Donald Trump

Alfie Evans and another NOChurch disgrace, and perhaps Le Creep is the equal of Putin after all - Sunday 22nd to Saturday 28th of April

From Le Creep's mouth to your screen: "I'm the equal of Putin". This story would have quite likely have formed the body of the article had it not been for yet another infanticide committed by the British authorities in plain sight.

It's too good a story to leave without comment though so I'll simply state that the only way that Le Creep Macron is the equal of Putin is with regard to the ages of their wives. Given that Putin is (unfortunately) divorced and (possibly) remarried, I might have to qualify that statement and re-state it as "with regard to the ages of their first wives". In any case, Le Creep informed us that he had to bomb Syria to prove that he is the equal of Putin, which tells us that we have in charge of a nuclear-armed nation a man with very deep and disturbing issues.

Now to poor blessed Alfie Evans, the latest public victim of the totalitarian death cult that has swept over all of the 'West' and is firmly entrenched in the U.K., as was proved yet again this week.

We had a sweet boy who happened to have the misfortune of falling behind on his development milestones. Upon closer inspection it was revealed that he had a brain disorder. The doctors supposed to assist him decided he would be better off dead. The parents disagreed, took the hospital to court and kicked up a fuss over it. The father, Tom Evans, is a Catholic, but the mother is not. The parents were unmarried.

The court, under the power of a homosexual (from what I understand) homosexualist decided time and time again that it would be in the child's best interest to have life taken away from him. This came despite the fact that the parents had raised money to take him abroad for treatment, that there was a plane ready to take him to Italy, and that the Italian state even granted sweet Alfie Evans citizenship.

None of that mattered because if the state says you are do die in a hospital bed, you are to die in a hospital bed, if they have to kill you to make it happen. This they did, first taking him off life support, and if that was not enough, starving him. His death came some 5 days after being taken off life support and there are strong suspicions that he was actually poisoned.

Now, just like Charlie Gard last year, we have in this a classic example of statism gone wild. The U.K. government simply cannot allow someone - least of all a Catholic working class man - to counter the dictates of the pseudo-religious entity known as the NHS, for if the U.K. has a religion, it is the NHS and the belief that the NHS is a source of good like few others and therefore must be all-powerful. This is the reason why the U.K. fights so hard to have children dying in their hospitals, because the NHS said so and because it would be a source of national shame to have a child flown abroad, treated and brought back to health, after the NHS had condemned that child to an early death on account of having a life it deemed not worth living.

Just like Charlie Gard last year, it was so obvious what the right thing to do was that even Bergoglio could not resist interfering - either because he actually cared for the child (I doubt it) or because he wanted to win some cheap publicity points (much more likely).

Bergoglio's invervention, however, seems to have been the catalyst for yet another disgraceful actor to enter the scene: the archishop of Liverpool Malcolm McMahon. This pathetic excuse for an oxygen consumer actually came out publicly and sided with the government. He actually went to the trouble of flying out to Rome to meet with Bergoglio, and it seems, to tell him to tone down his opposition, because it is reported that the Vatican's support for the Evans' subsided following McMahon's visit. Presumably it is McMahon who provided the title for the satirical piece The Gospel according to St Malcolm by EcclesIsSaved. That piece was written upon the death of sweet Alfie and was a follow-up to Career options in the modern world which had taken aim at the characters in this tragedy.

I have read that in its original Greek usage, the term "tragedy" is applied to a series of events which have a very unfortunate outcome  which derive inexorably from the steps taken before the regrettable conclusion comes about. If this is true then the case of Alfie Evans is tragedy 101.

In it we can track the moral degradation of a society whose primary indentifying feature is being not Catholic, on account of a king who killed a number of his wives and broke from the Church in order to commit adultery without being chided for it. Instead of contrition, the Brits seem to be proud of this fact. This very state then allowed the killing of the unborn in then 1970s, sodomitical unions in the 2000s - the same period in which it was going around the world bombing virtually defenceless countries in pursuit of another country's militaristic hegemony - , and now practical euthanasia. Then we have a NOChurch which is so hell-bent on cosying up to the 'modern' world that it is willing to go along with every evil, only paying the occasional lip service to the poor and the needy - and not even that to Almighty God - when it feels that no consequences will flow from such empty gestures. Of course, then we have the feeble British, weakened by decades of inane political correctness and unable for the most part to formulate an independent opinion, and a government which knows full well that it can take advantage of such an idiocracy.

What right does anyone in Britain, or...

