anti-traditionalism

As far as the Vatican goes, this was a slow news week, which is good. The biggest news of the week, without a doubt, was the re-election to the Russian presidency of Vladimir Putin, who was rewarded for his stellar work.

Few were surprised at the outcome, not least since the polls showed him to be winning with a very large margin. The goal they had set was 70/70, which is to say, a 70% of a 70% voter turnout. The turnout was not quite as high as 70% - I believe it came up just short - but the support was even higher.

Here we have a man who towers above all heads of state in the world today, one who has charted a course which has seen his country steer away from destruction and utter despair into once more being a powerhouse. There is no doubt that most of the scaremongering regarding Russia is blantant propaganda and lies, but there is also little doubt that Russia is a feared nation once again, and most of the credit for that has to go to Putin, a man respected by most who have not not fallen victim to the propaganda of mainline Western narratives.

In the Soviet days, 'Russia' was feared, but today it is very much also a respected country. It is respected by many in the global South, and in the East, and in Latin America, because it has shown that one does not have to bend over to appease the West. In fact, Russia's greatest error after the collapse of the Western Union was allowing itself to be lulled into a sense of friendship with the West, for which it paid very dearly, with the country being looted almost literally to the point of bankruptcy.

There are those who, predictably, have said that the elections were rigged, although they have received a passing grade from observers. What many will find striking is the nothin that 76% of a country's electorate can vote for a single man, can support a man so as to essentially obliterate any meaningful opposition to him.

What a lot of people don't realise is that in Putin, Russians see a man they can trust, a man who they know loves his fatherland, and who has spent his life trying to serve his nation. Most Russians will definitely not agree with everything Vladimir Putin does, and neither do I, because the man is not perfect, as no one is. However, I doubt you will find many Russians who question whether what Putin does politically he does because he thinks it is the best for Russia.

Of which rulers (and I call them rulers and not leaders for a reason) in the West can we say that? Not even Trump comes close, because Trump's "America first" mantra in reality seems to translate to 'Israel first', to 'military-industrial complex first'. We definitely cannot say that about the rulers of the U.K, nor Sweden, nor France. What people also fail to realise is that Russians, although diverse in many ways with regards to ethnicity, have been forged by a common history, and they have a common sense of duty towards their nation.

It probably deserves mention that most Russians are 'ethnically' Russian, but the broader point is that their is a national sense of being Russian, and it would seem as though Russians want a strong ruler who they can respect and who also gets others to respect their motherland. It would seem as though Putin is a near-perfect embodiment of this rule, who actually is a very good leader as well.

One could make a comparison between Putin and Bergoglio, and if one can do it while maintaining a straight face one would realise that the two are polar opposites. The less said about the cabal running things in the Vatican today the better, but I shall say that those who claim that Bergoglio seriously thinks he is acting for the better of the Church, are more than kliley trying to convince themselves of that more than anything else.

I know that this is Edward Pentin's line, but how such a learned and good-natured man can say that in public I really do not understand. He knows more about Bergoglio's evil machinations and the mess they are making than most, so his claim does assume a seriousness that it would not otherwise merit. However, given all the scandals that have been uncovered, all the scheming, all the anti-Catholic statements, I really would like Edward Pentin to elaborate on how exactly it is he concludes that Bergoglio is trying his best and not working out of sheer malice.

So much for intentions. As for outcomes, I'll not waste anyone's time comparing Bergoglio's to Putins save to mention that one has turned his country into a feared and respected nation, while the other is well on his way to turning the Church into an obscene and blasphemous joke. That he will not succeed in his evil plans is neither here nor there, but it says much of the man that those who have always defended the papacy and papal authority are now his most fierce opponents, and that even the general audience is more or less tired of this lewd man, appropriately enough showing up in fewer and fewer numbers at his general audiences, such that some mockingly wonder whether they are still free to attend. As the elections in Russia showed, the people in Russia have taken the opposite view, and feel entirely content with handing over to Putin all the power he needs to do what he thinks is good for the country. If his record is anything to go by, it probably will be.

Finally, it is also interesting to note that Putin got more votes this time around than in 2012, whereas with Bergoglio, genuine Catholics seem to find him more offensive by the month, if not...

There are very many neo-Catholics who look down smugly on traditionalists. They want to claim that they still hold to the Catholic faith but do not soil their hands by mixing with those who question disastrous multiple (im)prudential decisions by the Holy See since Vatican II.

