Bergoglio priorities

Was it all about Roy Moore? In other news: At least perversion is still considered a bad thing - Sunday 12th-Saturday 18th of November

A short entry this week, hopefuly.

From the most judgemental non-judgemental pope in history we have yet another condemnation. This time it is that we are perverse if we do not believe the scientism on climate change. The only thing that caught my eye regarding this is that Bergoglio still considers perversion to be a bad thing - judging from the way he phrased his rant. Given his many utterances promoting all sorts of perverted acts, I had almost come to suspect that he sees perversion as something virtuous. This is, after all, the same man who has said that people who act uprightly often have something dark in their closet.

Something tells me Bergoglio knows a thing or two about closets....

More allegations of sexual misconduct have come forth from all and sundry, also in Sweden funnily enought. It has indeed become the new fashion. I must admit that when this thing first broke I didn't get why it had broken out over Harvey Weinstein, of all people, someone who was not exactly known as a prude, and in Hollywood of all places, which seems to be some sort of vice capital. It was, after all, an open secret that he was as promiscuous as a bee is to flowers, if not outright predatory. Others were dragged in subsequently but even before it had left that particular pervert I thought it was going all over the top. The allegations got all the more fuzzy and it soon became the fad to accuse him of sexual harassment. Given that Hollywood is a place given to fads, I stopped taking any of the accusations seriously, especially since they got just quite nutty. We have one, for example, of a woman who says that she invited him to her house twice and he raped her, twice!

We do know that there is some sort of coordination in the news media so if a story gathers more pace that it deserves at first hand there is often a reason for it. It occured to me that perhaps the whole reason why Harvey Weinstein had been thrown into the mix was because they wanted to create a firestorm of hysteria regarding sexual assault allegations, so that they could suck up Roy Moore into it. It seems far-fetched but one has to understand that Roy Moore is quite a lightning-bolt into the political establishment in the United States. This is a man who says that the "United States cannot be great before it is good", so he is far from a neo-conservative. He is exactly the sort of person they absolutely would not want on the Senate floor, debating one immoral act over another.

If you thought Trump was a shock to the system, then imagine how hazardous Roy Moore would be! With Trump and Roy Moore all of a sudden we are not dealing with an isolated incident, but rather a proper movement with proper momentum. This has to be stopped!

For that reason whoever pulls the strings in the media and political establishments decided that it was enough to whip up a storm regarding sexual accusations, even if it included sucking in a few of their most high-profile agents. The prize was too valuable and it could come at a high price. Enter the Hollywerid perverts then! They had to be sacrificed to create the initial storm, and on top of that, the accusations had to get more and more diffuse to such an extent that any man was going to be considered guilty just by having an accusation levelled towards him. This then created the proper feeding ground for accusations against Roy Moore, which true or false - and some of them are fanciful at best -, would probably not have gained this much traction had not the Hollywood perverts been caught up in the media storm. After all, the case now is such that there is a presumption of guilt for anyone accused, and a presumption of victimhood for any woman who comes forward with an accusation.

It is a good old-fashioned witch-hunt. There are probably more people who have been caught up in this mess than the power brokers were counting on, but the prize is too valuable and it can cost what it may. I predict that this hysteria will die down after the Alabama elections, at least if Roy Moore loses. Expect it to go on for a while further if he wins!

Regarding the Harvey Weinstein issue, there is an interview with E. Michael Jones in which he brings up the issue that in Talmudic Judaism, perverting the morals of non-Jews - gentiles - is seen as a virtuous thing. I do not know enough of Talmudic Judaism to falsify or confirm this claim, but it does not seel all that far-fetched. His theory is that this particular Hollywood pervert has fallen victim to the old Jewish custom of scape-goating, indeed a Biblical concept.

Another Vatican conference brings yet more anti-life speakers and more immorality promotion from Bergoglio's anti-Catholic fraternity. Population experts and abortion activist abound.

