A review of my article on Donald J. Trump written on the eve of the 2016 U.S. election, previewing this one

I shall attempt to briefly review the article I wrote on the eve of the last U.S. presidential election in 2016, and see how my expectations of candidate Trump compare with president Trump. It was difficult to understand why I titled it "There is none that calleth upon justice, neither is there any one that judgeth truly...". However, it didn't take me long to realise that I was in the phase of titling all my articles after Bible quotes. That didn't last long, sadly, but I might well pick it up again.

The quotes seem to have been directed at the U.S. bishops, for their attempts to muddy what should have been quite a clear option between a candidate who professed a preference for very many good things and had no intrinsic evils in his campaign platform, and one who promised all sorts of intrinsic evils in her campain, with none of the goods that Trump had.

Everything I wrote about Hillary Clinton applies equally to Joe Biden, except with Biden we have the extra scandal of him being Catholic. He is, of course, not Catholic in any meaningful sense, but as he has not been excommunicated and was baptised Catholic, we have to live with the fact that he can identify as such, as indeed can Bergoglio. That is what makes both Biden's and Bergoglio's preferences for perversions and evils that much more condemnable, and damnable.

In the article was a list of top 10 reasons to vote for Donald J. Trump. He won the elections, as it turned out. I rather expected him to do it, and truth be told I am even more confident that he will win it this time, once again defying the polls which seem even more fake this time than they did the last. As little enthuasiasm as there was for Clinton, there virtually none for Biden. At least she had the novelty of being the first female presidential candidate. With Biden, all they can muster is "At least he's not Trump." I do not dismiss that those who hate Trump do it fervently, but it is difficult to see how it translates into waiting in line possibly for hours, and possibly in the rain, in order to vote for a man one more than likely finds distasteful. In just over a day or so, we shall see if the disgust for Trump among the anti-Trumper's translates into votes for creey Joe and his ghoulish running mate.

For full disclosure, I must preface this by writing that I am not a particularly big fan of Donald Trump, though I do find him amusing. I am definitely not a NeverTrumper, but nor am I an AlwaysTrumper. I am, however, a NeverBiden, and cannot fathom what would ever possess me to vote for a man as morally distasteful as Biden. In other words, I think I can offer a relatively dispassionate analysis of Trump's record.

So, what will follow is a walk-through of my 10 points with grades on how right I was compared to Donald Trump's actual record. Given Trump's erratic nature and lack of interest in details, it can be difficult to know just how much blame or credit we can give him for his record. Still, he appoints his underlings and signs off on the checks, the bombings and the priorities. His record belongs to him, and if nothing else, it allows us to see where his priorities lie, whether he has met success in his endeavours or not.

The points will be in bold text, with the score next, and the analysis below. Mind you, this is an analysis of how I predicted, or thought I understeood, candidate Trump's versus how president Trump has actually done. Of course, my analysis has do do with his campaign pledges, so it cannot be entirely divorced from what he actually pledged, but still, it is not a grade of how president Trump has succeeded versus some impeccable standard of perfection.

1. Donald Trump  is not a career politician. He is a man who has built a fortune on hard work and taking risks, and done a good job at it. In fact, he has managed doing what I would argue 99.999% of the world wants to do in a much better way than 99.999% of the world has managed. (7/10)

More of a statement of fact than anything else and hardly gradeable. I would define a career politician as someone willing to do anything and rid himself of any principle to get to the very top, regardless of whether it is good for his country or not. That would score a 0, so 7/10 means I think Trump has not behaved as a career politican would. Sadly, however, on many of the big decisions - big banking, military-industrial complex, continuing wars - he has toed the line of the political schemers.

He has still managed to incur the wrath of many of the right people, and often by being unconventional, so I'll give him a pretty high grade and conclude that I was right in claiming that he didn't behave as a career politican.

2. The man seems genuine. When he speaks, one gets the impression that he means what he says, and not that he is saying it because pollsters told him it would be good to do so. (5/10)

If Trump had not shut the country down in March, he would probably have got an 8 on this point. However, shutting down a country on account of a 'pandemic' he obviously did not believe was going around simply because he thought it more politically expedient to do so will in many ways come to become his defining moment - at least of his first term, if he should lose the re-election bid.

The one good thing about Trump is that he is not a particularly convincing liar when reading off a script. It has therefore been quite easy...

