A problem so urgent it can be put off for 5 months, and making the Chinese military great again - Sunday 9th of September to Saturday 6th of October

This has been another Bergoglian month, full of scandals and distasteful accusations and insults against the few remaining faithful Catholics.

Much can be written about Bergoglio's implication in the McCarrick scandal, but I feel no need to engage that topic much more. We already know what we need to know: Bergoglio is a pervert, almost certainly a sodomite, who surrounds himself with sodomites and who promotes sodomy at virtually every given opportunity. He has already said that one can make up one's own idea of right and wrong, and he seems to pick people whose moral deviancy is beyond dispute. Anything else is just details, and I feel no desire to soil my blog with more of Bergoglio's sordid affairs.

This does not mean that we still can't cover his many other scandals, and indeed we ought, lest we lose sight of the sustained assault in which Bergoglio has engaged against the faith. In the secular world too, things are not looking good, and Bergoglio's assault on the Church from within has strengthened the Church's enemies on the outside.

By far the most thought-provoking pieces  I have read over the past month were on the Remnant. In a series of articles titled A Wilderness of Mirrors, columnist Jesse Russell laid out "as to why the media, after all this time of knowing about both Bergoglio's and McCarrick's perversions, seems to have decided to turn against them by highlighting stuff they could very easily have done previously, and much earlier, as I summarised them on the 4th of October. His general contention is that, just as news of the Boston clerical scandal was used to undermine Pope John Paul II's opposition to the Iraq war as it was in its planning phase, so too the revelations of Bergoglio's involvement in the McCarrick scandal have been brought up to undermine Bergoglio's assumed opposition to any America-led war on Iran.

I too have wondered "why now?" It turns out that the information about the Boston sexual abuse cases was pretty much well-known in the Boston area at least, and an inquisitive mind ought to at least wonder in that case why the scandal blew up in 2000, just as the American political establishment was making its case for a war in Iraq. So too, information about Bergoglio's perversions has been all-too-easy to find, yet we are supposed to believe that the media has only now got wind of it. The question I have had all along is why the media has not been following up leads on Bergoglio's many scandals, given how much the media likes to drag up dirt on the Church, but it did not take me long to conclude that whoever controls the media sees Bergoglio as their man, and does not wish to see his demolition of the Church come off course by airing his dirty linens in public.

That brings us to the question of why the media now is tentatively covering this scandal, and the only explanation I can come up with is that they simply could not igore it outright, given how hard they have worked to undermine the Church on its handling of sexual abuse, a problem which is not worse in the Catholic Church than it is in other organisations both secular and religious. That is, of course, no excuse, and I do not mind this exposure, because the Church is supposed to be held to a higher standard. It is, in fact, supposed to set the standard. Still, the media coverage of what for any other pope would be a witch-hunt is very half-hearted at best. For this, Bergoglio probably has to thank the media's general homosexualist stance, since any digging into this scandal would reveal its homosexual roots, but that hardly explains everything.

For that reason, Jesse Russell's contribution was an eye-opener in that it allowed one to step back and look at the whole situation from a larger perspective, to see the whole chess board as it were.

I have often maintained that it is important to give Bergoglio credit for what little good he has done, and as far as I am concerned he has done only one good thing since becoming pope, and that is opposing what seemed to be a certain U.S. attack on Syria in 2013 on account of one of the many false/hoax flag events we have seen during that proxy war. Not only did he oppose it, but he called for worldwide prayer for a peaceful solution, which allowed my main man Vladimir Putin to come in and steal the U.S.'s excuse from war from under its nose when he declared that a deal had been reached with the Syrian government to transfer all chemical weapons out of the country. This was later verified by the OPCW and has been re-verified on multiple counts since, not that it has stopped Donald Trump and his neo-cons from attacking Syria on further false/hoax flags.

The main goal for Trump and the American kleptocracy has always been Iran, and so we should not be surprised that the lies against Iran have been ramped up. Iran being what it is - a rather powerful nation - the groundwork for an attack has to be planned out long in advance and opposition to a war has to be snuffed out considerably more methodically than was done against Iraq. Witness false flags against Russia in the U.K., Ukraine and Syria, and Trumps obsession with demonising Iran's presumed allies in Turkey and China, trying to put economic pressure on them, presumably so they can cave in to his war plans in return for an allevation of the economic pressures.