Some news stories from Russia, the most noteworthy being that Patriach Kirill informed/claimed that the Russian Orthodox Church has built over 5,000 new churches and ordained 10,000 new clergymen in just 6 years. I am skeptical to the claims, but if I take the patriach at his word, the statistics are completely staggering. They are beuilding new churches at an even faster rate than the Novus Ordo is destroying them! The same website from which I read that also informed its readers that its youtube channel is being censored - actually has been removed. One would think that such news would warrant attention, but our new Christophobic tech masters simply do not want to have such good news spread. It might interfere with their anti-Russian propaganda.

Speaking of which, the OSCE finally spoke about against labelling media...

Bergoglio cracks down: No fags for your orgies! - Sunday 5th-Saturday 11th of November

Like him or loathe him, one has to admit that were Bergoglio's pontificate not so tragic, it would be hilariously comedic. One of the most amusing things about the man has to be his gift for mis-prioritisation, was was on full display this past week. Another tragically amusing thing about him is taking narcicissm to whole new levels. That too was on display this week.

First Bergoglio whined about how people take pictures at Mass, reminding pilgrims - although I would rather use the term victims for anybody who gets exposed to one of Bergoglio's audiences - that it is not a show. This is strange talk, from a man who has himself had clown Masses and who forced a beach ball to sit firmly on the altar - a beach ball which seemed more pious than Bergoglio at the time since it seemed to realise it was out of place and tried to roll off several times. It is interesting though to note the words that the big hypocrite used:

...And I tell you that it gives me so much sadness when I celebrate here in the Piazza or in the Basilica and I see so many raised mobiles (cell phones), not just of the faithful, but even of some priests and bishops too. But please! The Mass is not a show...”

What is interesting with that is not that Bergoglio often treats the Mass as a show - cue the feet-kissing and the sign of peace which takes him all around the Church at times - but condemns others when they do it. In fact, I am kind of happy to learn from Bergoglio that he doesn't think the Mass is a show, seeing as he often treats it as such. No, what is interesting is the fact that even when he is right - that the Mass is not a show - he manages to make it all about himself: "It gives me so much sadness". It's just more "Me! Me! Me!, I, I , I! Me! Me! Most humble me!" from this narcissist.

My policy has always been that one ought not to take pictures at Mass, and if one does so it should be discreet, and one should not receive Holy Communion at a Mass in which one has been taking pictures as one has not been in total submission to the occasion. However, if it annoys Bergoglio, I am willing to revise my policy.

The most amusing thing, however, was that his chronic mis-prioritisation was in full display during the week as it was announced by Greg Burke that Bergoglio has decided to forbid the sale of cigarettes in the Vatican. I couldn't help but laugh when I realised it was not a spoof, I had to find multiple sources reporting this because at first sight I thought it was a joke.

When you think of all the scandals which have hit the Vatican in just the past few months - from population control advocates giving talks, to adultery promotion, to sodomy promotion, to financial improprieties, and of course, the infamous homosexual orgy monsignor, of whom Bergoglio and the Vatican media apparatus has remained silent - it is remarkable to think that the one thing Bergoglio thought it wise to crack down on was cigarette smoking. If one had read the headline "Pope outlaws fags on Vatican premises", with a Catholic pope one might have tended to think "I didn't even know there were any at the Vatican! Be gone with them!". With Bergoglio though, it is a different fag which is being banned.

The reason is very simple: The Holy See cannot contribute to an activity that clearly damages the health of people.

The message was certainly clear, homosexual orgies I'll not talk about or condemn, but cigarettes are banned. My regime couldn't care less about spiritual death even though Jesus Christ speaks of it as the most dangerous thing, but if the WHO mentions smoking as physically harmful, you can count on me to act on it. The message, I am sure, was clearly received, but I summarise it below in case anybody has missed it.

In other words, no cigarettes after your orgies, or during, or before, or whatever the protocol is at Bergoglio's Vatican. No mercy for smokers, but for adulterers and everyone else; well, unless they count Rosaries or say the Confiteor in Latin. In other words, no fags for your orgies!

