a bitch in heat. To me though, the ostentatious anti-paganism is in and of itself a mark of the whole thing being plotted from abroad.

What seems obvious to me is that the coup plotters would have been following what happened at the syond of the Amazon. They would know that a lot of Catholics would have been against pachamama. They would have known that it was a trending word so they had one of their guys stand in front of a camera and say something against...

"We are closer to the other side" or How I learned to stop worrying and love Bergoglio's "dog and pony show" - the Pan-Amazon synod

The title of the piece is obviously inspired by the movie classic "Dr. Strangelove - Or How I stopped worrying and learned to love the bomb". It's a must-see Cold War movie.

The term "dog and pony show" was borrowed from Michael Matt, whose final take on the analysis I can heartily recommend.

I do disagree with his analysis on one point though: The synod was not so much about bringing one-world governance into the Church. It was, I would argue, the other way around. Most Novus Ordites wouldn't be able to tell a Catholic dogma from a fortune cookie note, and the devil and his minions - i.e., Bergoglio and his henchmen - are using this fact to introduce any number of false notions to further take advantage of their ignorance. The distinction is that Michael Matt sees the secular world breaking into the Church to do its bidding, whereas I see the devil and his minions using secular slogans to further de-Christianise the human element of the Church. The eco-lunacy is simply a tool for the devil and his willing agents, and not an end-goal in and of itself.

The difference is in the intentions. It seems implausible that Bergoglio - or his merry band of buffoons - would genuinely care about saving  God's creation - while granting  that as atheists they probably don't view Earth as God's creation - not least since Bergoglio's carbon footprint with all his jet-setting is larger than almost all but a handful of people. Since they obviously claim to do so, I can only take it that they view environmentalism as the most potent tool to further their diabolical agenda.

What occurred to me though in considering the disastrous synod of doom - the Pan-Amazon synod - is that reality is proving me right in something I have said quite frequently since 2013: The Novus Ordo Mass is not going to be the same in 20 years as it is today. With talk of a new rite for the Amazonians, we are likely to have a Novus Novus Ordo Mass. At first it will be for the Amazonians, but we can count on the Germans wanting in and wanting to make their many liturgical abuses regularised by a rite of their own, possibly with semi-nude dancers at the sanctuary and cardiansl in cages. After that we can expect a virtual free-for-all. 

I have been just as upset as any Catholic at witnessing the mass apostasy from leading figures in the Church on full display, and just as much with the total absence of any courage or sense of duty among the many bishops who surely do not agree with any of this nonsense.

Nonetheless, I have to remind myself that I actually vowed not to oppose any innovations in the NOChurch liturgy or in NOChurch in general on the basis of canon law, simply because if there is one thing that NOChurch has been good at, it is institutionalising abuse. What starts out as abuse in one place, soon becomes commonplace, and before you know it there is an indult from Rome, and not long after the indult it becomes virtually universal practice. This is the case with Communion in the hand, and female altar boys, to name but a few. More informed readers than I can probably list others. In other words , it is a waste of "our precious bodily fluids" (to hearken back to Dr. Strangelove) to spend any time passionately defending current NOChurch practice, when the whole basis of NOChurch practice is a movement away from authentic Catholicism and towards neo-paganism.

So I came to reflect on a scene from the movie "Gattaca" - one of the greatest science fiction movies of all time. The movie is especially topical on account of all the move towards a greater acceptance of eugenics, whether it is in the killing of children or adults deemed unworthy, or in the greater acceptance of artificial conception, and nowadays, even genetic screening of embryos before they are implanted, but that is not the point of today.

There is a scene towards the end of the movie in which the genetically weaker brother, Vincent, is challenged to prove once more that he can win a chicken race by swimming farther than his genetically superior younger brother, Anton. At the point of exhaustion, the Anton concedes and decides to go back.  The exchange goes: "We have to go back". Vincent replies "No, it's too late for that; we're close to the other side." To that, Anton replies: "What other side! You wanna drown us both!". Then Vincent finally "You wanna know how I did it! This is how I did it Anton: In never saved anything for the swim back."

 

It's a powerful scene by any measure.

In reflecting upon the destruction wrought upon us by the Novus Ordo - its liturgy, its non-theology, its vacuous gestures, is ugliness, its non-Catholicism, its anti-Catholicism - I am always tempted to say "Stop: We have to go back!", as if there is a version of Novus Ordo that would bring us back to sanity, because, of course, it is out of the question convincing our Novus Ordites that we can return to authentic Catholicism.  Another part of me - the one which believes in God's providence - thunders back, "No, it's too late for that. We are closer to the other side!"