If you ask me, Jesse Russell's conspiracy theory is a bit too clean for my liking. It's too neat, and explains too much too well. I don't see particularly much methodology in the Trump administration, although I must admit that confusion and madness may well be its methodology: what do I know? They might well be the Bergoglians of politics,f or there surely is method in Bergoglio's seeming madness. His theory is, however a very good contribution to the debate and one we ought to keep in mind in case things heat up in the Middle East on account of zionist and wahhabist warmongering.

In short,  I would like to thank Jesse Russell for taking the time to lay out his theory and The Remnant for airing this views. This series of articles once again confirmed what I have always said about traditionalists: We seek the truth whenever we find it because we seek God first and foremost. Most American traditionalists have not fallen for the seduction of americanism, and this is exemplified perfectly well by The Remnant. We are under no illusions that the 'Western world' or 'Western civilisation' is our goal, or even our fort. Our goal is Christendom, and americanism, and 'Western civilisation', are as existential threats to that as are communism and jihadism. Traditionalists know that because they know how far removed from God's ways the Western world has fallen. Neo-Catholics don't, because for the most part they long replaced Catholicism and authentic Christianity with Westernism, not realising  that Western civilisation was built upon the destruction of Christendom, and that's me putting it kindly.

One of the more common reactions to the doctrinal confusion in the Catholic Church is "I'm going to join the Orthodox Church", at which point I am tempted to ask, "which one?" given that that there are quite a lot of different Orthodox churches, and they don't all seem to get along with one another. In fact, it's so bad that many Orthodox believers would rather attend a Catholic service than one of a rival Orthodox church.

I am indebted to the Patriarch of Constantinople for illustrating my point, what with the rift that has developed between Constantinople and Moscow on account of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. The details are far too complex to detail here, and I barely understand them, but it would seem to stem from the fact that the Patriarch of Constantinople - who seems to be Bergoglio-lite - wants to grant autocephaly - self-governance, in essence - to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, or at least a splinter group from the larger body of the Ukrainian Orthodox. The Russian Orthodox Church, however, insists that he has no right to do that as the Ukrainian Orthodox Church has always been under the Patriarch of Moscow. I have my doubts about that claim given that the Moscow Patriarchy has been somewhat on-and-off but still...The Patriarch of Patriarch of Alexandria supports Moscow in its claim.

The biggest problem with the notion of going over to the Orthodox though - apart from their claim to orthodoxy being rather bogus - is the fact that they are not even doctrinally orthodox, given that the very doctrinal issue which has caused consternation ever since Bergoglio came into the fray - reception of Holy Communion for public adulterers - is a non-issue for the Orthodox since probably even before they split from Rome. It is an act of extreme ignorance to think that one will find doctrinal purity among the Orthodox, especially on issues of marriage and sexuality because apart from adultery, even their approach to issues such as contraception and cohabitation is far from unified.

Regarding the Amoris Laetitia scandal, we were informed that were was a 5th "Dubia" Cardinal who refused to be named publicly. I couldn't come up with a wise-crack comment on that so I'll leave it uncommented...

Not done with destroying marriage, or at least attempting to, Bergoglio went about attempting to corrupt our youth, and the so-called Youth Synod began. Many expect it to be nothing but a big homo-propaganda fest. Initial signs prove those suspicions right.

In Syria, things seemed to cool down, then heat up, then cool down in unexpected fashion. At first there was a Russian-Turkey agreement which halted the assault on Idlib province - the last stronghold of Islamists. Not too long after this agreement, French and Israeli forces attacked Syrian forces, and in the ensuing melee, managed to bring down a Russian military airlplane, killing 16 servicemen. This prompted an article on The Strategic Culture titled The West Hates Peace in Syria: From De-Escalation to Almost World War III in Just Two Hours, which was not at all an over-statement. The Russians acted coolly - some said too coolly -, as usual, and responded by finally deciding to deliver the S-300 missile defence system to Syria, after holding up the delivery for at least 5 years, on Israel's request believe it or not. The Russian defence minister said that he hoped it would cool "hot heads" in the region, or perhaps it was "hotheads". No matter, having a competent air defence system will certainly raise the stakes for the zionists in their attacks on Syrian forces. Not only that, but the Russians will integrate Syria's missile defence systems with theirs, and jam any signals coming from the Mediterranean into Syria.