I for one was glad when Donald Trump 'got' Covid-19

So, it's about 4 weeks since Donald Trump 'got' Covid-19 and recovered from it within 3-4 days. Actually, the official narrative is that he tested positive for Covid-19 (and there is no reason to disbelieve that). As for what he had and didn't have, I dare not speculate. In any case, when he tested positive I was quite happy about it.

Of course, many leftists were very happy about it too, and wished that Trump would succumb to it. I was happy for entirely other reasons and never was I worried that Trump would succumb to Covid-19, a virus , which if it exists, has probably killed nobody in the 1 year that it has been around (according to the official narrative). Certainly, it is difficult to claim that it has killed anyone since escaping from Wuhan, and at this point everybody should be questioning what exactly was going on in Wuhan, because if it was a virus then it is not the same one that left Chinese shores. Let-s not get side-tracked: Wuhan conspiracies will have to take a backseat for now...

Anyway, I was happy because I was convinced that Trump 'getting' Covid-19 (actually, only testing positive) would help us get out of this hoax. When Trump actually checked into the hospital though, I was concerned for a while, but not on account of Covid-19. What worried me was that it was a perfect opportunity to get rid of Trump, perhaps through an experimental medication which led to unexpected complications. The U.S., as anybody who has followed it over the past 15 years has see, is a deeply corrupt country, and I don't put it past the power brokers to get rid of a sitting president through medical malpractice.

As it turned, out he survived the whole thing, so perhaps the U.S. is not as corrupt as I thought it was, or perhaps the powerbrokers deem Trump useful or whatever else; it doesn't matter. I suppose it was a good thing that he was taken into hospital, because it made the show a bit grander. Furthemore, it helped drown out Bergoglio's Tutti Frutti encyclical, or Fratelli Tutti as he has called it, since much of the world was occupied with the circus of Donald Trump's Covid-19 hospitalisation, and what a circus it was! When he 'recovered' it seemed the leftists were even angrier with him for it.

It certainly helped his campaign, I thought: "Now he will never have to wear a mask again", I found myself thinking. That was indeed one big positive from this as, apart from his flight back to the White House and the funeral of the hideous Ginsburg, I have not seen him in a mask since, and really there is no reason for him to wear one since he has recovered from it and is basically immune. But then again, the Covid-19 handlers tell us that one can be re-infected with Covid-19, which in a sane world would be proof that the tests are fake, but this is no a sane world anymore - and hasn't been for a long time.

On the horrible Ginsburg woman: The leftists, of course, largely wished that Trump would die from Covid-19, which some of the non-leftists claimed was distasteful. I found this attitude by those on the 'right' hypocritical. How many non-leftists, after all, had not long desired the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg? I certainly did, and I am not ashamed to admit it. The difference, of course, is that those not on the left do not typically proclaim their death wish in public, something leftists seem to do with gay abandon, for reasons I am likely to never understand. Perhaps they are under the opinion that appearing hate-filled is a good thing, and in their circles it has to be, since they do seem to compete on who has the most narcissistic rage going. 

The most amazing thing watching these leftists gleefully mock Trump for 'catching' Covid-19  was the notion that somehow Covid-19 would be deadly to a man who has the best medical care available to him. It is as though the past 1 year of Covid-19, with millions of positives  and allegedly only something more than 1.2 million deaths meant nothing. Mind you, these 1.2 million deaths include motorcycle accidents and probably not a few bullets to the head, and these numbers have not made a dent into the expected number of deaths ordinarily! I'll not even get into the absurdity of them excoriating Trump for not wearing a mask, as if a cloth on your face can prevent you catching a virus! These people really do believe their own lies, one has to conclude, or they go all-in with the lies.

It is only 3 days to the 2020 election and I have no doubt that Trump testing positive for Covid-19 helped him. He can now speak from personal experience - which voters typically like -, and as he urged people after leaving hospital, he has shown that this 'disease' or 'illness', or whatever it is, should not "dominate your life". It is certainly a positive message, and one which I hope will resound in more people than that of the 'dark winter' promised by Biden and his cohorts.

Indeed, death can be a great reliever, as in the case of the odious Ginsburg. Many of us wish that death will relieve us of Bergoglio, and have been doing so for quite a while, which absent a miraculous conversion is the only way out of this nightmare of a pseudo-pontificate. In Trump's case, he did not meet death, fortunately, nor was he under any threat. It has certainly helped the case against medical martial law that the most high-profile person in the world  - who was in the alleged risk group, elderly and overweight - got it and 'recovered' quickly. The downside is that Trump has turned himself into an ad for the medicine he claims helped him recover, but...