The Novus Ordo cannot be reformed towards anything even close to holy or santifying. It was forged from the darkest parts of the human soul, perhaps the darkest parts of the netherworld itself, with the intention of de-Catholicising the Church and the world. It has worked wonders. The devil himself could not have devised a better plan to destroy the Church from within.

Almost every time I debate someone who has any adherence to the Novus Ordo, they make it seem as though all...

A psychopathic warmonger is fired and virtually everybody is happy, except...

It has always amazed me just how wrong EWTN seems to get pretty much every news piece they report about. It's almost impressive.

EWTN is, of course, part of the problem in the Church because it has been a mouthpiece for NOChurch at least for as long as I have been watching them. However, its  views on most other issues are also misinformed. 

Perhaps I have an inkling for a mild form of broadcast self-flagellation, but I do watch some of their news from time to time. It is not one of my proudest boasts, but I also do subsribe to their YouTube channel where I am constantly bombarded with 'fake news from a NOChurch americanist perspective'.

Their reporting on Church matters misses the mark most often on account of omission, simply ignoring more obvious angles to front some viewpoint only NOChurch agents can find. When it comes to U.S. domestic policies, they are pretty much like Fox News, except they are anti-abortion and they cover more of what has been called the 'life issues', but they will generally hit and miss in roughly the same way. It is when they report on international politics that they miss the mark most, and that their reporting often veers into lies of commision, not unlike any of the mainstream press, it must be stressed. 

As most know by now, the arch-warmonger of the Trump administration - John Bolton - was fired, or quit, whatever the case may be. All the same virtually everybody was happy with this because they saw in him a man whose solution to everything seemed to be lobbing a few missiles, or starving a population. Even on Fox News there was jubilation - largely from Tucker Carlson, who is pretty much the only anti-warmonger on mainstream American television, but still. It had not occured to me that there would be mainsream 'Catholics' who would be against his fiering until I turned on EWTN.

There I was treated to this horrible show:

I still remember when he was hired. A lot of the people who voted in Trump saw it as a form of betrayal for Trump to appoint a man who has been directly responsible for much of the decision-making surrounding the 2nd Iraq war, which Trump had in a round-about way complained about while on the campaign trail.

They brought in someone who informed us that Bolton was a "great pick", I believe was the exact phrasing. It was a black woman, I remember. Normally, race would not be an issue, but I found it odd that they chose her to laud the pick of this warmonger, suspecting they did it to ease the optics given that the Trump administration (wrongly) and the neocons (not without justification) have been accused of being racists.

I should, in fairness, not have been surprised by their love-fest for Bolton upon his dismissal given how they covered his appointment, and given that EWTN is pretty much a warmongering neocon station. I normally call it Fox News for people with rosaries, or who don't mind them. They claim to present news "from a Catholic perspective", apart from any news which have anything to do with "just war", the inviolability of human life outside U.S. shores or such issues. Still, I must admit I was not expecting them to leap to his defence.

Now, some might argue that I only saw one piece of possibly many, some of which may have been anti-Bolton, and this may indeed be true. However, how we choose to present ourselves says a lot about us. If they did other critical pieces, they did not want these saved for posterity on the Internet. EWTN purposely chose to upload a piece which lamented that the Trump administration has lost a man who seemingly has never seen a war he didn't like. That says a lot, and frankly, it says all that is relevant on this issue.

If EWTN wants to propagate for war then "who am I to judge"? However, I resent most that they choose to front themselves as "news from a Catholic perspective". Never once , for instance, have I ever heard them discussing the most Catholic concept of the "just war doctrine". Their reporting on Iran is almost always uninformed when it is not outright lies, as can be evidenced in this clip. Iran kept its end of the nuclear agreementt, for instance, something which even the U.S. deep state apparatus confirmed, along with all other international organisations.

They make it clear to me why Catholics in the U.S. are so misinformed about the world at large. For instance, I have seen many reports from then on Syria, and not once have they ever mentioned that the U.S. has been working alongside Islamists to oust Assad - frequently presenting the U.S. as caring for Syrian lives. Even worse, not once have they ever mentioned - in the reports I have seen - that the Catholic and Orthodox bishops of Syria have condemned the Western intervention and are fully behind Assad. 