In "An attack on older Traditional Catholics in the Catholic Herald", Joseph Shaw chronicled a new type of Catholic - the "self-hating self-righteous not-really-trad Trad" as evidenced by Michael Davis, writing for the Catholic Herald. In his piece he managed to cobble up just about the most extreme caricatures of traditionalists, while claiming that he is a traditionalist, but of the friendly type. He trashed the older generation of traditionalists while praising the novus traditionalists of whom he obviously counts himself.

My regard for the Catholic Herald went down the drain with the Libyan war, which they cheered as enthusiastically as the war propaganda room of NATO. Things have not improved under Bergoglio but have only gotten worse. Occasionally we have a piece which is provocatively truthful, but for the most part whenever they cover anything remotely political you can count on it being anti-Russian propaganda, and when  it comes to Church news, their reporting is often less than stellar, and they often gloss over the most offensive utterances of Bergoglio for nobody-knows-why. I am therefore not surprised that their new American editor found time to write such a vitriolic piece attacking traditionalists.

Sticking to that newspaper, we had a piece by Francis Philips titled "How many of us would truly resist an evil regime?" Its focal point was a woman who died not long ago, but who is best known for serving as a secretary for Goebbels, Nazi Germany's propaganda general. I only bring this up to highlight the lack of self-reflection to which we can all fall victim. As I wrote previously, the Catholic Herald and I have fallen out, so it may well be that Miss/Mrs. Philips has been writing about the diabolical scheming of Bergoglio in the most resistant of ways. I suspect she hasn't. It could also be that she has been shouting from the rooftops and denouncing the British government as it has attacked the sanctity of life, the sanctity of marriage, the facts of nature, and armed Islamists who have killed hundreds of thousands in the Middle East while driving out millions from their home. I suspect she has done none of that either.

In essentials, modern U.K. is every bit an evil regime as was the Nazis - most visibly with its callous disregard for human life and its incessant attack on the family -, but Francis Philips has done little to resist it. In essentials, the Bergoglio regime is even worse than the Nazis, since the Nazis - we are led to believe - wanted the death of our bodies, whereas Bergoglio seems hell-bent to see our souls damned for eternity. She has done even less to resist that, I suspect. So the question is open as to how many of us would resist an evil regime, but we can be relatively certain that Miss/Mrs. Philip wouldn't recognise one unless it popped up in her schoolbooks.

Without a hint of irony she asks us "How many of us would resist an evil regime?" That one can be so blind as to one's surroundings should concern us all.

I shall stick to the "evil regime" of the U.K. and illustate my point. We had yet another case of a child being pulled off child support by a judge against the wishes of his parents. This is a death sentence with a twist though, as the judge cited Bergoglio as justification for his decision to have the child die. This comes, of course, hot on the heels of the Charlie Gard story in which the judges denied a child the chance for experimental treatment because they wanted the child to die in a U.K. hospital. The diabolical Bergoglio effect on full display.

Moving onto the Church in the U.K., we are told that the number of Catholic weddings falls by two-thirds since 1990. So much for the sprintime of Vatican II. I doubt the quality of marriages is as high as it was before the Council either.

With yet another blasphemous Vatican stamp, this time with a homo-erotic presentation of some approximation of some Christ-like figure, Fr. Ray Blake asks "Where is the Vatican going?"

Finally, to finish of the theme of the United Kingdom, we have some good news, with Graeme Garvey mapping the English Catholic martyrs on a map that is now available online. The map is non-interactive, but I can do nothing but applaud the efforts of this layman and hope to emulate his efforts in one way or another down the road, in paying homage, however unworthily, to our Catholic forebears and the sacrifice they paid.

There is normally enough bad news in BergoglioChurch to leave one depressed for a week, and hardly a week goes by without a paedophilia/pederasty/homosexual scandal from a higly-placed cleric. It's depressing, and it's oftentimes demoralising and I wish I could just ignore it but we have to face NOChurch as it is. This week was no exception, as a former diocesan vocations director priest in the U.S. was arresed for homosexual sex assault on a 17-year old boy/man. I'll spare you the details.

Cardinal Cupich was up to his old Bergoglio-approved sin-promoting ways, and Fr. Gerald Murray took him to task for it.

Since the U.S. does not have the same simoniacal church tax system  that the Germans have, and that Sweden has - although to a less nefarious degree - one has the option of refusing to support a bishop who one knows is causing harm to the faith. In " Excellent Idea For Annual Bishop/Cardinal Appeal" , the author argues for withholding money from one's diocese if one has...