In other words, the Israelis committed yet another own goal in Syria. It wasn't enough for them to have free reign to attack pretty much whatever they wanted in Syria without the Russians interfering; they had to push the envelope. This is what makes Israel so dangerous: They know that they have U.S. support on pretty much any violations of international law and they think they can get away with anything, and for the most part they are right since the U.S. pretty much vetoes any U.N. resolutions against them, while giving them political cover. These people could very well and very easily bring the world to a major world war with their recklessness, and it will have been everyone else's fault except traditional Catholics and me!

The U.N. had its annual General Assembly meeting, and Donald Trump once again outdid himself in his warmongering; nothing new there. What surprised me, however, was the Austrian foreign minister saying that Syria is a victim of wars fought in the name of oil. Maybe there is hope for Austria, after all. That's more honesty than I thought existed at high levels of European diplomacy. That being written, I am not in complete agreement that the wars are simply about oil, but I'll not develop that point any further for now anyway.

The U.S. political circus was in full swing, but this time it ended somewhat happily with Donald Trump's pick for the U.S. Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh being confirmed 50-48. I am not enthusiastic about him and he has many questionable judicial positions. It was expected that he might have a hard time based on some of his judicial decisions. However, given the circus surrounding the ludicrous sexual assault/indecency/disturbance (I honestly don't know what to call them) allegations , the only decent thing to do for anyone who had any ounce of decency was to vote to confirm him.

It seems the only thing the U.S. political system can agree on is to spend more on the military, but even that has its costs given the report that the US Will Soon Spend More on Debt Interest Than on the Military. Mark Steyn wrote a few years ago that China will be able to build up its military to the size of the US.'s with the U.S. paying for it given its interest payments to the Chinese, and it probably won't be long before that is the case - 10 years by the report's count.

One of Donald Trump's iconic slogans from his campain was "We'll build a wall, and Mexico will pay for it!". You can easily imagine Xi Jinping of China going "We shall build a mighty military and the U.S. will pay for it!" In his case, it would actually be true. Even absent any more defeats in wars it need not start, it would seem that the U.S. military will literally be the death of them.

In any case, those 2 stores pretty much sum up why I am of the mind the that U.S. does not have long left as a country, at least not in its present form.

In the midst of all this drama, Sweden had an election. It did not go well for the establishment as  Sverigedemokraterna - the nationalists - made large gains. Their tally was less than the polls showed, which led some to suspect vote rigging, given that it's virtually the first known case of nationalists getting worse results in elections than in the polls. With more than a month gone the politicians have still not managed to create a government, as they seem to have decided that the greatest virtue in politics is distancing themselves from parties which talk about real issues, which in this case is Sverigedemokraterna.

I do not doubt that they would rig the elections if they felt it necessary. However, I think the lower count simply has to do with a lower turnout among those who are more inclined to vote for Sverigedemokraterna - the Swedish Democrats. I suspect that a large part of their base is foreigners, and foreigners, I suspect, have a much lower voter turnout than native, or real, ethnic, or whatever-you-want-to-call-them Swedes.

The political parties, it would seem, will only take Sverigedemokraterna seriously once they get over 50% + 1 of the votes. They ought to be careful what they wish for because at the present rate of destruction, it might well happen, and sooner than they think.

Finally, Bergoglio decided to show that he takes the sex abuse problem seriously and decided to convoke a world-wide summit of bishops on the abuse crisis, to be held in February. He takes the issue of clerical and episcopal sex abuse so seriously that he will free up time from his schedule to deal with it about 5 months from now, probably managing to squeeze in celerity meetings and one or another dubious canonisation before then.

Anyway, that tid-bit of Bergoglioism provides us with this week's/month's Bergoglio victim of the week/month. That has to be priorities.