Here we have Catholics going out of their way to stay out of mainstream media lies, only to come to a neocon operation fronting itself as Catholic. 

It is profoundly sad that they have chosen to mislead Catholics and the only mitigating factor I can allow for is the possibility that they do this out of extreme ignorance and not out of sheer malice. 

Still, it is ignorance which obviously crosses into being sinful. The Roman Catechism is, after all, keen to stress that one  lies if one says something false believing it is true, but having been neglegent of finding out the actual truth. In other words, they have an obligation towards justice and truth to find out the actual truth instead of misleading their viewers, even if we accept the charitable notion that they misninform by accident, which I obviously do not.

 ...

On looking out for one's country's best interests

Virtually all countries have something good about them. In fact, name a country, and if I know anything worthwhile about it I shall probably be able to name one good thing about them.

The U.S., for instance, has a laudable tradition for innovation, self-sufficiency and even freedom of speech  - real or perceived. There is also a spirit of innovation in the U.S. that is nothing short of admirable. What I admire most about the U.S. currently, however, is the absolutely stunning growth of authentic Catholicism in the country - often referred to as traditionalism due to the diabolically disoriented times in which we find ourselves. I have met many American traditionalists and I am often humbled by the joy they display and the hope the inspire, and to think we have communities of them sprouting up all over the country gives me some hope that maybe not all is lost over there.

Sweden, for its part, has a population which is very superficially friendly, so a visitor coming to Sweden will meet pretty much only friendly folks - those that engage in conversation anyway. People in this country allow emotions to drive the debate, instead of reason, which of course has its downsides, but one of its few upsides is that for instance, we do not (yet) have euthanasia. However, when it does come to Sweden I fear it will be in a vastly more aggressive form than we have in other countries for the aforementioned reason. Then we have the 'allemansrätt' laws, which allow people to access private lands so long as they do not disturb the landowners, such that the whole population can enjoy much of the beautiful nature that we have in this country. It's what they had in England pre-protestant revolt, if my historical understanding serves me well.

There is too much good about Italy for me to even begin narrowing it down. China, for its part, has pride in its own culture and history - real or perceived - and we have to admit that no matter how ruthless the Chinese have been, they have managed to get more people out of poverty than could have been envisioned 3 generations ago. Of course, it is not worth destroying churches and killing hundreds of millions of unborn and infants, but we cannot argue that at least they have found an economic model which seems to ensure that the economic initiative of the globe will be Eastwards for some time to come. There also seems to be a genuinely-accepted principle in China that interfering in other countries' internal affairs is a bad thing, and this is a principle they actually seem to honour, as opposed to the Western countries which speak of human rights and freedom, but merely as weapons with which to bludgeon countries they propagate against more than principles they accept or encourage.

"What does this have to do with looking out for one's contry's best interests?", you might well be asking. Well, it has to do with Mother Russia.

You see, it too has much to admire and perhaps most admirable is how much value-for-money Russia seems to get out of its technicians and engineers. Another thing no less admirable is the Russia insistence on self-reliance and independence. In fact, Vladimir Putin has labeled Russia's independence "axiomatic": Russia would cease to be Russia were it not an independent and autonomous country. This is integral to Russia's 'goodness'.

Sadly, most of Europe does not seem to share this kind of view. For instance, we see much of Eastern Europe shaking off the chains of the Sovient Union only to shackle itself first to the E.U.'s chains, and then to be lackey's of the U.S. whatever threat this poses to their own security or economic interests. Western Europe, on the other hand, is occupied territory and has been such since World War II, though it seems to be something not to be mentioned in polite company, and seems to revel in this occupation.

Anyway...It may seem somewhat enigmatic that pretty much the closest thing we have to a Christian nation today - Russia (although that says more about the sad state of former Christendom than it does about Russia's virtues) - would choose to forge an alliance with communist China which has outlawed Christianity. Russia has built over 10,000 churches since the collapse of communism; China demolishes churches, frequently and gleefully, as often as they can.

It is probably not until we consider that Russia attempted to make peace and friendship with the West, and was brutally shunned, humiliated and ransacked that we begin to see why Russia felt that the only way to turn was Eastwards. It is not for a lack of trying that Russia is not on good terms with the West; there is simply too much at stake for the political elite in Europe to drive the narrative that Russia is an enemy. Russia, for its part, tired of trying, and decided to take its economic interests elsewhere, and it is turning out well for them.