Let us pray for Dr. Ron Paul - Possibly the only principled political figure left

On weekday early evenings I usually turn on the TV to watch the Ron Paul Liberty Report. The eminent Dr. Ron Paul has his daily  weekday show and from Monday to Thursday he normally hosts it with Daniel McAdams. On Fridays it is mainly about economics and I sometimes tune in only for the first few minutes beucase much of the time it's about the Federal Reserve. While critiquing the Federal Reserve is a worthwile endeavour, it's certainly nothing as informative as the normal weekday shows, so I usually skip most if not all of it.

Nonetheless, I do take note of when the show arrives as I have the YouTube channel subscribed.

Last Friday it didn't show up and I thought maybe they had skipped it. The videos are released somewhat irregularly, at varying times over a span of about 3 hours so sometimes they will come quite late. There had been some storm in Texas over the past week - with one of the episodes being audio only as opposed to being shot in-studio - so I thought that maybe they had skipped an episode on account of this.

Then not long after I saw a bulletin of sorts from FoxNews regarding Ron Paul. He had been admitted to the hospital. They did not say for what reason, but they did state that he was hopeful of making a full recovery.

For full disclosure I don't watch Fox News much. The only thing I watch regularly from them are clips from the Tucker Carlson show, because he is at least much more independent-minded than the rest. Laura Ingraham is okay much of the time but not as interesting. For the most part Fox News - at least with regards to international news - is fake news.

One could argue that MSNBC is fake news for the left, whereas CNN tries to be fake news for everyone - although it is obviously a leftist rag at this point whereas Fox News is fake news for the right. None of them are reliable news outlets but if I must watch some U.S. mainstream television channel then it is only Fox News I can stand as they don't saddle me with sodomy propaganda for the most part anyway. 

Anyway, the news saddened and grieved me. Not long afterwards I saw a headline on Gloria.tv titled "Video shows Ron Paul suffering what looks to be a stroke during a live interview." That was really alarming. He had suffered a stroke during the broadcast of the Friday version of the Ron Paul Liberty Report and there was a clip of it.  Fortunately, one of the comments had a picture of him at the hospitcal with a thumbs-up sign. I was slightly relieved but still concerened, naturally.

Over the weekend I browsed through the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity website to see if there was any information on his health. There was nothing.

Then Monday came and I wondered if Daniel McAdams would host the show on his own, or if they would skip it altogether. At about 8:30 P.M., I noticed that there was indeed a new episode of the Ron Paul Liberty Report but I didn't view it until some time after.

Finally I dared to click, and guess what: He was there introducing the show as usual! I have never been as relieved or joyful to see a familiar face on the television!

He even started with a little joke: After introducing Daniel McAdams he asked him "Good to see you Daniel, How are you doing?" to which he responded that he was doing a whole lot better than a few days ago and Ron Paul responded "You're recovering too!". Then he moved on, looking even younger than he did before, talking about how when doctros are left alone they usually do a good job, then moved forward to the topic which has  mostlyoccupied them since February, namely exposing the coronavirus hoax.

Without a doubt Ron Paul is the most principled and greatest figure in American politics over the last 3 generations, I can confidently claim. He is an independent man whose utterances are guided by principle and not self-interest and his main cause is that of liberty.

Naturally, with him not being a Catholic much less a traditionalist, there are points of disagreement. However, if a fellow traditionalist like Daniel McAdams can give up what would otherwise have been a lucrative career elsewhere to stand by his side and fight for liberty, we can rest assured that there is much good in Ron Raul's platform and I would urge anyone who hasn't tuned in to the Ron Paul Liberty Report to make its viewing a regular occurrence.

Indeed, Ron Paul and Daniel McAdams are one of very few people who have come out of this Covid-19 fiasco with any credit, and in their case, with much greater credit than they even had before. They have not only been proven entirely right acout the Covid-19 hoax, but even more importantly, they have always been opposed from the very beginning to the notion that the governemnt has any sort of right to interfere in people's lives and to commandeer them and their livelihoods due to a medical emergency, real or imagined.

We should indeed pray for Dr. Ron Paul, even if he has recovered fully. We should first and foremost pray for him that he may have convert to the one Holy and Apostolic Catholic Church, not withstanding the fact that more wisdom comes out of Ron Paul than from practically all our episcopate in its entirety.  We should also pray that he can continue his campaign for liberty, because in these darkened times we sorely need his towering voice and tireless fight for freedom - the very freedom we need to serve God.