Another noteworthy thing is that Bergoglio chose to have his media folks announce this as though it was a momentous event. Look, the Vatican has 1 store of which I know, and possibly 2 if they have a bar at the Domus Santa Marthae. We are talking at most about 3 stores at the Vatican, so there was no good reason to make it out as though this was momentous news. If Bergoglio had considered cigarettes so harmful as to want to ban them at all Vatican stores, all he would have needed to do was to advice his assistant to do it in all the 3 places in person. I am sure it would have taken less than 20 minutes to walk to all the joints which sell cigarettes at the Vatican. Such discretion was not good enough for an attention whore of an apostatate, and once again, his media manager had to make it seems as though the most humble pope in history was doing a great service to mankind by announcing his decision to the whole world.

It could have been worse, I suppose: He might have forbidden the sale of all cigarettes which were not made from organic tobacco. So I suppose in that sense he did not exhaust all the comedic possibilities of this particular absurdity. Maybe he is not finished with this topic then.

That covers most of my reflections this week, and the rest I shall mention only in passing.

In another...

Bergoglio's fanks make a better case for his heresy better than his opposition could ever do - Sunday 15th of October to Saturday 22nd of October

They often say that one can tell quite a lot about a person based on who he has as friends, or fans, or allies. In that spirit, a bunch of heretics started a website in defence of Bergoglio. In their effort they condemn him more than the filial correction ever could.

Among the signatories we find heretics of all kinds, including a woman who was excommuniated under Bergoglio's pontificate. The fact that no diocesan bishops have signed is also significant, and the only bishops in favour seem to be auxillary bishops. If these are the kind of people supporting Bergoglio, there surely can be no doubt that his plans are diabolical. I just wish more of the heretics sign up, so that they can be exposed for all to see.

Sticking to the theme of Bergoglio's diabolical schemes, we have news that he has convened a synod in South America, which will discuss the lack of priests for the Amazonian region. It is expected that Bergoglio will use it as an excuse to introduce married clergy. St. Birgitta of Sweden had an approved vision in  which she sawthat any pope who abolishes priestly celibacy will spend eternity in hell, where he will be tormented by having ravens gouging his eyes out, or something to that effect. If Bergoglio does it, then we no longer need to doubt where he is headed.

Spare me the whole "priestly celibacy is a discipline nonsense"! The fact of the matter is that Christ laid out priestly celibacy as desirable and the Church has always held it as the norm. It is an apostolic discipline, of apostolic tradition, and like all other apostolic traditions they are binding on us Catholics since our duty is to pass on what has been received. Furthermore, it is ridiculous of Bergoglio to try to use this as an excuse for married  clergy (cause that has worked out so well for protestants, of course), given that he is always insisting that nobody needs to be Catholic in the first place. If nobody needs the sacraments to enter Heaven, then how come the Amazonians are in such dire need as to warrant a synod specifically for them? Are they the exception who cannot be saved apart from through the sacraments instituted for our salvation? Don't count on Bergoglio or his psychophants clearing up this particular contradiction!

Bergoglio's victims also continue to pile up, and this week it was the turn of the eminent Dr. Thomas Stark, who was teaching at the Heiligenkreuz Abby - free of charge, it must be added.

Then we had Bergoglio writing a letter to Cardinal Sarah, in which he humiliates him by ordering him to write to those he has spoken to insisting that the Vatican retains the authority over liturgical translations. In Bergoglio's letter, he makes it sure that episcopal conferences have the authority. It is unclear what exactly the Doctrine for Divine Worship is supposed to do once the bishops have finished their (mis)translations.

Let this act as proof that Bergoglio is not the clueless idiot he pretends to be! He clearly knows what is happening outside Vatican walls, and he can be decisive and clear whenever he feels it is in his diabolical interests. Then we also have the curious situation whereby the cardinal in charge of divine worship is clearly not in the loop with regards to what the pope wants his dicastery to do. In other words, to Bergoglio, the Congregation for Divine Worship might as well not exist, because he does not make use of it for its legitimate functions.

One more note: It is very obvious that Bergoglio was not the one who wrote the letter to Cardinal Sarah. It is simply too clear and to the point, not to mention logical, for it to have come from Bergoglio's mind. There is too much technical stuff for it, and my understanding if that Bergoglio does not even understand French, so I don't know why he would be writing to clarify a French term, which I understand was one of the ones cleared up.



Subscribe to Bergoglio priorities