The greatest fantasy in the Western rogue states' latest attack on Syria

On the 7th of April, I wrote about how Russia, having grown tired of the numerous false flag events that have been deployed in the Syrian war, had tired and decided to pre-empt false flags by warning beforehand of what they believed to be plans to conduct some. I wrote:

Having tired of false flag attacks by the Americans, the Russians decided to pre-emptively warn that the U.S. was planning one with the help of Islamists in Syria. This seems to have worked as we have not had any major false flag propaganda recently, as one would have expected what with the Islamists seemingly being cornered. If everybody knows that you are going to launch a false flag, then all credibility is lost when the false flag attack is carried out. The Russians and the Syrians have played this one very well.

With impeccable timing, the very next day, on the 8th of April, reports came out of an event bearing all the hallmarks of a false flag event; not even that, a hoax. The event supposedly took place on the very same day I released that article. Videos were circulated purporting to show how the Syrian government had attacked its people. Donald Trump went on his customary twitter rant, Hillbilly Haley did her thing at the U.N, and the lap-dogs in Europe of Theresa May and Le Creep Macron chimed in.

As few will have missed, the gang of rogue agents bannered under NATO launched airstrikes against Syria on Saturday the 14th. Only 3 countries did it in the end, but let not that fool you into thinking that the rest of the members are peace-lovers and warmonger-haters. The only other country which could reasonably had joined in was Turkey, and it has its own agenda which would not have been served by going along with this illegal action - although let us recall that Turkey has illegal actions of its own inside Syria.

There will be plenty more to write about this as more details become known, but I'll just mention one thing before getting to my main point: Unlike the events in Syria last year, which may indeed have been a genuine false flag (if the event ever took place, that is) this one appears to be a genuine hoax. In other words, the details which have come to light seem convincing on the matter that there was never any attack involving chemical attacks to begin with.

The term "false flag" is used quite a lot nowadays but it's worth making proper distinctions, given that it's often used wrongly.

A "false flag" proper is an event which takes place, carried out by someone other than the one who gets blamed, with the specific goal of using the blame apportioned to achieve other ends.

A "hoax" is a non-event which is prevented as an event.

Nothing takes place, but it is claimed that something took place, and blame is pinned as though an event had taken place. Before last week I would have argued that hoaxes were much more difficult to carry out effectively than false flags, but given the compliance of the media and the ignorance of the general population, I think the powers-that-be have decided that they do not need to go to the trouble of carrying out false flag events when hoaxes, cheaper and safer as they are, will do the job just as well.

It would seem as though what we had on the 8th of April was a complete hoax, which Donald Trump, the American establishment, the British establishment, the Western European establishment, the media, all of these sorry excuses for adults, fell for like a bitch in heat.

All we know for sure is that the White Helmets were involved. How many others of the aforementioned agents were involved is impossible to know at this point in time. The Russian government has pointed the finger at British intelligence in any case, although they have not yet presented any proof for this.

Back to the main point of this article, which has to deal with fantasies, and more specifically the fantasies which have enabled this tragic situation.

There are many flying around at the moment, far too many to list. One could be the idea that dropping bombs is humanitarian. Another is that the "rebels" are fighting to save Syria from a brutal dictator. Yet another is that the U.S. is an independent actor in all of this, only intervening to make sure that the sides are fighting fairly. Another is that the Western media can be relied upon to report on anything truthfully.

By far the biggest fantasy in all this let's-bomb-Syria-for-the-Syrians campaign is the absolutely ridiculous notion that the United States, that Donald Trump, that Theresa May, that Le Creep Macron, that Angela Merkel , that the media, that any of these narcissists care one bit about the well-being of the Syrian people.

They don't even care about the people in their own countries.

These people have been arming the band of militant head-Chopping Islamists who have terrorised all of Syria over the past 7 years. These people have mercilessly bombed the Syrian Arab Army in order to help the cause of the Islamists. These people have introduced sanctions on Syria to prevent it form being able to re-build after the war is over. These people have done everything in their power to prevent the war from being over. These people have occupied the riches parts of Syria to prevent Syria from having the funds to rebuild.

We are then supposed to believe that Donald Trump, Le Creep Macron, and medicore May care about Syrian lives, Arab lives, any lives. All the while they are claiming this, they are not only doing nothing to stop a genocide in Yemen on account of a naval blockade initiated by Saudi Arabia, but they are actively involved in helping Saudi Arabia enforce this blockade which is starving millions as...

It turns out NOChurch is actually good at something, and Bergoglio's heresies are of his own free choice - Sunday 11th to Saturday 17th of March

We can really only start in one place, and that's with what has become known as 'Lettergate'. I tagged it as "Vigano lettergate" because I can only assume that there will be more scandals involving falsified letters from this dreadful pontificate and I therefore need to prefix 'lettergate'.