For now though, suffice it to say that I am extremly joyful to see him back to full strength and I...

The English Premier League is back again

So,the English Premier League for the 2020-2021 season starts today. It's only a few weeks since the season ended, on account of the suspension owing to the Covid-19 fiasco. It was gone for 3 months, which is about as long as I have gone without football since I started watching, but in truth it hardly need have bothered coming back.

Leftist virtue signalling is all the rage in U.S. sports right now, but before sports resumed in the U.S., it had resumed in Europe. The Premier League, as far as I know, was the worst offender.

During the first round after the comeback, for the first 12 games, all players knelt and had the 'Black Lives Matter' banner on their jerseys where their names should have been. This took me by surprise, to say the least. The Premier League has claimed in the past that political sloganeering is not allowed, and here we had a full-on political slogan.

It as so disgusting that I could not watch any of those first 12 matches. After those matches, the 'Black Lives Matter' insignia was reduced in size to a patch on the sleeve. It was still too much, but at least enough such that I would watch  my favourite team play out the season. As it turned out, the only positive was that Manchester Unitedi did manage to clinch Champions League qualification as they finished in 3rd place. Other than that, the whole 'Project Restart' as they called it, was a complete and utter waste of time.

There is much that can be said about the nonsense that took place, but perhaps the most aggravating thing is that the political elite in the U.K. who greenlight sports and entertainment and public thought felt that they would use the one thing many people turn to in order to avoid politics - sports - to force-feed them political ideology. No football fan surely in their right mind can still be a racist, not least because many of the top teams field players who are 'non-white', for lack of a better term. In fact, we already had a no-racism campaign for a while in English football called "No To Racism", with which surely virtually everbody can agree. It was a non-political statement.

The 'Black Lives Matter' slogan, however, is entirely political. In fact, not only is it political, but it is a U.S. political slogan used to enable all sorts of shenanigans during primarily election years. In fact, the BLM-movement seems to have little or anything to do with respect for black lives, and all to do with furthering crazy leftist agendas. 

Leave it to Britain to prove just how much of a lap dog it is to the U.S. that it would embrace U.S. political slogans for its most non-political events. The U.K. really is a basket-case of a nation, but more of that some other time. Suffice to write, I don't think I would last long in the U.K. considering how all-in it has gone on the suppression of free speech due to political correctness.

What if you don't think black lives matter? Well, too bad, you are not allowed to play football in the U.K. or comment on football. 

What if you think that black lives matter but cannot get behind #BlackLivesMatter on account of their homosexualism, transgenderism or the fact that it is a extremely unfortunate phrasing? Again, too bad, the U.K. is closed for that sort of radical political notion.

What if you think black lives matter but would rather use #AllLivesMatter? Again, too bad, because people may get offended.

What if you think "Unborn Lives Matter" or "Black Unborn Lives Matter" or "Palestinian Lives Matter", or "Syrian Lives Matter", or "Libyan Slaves' Lives Matter"? That is fodder for being sent to a re-education camp, or as they call it in England, "sensitivity training" or "diversity appreciation course". Any player who tries to have that on his football jersey or a vest under his jersey would be met with severe sanctions.

In other words, under the guise of caring for black lives, what the U.K. political elite is saying is that they can force-feed you with any political slogan, and designate it non-political, and you are expected to play along.

I started watching football in 1999, in the treble-winning season for Manchester United in which they won the Premier League, the F.A. Cup and the Champions League, in that order. Since then I have watched virtually every round of Premier League football. I have watched Manchester United play almost all their games, unless something on a list of extremely important events came up - something which came to include going to Mass. I had never willingly missed any match before say 3 seasons ago, when the Premier League introduced its sodomy round. In that fixture round, all teams have the captains' armbands in sodomy flag colours, while they also show banners with sodomy flag colours.

When the calamitous Covid-19 responce hit football, it disrupted my normal football schedule. The shutdown was supposed to be one month long, but football resumed only after 3 months. I had never gone that long without football and frankly, I didn't think I could. The Premier League and all sports leagues should have been desperate to bring everyone back since the shutdown showed that people really could live without sports for extended periods. Instead, they all seem to have gone out of their way to harass and repel decent people away from viewing sports.

The Premier League came back after a 3-month hiatus, longer than many people would have thought they could do without football. In truth, it really needn't have bothered.