This topic is the debale on "Bear & Dragon", an episode of the best show on TV - Russia Today's "Crosstalk" programme hosted by Peter Lavelle. It often has very engaging discussions and most of the time one can learn something worthwhile.

For anybody wanting to learn why Russia has drifted closer to China, and why it has drifted away from the West - through no initiative of its own, one hastens to add - this episode might well prove to be an eye-opener.

What one has to remember as well is that with Russia now attempting to integrate itself more with the East and the South, the barrier of the West towards both Russia and China, as well as their trade partners increases. Trade creates partnerships and relationships, and done well and with respect - which both Russia and China do much better than the West which tries to...

Chronicling several months of Bergoglio and U.S. roguery - Sunday 27th of January to Saturday 29th of June

Yes, I know: I have been atrociously bad at doing my weekly reviews. I wish I could guarantee an improvement, but I so dislike making empty promises that I can't bring myself to even attempting an assurance of that. In any case, I had been considering going away from weekly reviews towards shorter more pointed articles but since I had started on this 'weekly' review at the end of January, I thought I woudl extend it. First it was for a month towards the end of February, but as fortune would have it, it ended up covering several months and now covers the end of June.

My site was hacked in the meantime, which set me back a while. Most things are back to normal but the update has messed up my tagging system so I am limited to about a 5th of the tags I used to have and I haven't found a way around it. At the same time the browser I use (Firefox) seems to have experienced a problem on the operating system I use (Ubuntu Linux) and so I have not been able to use the content editor. Fortunately I realised that the content editor might work on other browsers, and I am now writing this article on Brave - a browser I can recommend to anyone. Not everything works though - hyperlinking to links doesn't, for instance - so I can't link to anything from within the article and I have to rely on the links at the bottom of the article instead. That is more than likely problem with my CMS (Drupal) than with my web browser.

I don't mean to bore you with all this nonsense, but to point out that I can come up with excuses like the best of them. In other words, it is not out of a lack of excuse-making that I refuse to jump on the "it-can-be-read-in-an-orthodox-way" bandwagon so popular among Bergoglio's enablers and defenders. Yes, I could come up with about 500 reasons why I haven't done my weekly reviews, and some  of them might even be valid, but there is really only one which counts: I have simply not taken the time to do it. It has certainly not been due to a lack of material. However, since this piece covers such a long period, I shall only be able to hit the highlights, or lowdarks, as it were, in both the secular and ecclesiastical world.

The best news is that it's been 5 months, which means I am 5 months older, which means Bergoglio is 5 months older, which means we are 5 months closer to the end of this horrific pontificate, or pseudo-pontificate, or whatever-you-wanna-call-it.

Right off the top of my head I can list any number of offences against the faith, and that's even without going back on my links. There's the appointment of McCarrick's closest friend as camerlengo, to take over when he retires. Then there is the Cardinal Wuerl replacement for Washington DC, who is really Cardinal Wuerl, with all his vices and then some, except a darker shade. While it is always exciting to see a black bishop in the U.S. considering that so few black people in the U.S. are Catholics, the man chosen to replace Wuerl is a disappointment in any measure, save for one which places perversion as a positive, which of course, is the scale Bergoglio seems to like most. Then there is Bergoglio choosing not to meet Matteo Salvini on account of Salvini not having the same fetish for kissing Muslim feet as he does, although Bergoglio put it in another way, obviously. We must also not forget the Abu Dhabi document, which I believe was signed during these past 5 months, and if ti wasn't doubtless there was a similar assault on the faith.

What we have not been treated to is another monsignor been arrested an account of a drug-fueled party at the Vatican, or a bishop openly converting to Talmudism, or wicca or some such. So I suppose it could have been worse, although I wonder if it would not be better for many of these NOChurch bishops to openly declare the religion to which they adhere because much of the time it is obvious that it is not Catholicism or even any of its heretical offshoots.

Bergoglioism is not a one-man religion though and on the face of it sometimes it seems like the world's fastest-growing religion - among ecclesiastics anyway. We have, of course, been treated to the horrendous Instrumentum Laboris of the Amazon synod, in which the authors seem to be declaring in all but name the official abandonment of the Catholic religion by NOChurch. Gone at least is the discussion of having the Eucharist in other matter than wheat - the only valid one. However, in are all manner of things, both pagan and protestant. Apparently instead of converting the Amazonian tribes, we are not supposed to learn from them how to be better in harmony with the world., and of course there is the issue of ending clerical celibacy which seems to be the whole point if this sham synod. 