The basic story, as I have understood it is as follows. Vigano, who acts as some sort of communications director, asked Pope Benedict XVI to write a letter in promotion of a series of theological papers due to be released in 'honour' of Bergoglio's 5-year anniversary as pope. The Vatican released an image of 2 pages of the letter, only the first of which could be seen, with the signature on the second page.

It soon became known that they had blurred out the last paragraph on the first page. In this section, Pope Benedict wrote that he had not read the books and had no  intention of reading them. What seemed to be a mild endorsement had transformed into a complete non-endorsement of the books, and a less than complimentary take on Bergoglio's pontificate thus far.

In stage 3 of Vigano lettergate, it became known through Sandro Magister that the Vatican communications department had omitted virtually all the text on the second page, barring the signature. This part made it clear that Pope Benedict had refused to touch these papers on account of sections of the bundle being written by 2 theologians who had become known during his pontificate and that of Pope John Paul II for all manner of heresies. In other words, the non-endorsement had turned into a condemnation. If one was to read between the lines, one could see that what Benedict was saying was that people who have had all sorts of problems with the Church's teaching are now being used to endorse Bergoglio's theology, which can only mean that Bergoglio is more or less a heretic himself, and this coming from a 'pope emeritus'.

A lot of people wondered why Bergoglio's handlers had to go to such great lengths to turn a non-endorsement into an endorsement, and in such a bad way in which they were bound to be found out. Perhaps their incompetence simply doesn't allow them to know any better. Perhaps they do actually want Bergoglio exposed as the true fraud that he is. It's anybody's guess at this time. What is claimed to be the full text was then finally released, and Edward Pentin has done a good job covering the timeline of this scandal.

In any case, people realised what we have long suspected: Bergoglio's pontificate is burning itself to the ground to such an extent that they require some sort of endorsement from Pope Benedict XVI, whose reforms have been dismantled by Bergoglio virtually from the top down.

There is one thing which Pope Benedict wrote which is worth drawing attention to and in my opinion this is the take-away. These most important words of Pope Benedict XVI's letter are the following:

I applaud this initiative that wants to oppose and react to the foolish prejudice in which Pope Francis is just a practical man without particular theological or philosophical formation, while I have been only a theorist of theology with little understanding of the concrete life of a Christian today. 

What Pope Benedict XVI is telling us here is that Bergoglio's heresies and idiocies are of his own making and nobody else can be blamed for them.

It has become very common to excuse Bergoglio by saying that he had a bad formation, as a South American Jesuit in the 1960s. In other words, what these people are implying is that everybody is to blame for Bergoglio's stupidity than Bergoglio himself. The list of these people can indeed be made long, and would have to start with his parents, then his school teachers, his seminary directors, his bishop, his Jesuit superiors, and probably a whole big cast, not least of which is the case which surrounds Bergoglio today and is said to offer him bad advice.

Pope Benedict XVI utterly rejects this view and points out that Bergodlio did have a good formation and that his heretical ways are entirely of his own choosing.

This brings us to our next point...

One of the most dreadful individuals on the face of the Earth, Cardinal Kasper, came out with his usual tripe about Bergoglio and  contraception. This time though, Kasper is right on the money. It cannot be denied that Bergoglio has subtly endorsed contraception on multiple occasions, and while not endorsing it he has minimised its moral gravity. Kasper argues that Bergoglio's "silence" on the issue shows that he approves of it, and I could not agree more. As I commented on the day:

It creeps me out to agree with Kasper on anything, but I would have to agree with him that Bergoglio's silence on contraception reveals that Bergoglio is in favour of it.

However, even in that statement Kasper cannot help but be true to himself and lie.

It is far from accurate to tell us that Bergoglio has not spoken about contraception. It would be like saying that Theresa May of U.K.-poodleship fame has not accused Vladimir Putin of acts of aggression simply because she does not mention his name when making all kinds of anti-Russian statements implicating the Russian government.

Bergoglio has indeed spoken out multiple times against the Church's stance on contraception. In at least one instance he insisted that the Church "must not obsess" about "contraception, homosexuality and abortion". In another he said that Pope Paul VI changed his mind on contraception, allowing it for certain cases; a blatant lie and one of many.

Anyone who claims that Bergoglio has not attacked the Church's teaching on contraception ought to be ashamed that on this issue even Kasper the terrible cardinal is more truthful.

As if to accentuate the Novus Ordo's chronic ability...

Pages

Subscribe to Donald Trump