In just over 2 hours we shall find out whether the BLM-slogan and other letist tripe will once again be force-fed to the watching public.  I hope it is not, otherwise I shall have to find a new weekend hobby, and limit myself to only watching my favourite football team, if eventhat....

A quick and hopefully short take on the 5 strangest months in human history

It is certainly not for a lack of subject matter that I have not posted anything for nearly 5 months. Nor have I at any time fallen even remotely ill during this period. In fact, I have not even had the slightest of colds. If anything, there has been too much to write and it has been difficult to know where to begin.

Tomorrow marks the resumption of work for me, and I am one of the lucky ones as many around the world have lost their jobs. I hope mine stays in my possession for a while yet but things have been changing so rapidly that nothing is certain. The plan was to write a number of posts during my 2 weeks of vacation, especially since I was confined to my residence this time around, but that never happened. Ordinarily I try to avoid using the computer entirely during my holidays, and I am glad to report that I used mine less, though not nearly as rarely as I would have had I been allowed what has become my ordinary vacation spot.

I did take in some reading, which I try to do during vacation, but not as much as I would when away either. In other words, I have not done particularly much, but perhaps that is the entire point of a vacation - taking leave of one's normal routines and relaxing a bit. Anyway, here goes...Hopefully for once I can keep it short.

Because I subscribe to quite a lot of feeds and get my information from a multitude of sources, I am generally much-earlier informed of current trends than most, and oftentimes I'll track a story for a while before it makes big news. As for what came to be known as Covid-19, I became aware of it sometime in December and  began tracking it probably in the first week of January.

I thought it a serious thing, for a very simple reason: The Chinese communist party provably does not give a fig leaf about human life, but they were ready to shut one of their most productive cities off to stop the spread of a virus. "They can't have been doing it to save humans", I thought, so surely they must be facing something entirely devastating which if left unchecked can destroy their entire economy. "Whatever it is, it must be a whopper". By the way, I had never even heard of Wuhan before this debacle, not that I can remember anyway, which just shows how little we, or at least I, know about even large metropolises in China and other non-Western areas.

Now, on my website - which doesn't have as much original content as I would like, granted - you can find me finding positive points in virtually everything, and admiration without necessarily approval of even the most vile ideologies. You will not find, I am certain, any good word ever on communism, or even of its better-PR-handled ugly sister socialism. In other words, I cannot be assumed of having a deferential treatment to anything the communists do in any country, which is not to say that I support every anti-Chinese or anti-Cuban or even anti-Soviet propaganda piece, but that simply on sentiment, I dislike communism and socialism in their ends as well as their intentions.

So, the 'communist Chinese' - actually, more capitalists in business system but communist in social and political structures - clamped down hard on this thing. By the 17th of March, the date of my previous article, this 'disease' had spread to much of the world, which was in 'lockdown', as it came to be known, with the exception of Sweden and a few select others (I knew only of Sweden at the time, if memory serves me right). I am glad to report that Sweden did not shut down any more than it had on the 17th of March, for reasons which I cannot get into here, but to which I may well return to elucidate. 

Much of the rest of the world, did shut down however, and remarkably, remains shut down. That I had not expected. So then the question becomes: If more or less the whole world has shut down, it must mean we have been facing an extremely serious illness. Well, you would think so, wouldn't you, and ordinarily you would be correct. However, this period has been as far from ordinary as anything anyone has ever experienced save for the Incarnation.

I did write this in my last post:

Another consideration is worth pondering: If the faithful can go without Mass for a month, and manage to occupy themselves with other pursuits, what is to bring them back to Church after that month? 

Would that it would have been only a month! It lasted for months and is still going on, largely.  In fact, many of the re-openings of NOChurch have been more scandalous than the Mass cancellations and church closings were in the first place! NOChurch has been in full suicide-mode. This is not a post on NOChurch, however, which deserves its own separate treatment. Suffice to write that the good in this is that Bergoglio has been speaking less and travelling not at all, so we have been spared of many of his overhead bombing raids.

When last I wrote, I could still write something like the following

Covid-19 Chinese coronavirus, which has spread like wildfire in Italy and has by now shut down much of the country

without wanting to put scare quotes on the words 'coronavirus' or 'spread'. Now, I am inclined to do this every time I write these words, but I would rather avoid having to type them so you will simply have to add them in as you read. I would hesitatingly have written "has by now shut down much of the country" while referring to the virus (read 'virus') but now I would avoid that kind of language entirely and write something akin...