You know what I can't understand? These people - Bergoglio and his minions - spend half their time talking about how we mustn't be dogmatic, how protestantism - in any of its 100,000 sub-domains - is equally good to Catholicism, how atheists go to Heaven, how everything is going to Heaven actually according to Bergoglio in one if his 'magisterial documents' (which one eludes me and frankly my brain cells are better not wasted on that). However, when it comes to the Amazon synod, then we are all of a sudden treated to the realisation that the Eucharist is important, that priests are important, and in fact so important that it is worth giving up all our doctrines and dogmas in order to provide priests for the Amazonians, without whom they might not your-guess-is-as-good-as-mine. The document does...

Ignorance may be bliss, and avoiding NWO happenings has its upsides, but it is not the way of the saints

Almost as soon as I restored my site I had to take a trip. The purpose was the priestly ordination of a friend. Kindly keep him n your prayers! He will need them more than your average priest, I fear.

My policy is to link to everything that I read. I do not always follow through with it as sometimes I read when I am away from my computer and lose track of the articlues, but it is my general guide. For that reason, when the site was down I hardly read anything. While I was away for the ordination and could not update my site I did not read anything either.

I can vouch for this: Ignorance is bliss!

There was no getting frustrated about Bergoglio, or about zionist or americanist aggression, or about leftist perversion of the family, promotion of the killing of the unborn, or any of the various ills which plague our societies. I can certainly understand why most choose to remain ignorant.

However, we do well to recall that sloth is one of the 7 deadly sins and intellectual sloth is perhaps the worst of all for it is our reason and our intellect which separates us from the lower creatures, and which makes us grasp for God.

For this reason, I can also attest to the importance of keeping oneself informed of the issues. The powers of the Novus Ordo and the Novus Ordo world they endorse count on the ignorance of the masses, and it's important for those who wish to evangelise to have a good beat on what's happening in the world, both ecclesiastically and secularly.

Alas, today I depart for another trip. This time it will be roughly 2 weeks long. I shall try to enjoy de-activating myself from my news feeds, which seldom bring good news, but I do so in the knowledge that I look forward to coming back to the trenches and keeping myself informed.

I predict that nothing much will change in the next 2 weeks. Bergoglio will go along with his assault on all that is holy in the world and in our Holy Mother Church. The U.S. will under this administration - as almost all previously over tha past 50 years - continue in its aggression for the zionist cause. The leftists will go after the unborn, after biology, after common sense, with the most innocuous buzzwords. The warmongering will shift from and onto one of the 5 revolving targets of the current U.S. administraton - Venezuela, Iran, North Korea, Syria and Palestine. We might well have Ukraine and Cuba thrown in their as well, for good measure. Nobody mentions the aggressions in Somalia and Afghanistan anymore, or Yemen, naturally. Maybe Libya may make the news if there are dramatic movements in that country's civil war. Otherwise, we shall continue pretending that things are better off there and that the flood of refugees and assorted migrants into Europe has all to do with assorted covert schemes instead of very overt wars waged often with the very support of those who then denouce their consequences - when these come in the form of increased refugee flows.

EWTN will pretend the West cares about Christians in the Middle East, mixed in with whatever narrative the Trump administration wants them to run. Everything in the Church that is wrong will be everyone's fault except the hierarchy's, of course.

Really, after following the news as keenly as I have, one thing is clear: The direction rarely changes, only the details. The devil is in the details though, and that's why we keep going.

My updates have not been as frequent as I would have hoped this year - I still haven't had any 'weekly' updates since February. I have had a lot on my plate, and not spent my time too wisely.

It is my hope that this short vacation will have me re-energised, and that I shall return, God-willing, eager to spend more time writing. One thing is for sure: Ignorance may be bliss, but sloth is a deadly sin, and the one which the new world order counts on more than any other human frailty - with the possible exception of sexual vice - so I shall do my best to combat it through keeping myself informed, and sharing what I have.

I hope you do too. They count on most of us being ignorant, and most of the rest being discouraged. We need to learn to love the fight. That is the way of the saints.

Site restored...For now at least; for good, I hope.

After much toil I have managed to restore the site.

I have updated the server and the CMS, plus all the modules. I have also attempted to tighten up the security setting, but as I have no idea how the last breach happened I can't be certain.

Alas, I'll not be blaming those pesky Russians for the hack! Someone has to play the role of maverick, after all.

The last attempt at restoration was short-lived - the site experienced a database error shortly afterwards. My guess is that it had to do with a faulty package installation on the server, but even on that I am none the wiser. I had managed to use the same installation procedure on 2 servers previously - one nearly identical and the other identical - without a glitch, so I'll blame it on a package installation and leave it at that.

Hopefully this time the site will be up for a good while longer. Some things are still not quite right at the back-end which means it's not as easy to work with as it was before, but the site as presented ought to be nearly-identical to previously, and I count on getting the back-end up to scratch before long.

Site hacked...Recovery in progress

The site has been hacked. Actually, it turns out that it was hacked quite a while back, but I only noticed it last week.

Unfortunately, I have not been able to restore all the functionality to the live site so the site will experience intermittent blackouts while I attempt to restore everything to good working order.

I hope to be able to upgrade all related components in an overdue attempt to secure, speed-up and add features. I have at least managed to get a back-up site up-to-date and installed and it is fully functional, but I intend to upgrade my servers as well as I am running on an almost 10-year old installation presently, which is without technical support to boot. I hope to be back by next week.

We can only hope, as usual, that NOChurch provides us with as few surprises as possible during my enforced hiatus. To be honest, getting away from all the horrific NOChurch news these past few days has provided some welcome relief. However, I do feel somewhat handicapped without all my news feeds to keep me informed, so you can rest assured that the site will be back before long.

May you have a joyful Eastertide!

Even by Bergoglio's insanely absurd crazy standards, the ring-kissing switcheroo is weird...

Just when one thinks that Bergoglio cannot get any weirder he does something completely absurd, something completely off the charts. Even by Bergoglio's absurdly crazy standards, this is weird:

It is like something from a Benny Hill or Monty Python sketch. For an overweight man with probable drinking problems, one lung, and obviously slow-of-thought, he sure does more fast. That whole ring-kissing switcheroo could spawn a thousand memes, and with good reason.

I have never seen anything like it and I don't know if it is the first time he has done it or if it is a trademark dribbling move.

My initial  comments are the following:

  • First of all, it is really really weird. Even by his insanely-high bizarro standards   it's so weird it's almost creepy.
  • Secondly, it serves these people right for wanting to kiss the ring of a man as perverted as Bergoglio. The man has nothing Catholic about him, and yet they still want to bow down and kiss his ring, that same ring which has adorned some of the worst documents any bishop has ever produced in Church history. They desrerve a slap, not merely having Bergoglio move his hand. Maybe that would teach them that the man is to be avoided.
  • Thirdly, it is as though the man is going out of his way to prove that he is not pope and is not worth of the respect due to one. That he is pope is dubious, that he deserves contempt is unquestionable.

I am not big on the whole ring-kissing thing. There is an indulgence attached to it of some sort, and I suppose to get some poor soul out of purgatory I might bring myself to do it if the man whose ring I was kissing was worthy. Bergoglio most certainly is not. Yes, I know, it is not about the man but about the office. In reality though, kssing someone's ring affirms the man considerably so it should be reserved for good shepherds.

Even if he were worthy, I really cannot see how I could justify kissing a gold-plated silver ring. It smacks of trans-materialism, to borrow some jingo from today's crazy leftists. It's from a man who doesn't know the symbolism of his office, wants to pretend to be humble by using silver instead of gold, yet isn't secure enough in his imbecillity to go all the way through with it so he covers the ring with silver. Kissing his ring only affords him a respect he most certainly does not deserve.

Still, I have never seem him move so fast. It is as though somebody had transported him from a free-masonic temple into the Vatican (or Loreto, where it turns out this particular show was staged), and finding himself there and not having a clue who all these people are or what he's supposed to do, he thought all these people were coming towards him to take a bite out of his hand.

For pure comedy gold, this has to be the most entertaining of Bergoglio's many cringe-worthy stunts. It is most "disturbing", as LifeSite News put it.

It certainly cracked me up anyway, and I suppose unless we prefer weeping that's all we can do at this week's installment of the Bergoglio horror show.