NOChurch lives up to its moniker and becomes "no church"

For quite a while now I have referred to the Church of Vatican II as NOChurch. This is obviously a moniker derived from my usual reference of it as "Novus Ordo church", as opposed to the real Catholic Church which is obscured by this pseudo-church of Vatican II.

Little did I know that NOChurch was actually going to give up even the pretence of Catholicism and forbid Mass attendance, and even celebration, altogether. The occasion of this prohibition was the now-pervasive Covid-19 Chinese coronavirus, which has spread like wildfire in Italy and has by now shut down much of the country. The frightening thing about it, however, is that NOChurch shut down Masses in Italy even before the government required it. Even confession has been cancelled in many places.

Presumably they wanted to show that they cared more than anybody else, but at least part of it probably has to do with the fact that they don't see the Mass as something all that important. To many of the hierarchy in the Vatican it's just a pasttime, something pious or pious-seeming people get up to on Sundays, as opposed to hiking or canoeing. That might explain also why they don't see it as such a big thing inviting non-Catholics and public heretics to the 'banquet', as they call it, because if it's just a gathering then there is no reason why protestants or other non-Catholics (heretics included) should be denined the chance of a communal gathering hightlighted by a communal stroll to the front of the church.

What is has allowed everyone to do is conclude this very thing. One need not even be a traditionalist to see that the NOChurch hierarchy doesn't believe much in the 'mumbo jumbo' as they would probably call it.

Let us recall that - if my information is accurate - they cancelled Mass while there was still no general prohibition against frequenting public spaces! My understanding is that restaurants and pubs were still open, as was public transportation. I would assume that these have now been shut down but at the time that NOChurch decreed this they were still available. In other words, if they actually believed that the Chinese coronavirus was dangerous, it was apparently not dangerous enough to keep one from work, but dangerous enough to keep us from the Mass.

Worse was to follow still as Bergoglio then ordered all churches in Rome closed. This seems to have backfired and he seemed to pin the blame on his vicar-general, but we can assume that Bergoglio was definitely in on it if not the chief instigator of the decision. It would seem typical of the man to shun responsibility when put to task.

Outside Italy things were not much better as even though churches were not closed everywhere, many bishops took the opportunity to ram hand Communion down our throats, or hands, as the case may be, proving yet again that these people never waste a chance to desacralise. This was certainly the case in Germany, and before that the Diocese of Hong Kong and Singapore had done the very same thing. In fact, Sweden is one of few places where the Church has had a measured response, and for that the bishop and his vicar-general and the Church hierarchy in general is to be commended. The Church in Poland also deserves praise for not losing sight of priorities.

It is certainly easy to understand why the Church would want her flock  to be physically safe, but given that we must put God first and that our souls are eternal, it seems very telling that the hierarchy chose to prioritise the physical well-being of the few who frequent Mass over their spiritual well-being, by denying them the very tools they need to reach eternity at the very time of the year when the Sacraments and sacramentals are likely to bear most fruit - the Lenten season. We must conclude that we are dealing with a largely unbelieving hiearchy. It has been reported that in times past the Church urged the faithful to participate in public processions and acts of atonement at times of plagues and epidemics, and yet today we are left with a hierarchy which in places has attempted to deprive us of even personal use of our sacred spaces. Others have remarked that Bergoglio and his henchmen, in shutting down the celebration of the Mass, managed to achieve what emperors and communists never managed to do.

Another consideration is worth pondering: If the faithful can go without Mass for a month, and manage to occupy themselves with other pursuits, what is to bring them back to Church after that month? I mean, we have already established that the Church and God definitely take a backseat at the very least to the professional life. Perhaps resting out on Sundays so as to be fit and ready for Monday work is a better pursuit of one's time then.

In any case, God does bring good out of evil, and in the response to the Chinese coronavirus scare, He has afforded a good opportunity to those resistant to facing reality to see just how far from Catholicism NOChurch has fallen.

NOChurch at this moment in time literally entails "no church" and that is not even an exaggeration. It matters not that the abscence of Novus Ordo masses probably ought to be cause for celebration. I might disdain the Novus Ordo Mass, but the hierarchy insist it is a valid, licit and dignified Mass. I am willing to grant that it is valid but definitely not licit or dignified, and their treatment of it and the Sacraments in general says much more than their protestations to the contrary.

 

 

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...

Pages

Subscribe to Distinctions Matter RSS