On the Cardinal Pell case only the facts of this case matter, a point seemingly lost on most

This article consists mainly of a comment I wrote on the day's comment for the 8th of March, in reference to a piece titled " On Cardinal Pell ". It was written by VoxCantoris and elicited a lot of responses. The original is undedited and in this piece I have altered and elaborated a bit

***

I do not care much for Cardinal Pell. In my opinion he is a big part of the problem: the neo-Catholic who references Vatican II at every turn and refuses to criticise the revolution. He doesn't even believe in the Book of Genesis for crying out loud. The only thing he has done well as far as I am concerned is his intervention at the 2014 pre-synod against the family, in which he complained against the manipulation then ongoing. He has also celebrated the Tridentine Mass a few times, which is nice.

However, my opinion of him means very little, and is in fact entirely irrelevant to the question at hand: Namely, whether he is guilty of the charge levelled at him. Unfortunately, VoxCantoris seems to let his fondness or lack of it of someone take over his analysis of most situations. That was certainly the case with Trump's bombings of Syria, the treatment of Muslims at the hands of zionist and Western freemasons, and seems to be the case now, even though he is not as blatant.

What if Pell is guilty? I might as well ask "What is Bergoglio is Catholic?" What if VoxCantoris is a freemason who pretends to be Catholic? Is it even relevant? We can all make up "what ifs " to our heart's delight.

The only thing that counts is whether there is evidence to convict him of his crime, and from the reports I have read there is none. We have one witness, who I believe is either now or has been a drug addict who has fallen on rought times, whose testimony is contradicted by everyone else, including the man who he claims was his co-victim, now deceased. The physics of the crime don't make sense, unless we are to believe that Pell celebrated Mass in the emperor's new clothing and only the kids managed to see his nudity for what it was.

Evidence matters in crimes. In fact, it is all that matters. In this case we seem to have absolutely none, and the witness also lacks credibility. Even if Pell had not been a cardinal the conviction would make little sense, but given that he is a cardinal who does not push sodomy or other perversions, surely the benefit of the doubt shouldg o to him.

Make no mistake: This Pell case is a trial run for future evidence-free trials. If it is allowed to go ahead then it will absolutely ruin any hope of anybody - not just Catholic - getting a fair trial in crimes which are deemed fashionable by the state.

Some claim that we should wait for the appeal, but surely this is the height of imbecility! If they can have a kangaroo court at the first instance, what reason do you have for thinking that they cannot arrange a show trial in the second instance? Will the evidence be any different? Did they not have appeals when they were putting our Catholic martyrs to the sword in England? Another claimed that Australia is not some Soviet country with show trials, which just proves how dangerous Western totalitarianism is: At least in the Soviet Union, people knew that their country was guilty of show trials. In the West, we seem to have show trials with a large part of the populace under the illusion of justice. Even the show trials are dishonest.

In the end, God alone knows what Cardinal Pell is guilty of, but  he is innocent until proven guilty, and there does not even seem to have been an attempt to prove his guilt, merely an assertion which has carried favour among the political elite in Australia. We would therefore have to assume the man is innocent of this charge, and - unfortunate as it is to point this out since so many have missed it - this is the only charge that matters.

The assessment by Murray is spot on:

Even if it is true (God forbid), the verdict should probably have been Not Guilty according to the law.

We had one accuser--the other putative (deceased) victim having twice told his mother that he had never been abused--describing a highly unlikely circumstance 23 years ago that was uncorroborated by anyone else present at the time, and that the Cardinal strenuously denied. Nothing about the story makes sense to anyone who has been inside a sacristy before or after Mass: The abuse taking place in a bustling, semi-public area, the difficulty of maneuvering an archbishop's vestments to facilitate the abuse, the sheer recklessness of the act against all public evidence of Pell's character...

How does this even begin to rise to the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard?

If you think that the child-abuse excuse show trial will end with Cardinal Pell, then think again! These people are only interested in creating precedent, and then using that precedent to go after both the Church and their citizenry.

One final note: The Vatican has not come out in defence of Cardinal Pell. Given Bergoglio's Vatican's propensity to be at the wrong end of every moral and factual debate, that should be even more reason to conclude that the man is innocent of the crime of which he has been accused.

It matters little whether Cardinal Pell has been accused of in other instances, and I should point out, that he has been acquitted as well in those cases. It matters not that he is not the valiant champion of orthodoxy that we would like to see. This is not a Church trial, and he is not on trial for not defending orthodoxy, for...

Pages

Subscribe to Distinctions Matter RSS