Donald Trump

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...

From Russia with love - the coolest award in the whole wide world - Sunday 17th to Saturday 23rd of June

With so much bad news going around it is rarely that I get a chance to lead with a positive story, so when one comes along I sometimes feel duty-bound to start with it. That is certainly the case this week. It deals with family, and introduces what turned out to be a rather family-centric entry.

Given the general malaise in the Western world in general and in what can loosely be termed as Latin Rite countries, it should surprise few that the good news come from outside the Western world, from good old Mother Russia. You see, they have what must be the coolest award in the world in Russia titled "The Order of Parental Glory" and it is given to the father and mother who have raised large families well. If my understanding of the award is correct, we have different winners from different regions of Russia, which presumably is why some families will be much smaller than others. Most of the families will have 8 or more children.

This year's award presentation is embedded below:

whereas last year's, the first I watched, is to be found below:

The event took place some while back but what occasioned me writing about it is an article on The Remnant titled "Putin Less Than Impressed with Culture of Death" .

Before I proceed I would like you to pause for a bit, and realise just how far ahead Russia is compared to all Western countries when it comes to social cohesion and the promotion of decent societal values.

In the West, and especially since the Second Vatican Council, there has been a well-funded drive to destroy any vestiges of  commonality, of common values, of ancestral heritage, of natural existence, of natural law and of course of Christianity in favour of individualism, multiculturalism, mutli-religiosity, atheism and the idea that each and every one ought to decide what is good for himself, and that the state cannot get involved in promoting what is good, unless one can put monetary value on it - and not even that, if what is good monetarily gets in the way of the sexual revolution or zionism, or seems to evoke Christian values.

Can you imagine such an award in Sweden, with the king presenting large families with awards based on the fact that the parents have managed to stay together, conceive , bring to term and raise a large number of children? I certainly can't. For one, the awards hall would probably be full of Somali families (more on that later), with the odd Laestadians, and perhaps one traditional Catholic family once every few years (although I doubt Catholics would ever qualify). Secondly, it wouldn't be long before the king bowed to pressure from feminists and homosexualists to include single women with multiple children from multiple sperm donors (which is what men have been reduced to in Sweden), and of course, sodomites with their artificially-conceived children. Soon afterwards, it would probably devolve to parents with 1-2 children, and perhaps even none, as there would also be pressure to show that marriage has nothing to do with children. It would probably not be long before zoo animals would qualify, and they would probably be more deserving that most of the other recipients.

Swedish society is simply messed up and there is no way in which the king, however inclined he may be, would get away with promoting families, unless it was pseudo-families with the award quickly turning into one big depravity fest, more depraved for every year.

Could you imagine Donald Trump doing it in the U.S.? I can't, for he would probably be accused of one phobia or another, of wanting to destroy the planet with humans, of wanting to chain women to kitchen sinks, of taking his cue directly from Putin with the 'logic' that since Putin encourages large families in Russia, an encouragement of large families in the U.S. is somehow doing Putin's bidding. In fact, the only reason I could see this possibly ever happening is because Donald Trump seems to enjoy nothing more than annoying and agitating leftists, so the jury is out on whether Trump would do this given that it aligns with one of his few passions. That, of course, assumes that Donald Trump would even want to promote family life, a contentious point at best.

In any case, where we can imagine him doing  it or not, we ought to be able to count on the condemnation of much of academia and the mass media, given how decadent these institutions have become. By this time, it ought to be certain that a number of Catholic bishops would probably get in the act of condemning it, and maybe even the pope - or whatever Bergoglio is.

Neither can one realistically expect the queen of England or the president of France to do such things, for the very same reasons I have outlined above. The less said about the president of Germany the better. Both Poland and Italy seem to have governments which are willing and even working towards raising the birth rate, but I cannot envision either of their political rulers doing such a thing.

So now we can see just what a wonderful - in the true sense of the word - thing it is when the political ruler of a country gets in front of everyone and declares "We are going to promote the family, and we are going to promote large families!" None of that breeding-like-rabbits and great irresponsibilities talk that Bergoglio has thrown about at the mention of large families.

For all of Russia's ills - and the highest abortion rate in the world has to count as the very worst - it is still a nation of old, with  a ruler who is expected to look out for the best interests of the country, not only for the short-term so as to ensure his re-election,...

Beware of NOChurch cardinals, especially when they come saying the Tridentine Mass - Sunday 10th to Saturday 16th of June

In a week which contained a lot of major news from the secular world, it might seem odd that my highlights are to do with an event that didn't even take this week - the Chartres pilgrimage. My primary concern is for the Church, for only the Church can save the world, and with that in mind I shall go on to address some of the events on the Chartes pilgrimage.

It is rather significant that the Chartres pilgrimage has become so famous. I had not even heard of it until som 4 years ago or so, but I shall have to agree with Michael Matt that it is one of the most significant events taking place in the Church today, although in his case he plainly states that it is the most significant, with which I do not quite agree. Along with its increasing profile, the mass has attracted higher profiles of celebrants. Last year it was Cardinal Raymond Burke, who is probably the closest thing we have right now to a champion of the faith. When Cardinal Burke celebrated though, it was without a position in the Curia, having been unceremoniously kicked out of his position as the head of the Apostolic Signatura (the Church's highest court) so that Bergoglio could railroad his full-throttled assault on marriage through easy annulments and sacreligious Communion.

This year's celebrant, therefore, would have to count as the most high-profile yet. In Cardinal Sarah, we had the head of the Congregation of Divine Worship, the man in charge of not only the Mass but the administration of all sacraments. Yes, there are bureaucratically speaking other higher-profiled cardinals - the secreatary of state comes to mind - and even with regards to Catholicity the prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith ranks higher. However, in his capacity as head of worship, he ranks second only to the pope, so one is entitled to say that they don't come much higher than Cardinal Sarah. Also in terms of standing up for the faith, Cardinal Sarah is one of only 2 cardinals under the age of 80 - the other being Cardinal Burke - who have consistently stood up against efforts to water down the faith, or to outright corrupt the faith (however tepidly).

It was therefore with great sadness that I read a piece written by Peter Kwasniewski titled Traditional Clergy: Please Stop Making “Pastoral Adaptations”. It quickly became clear that the piece was about the final High Mass at the Chartres pilgrimage, of which Cardinal Sarah had been the main celebrant. Among the 'pastoral adaptations' on show was reading both the Epistle and the Gospel in French, instead of Latin, and not bothering with having the proper orientations when reading Sacred Scripture, instead turning towards the people, and not even bothering to chant but rather speaking it out instead. These were grave liturgical abuses. It is unclear who was in charge of these abuses - the master of ceremony, the local bishop, or the cardinal are all potential agents. What cannot be denied, however, was that in perhaps the most prominent Tridentine Mass in the world today, we were being confronted with a very well-orchestrated Novusordoisation, and that ought to trouble us all.

If there is anything that the Novus Ordo has taught us, it is that slippery slopes are real, and once embarked upon one will quickly find oneself close to the bottom. It is therefore inexcusable that at the most prominent Tridentine Mass the celebrants would embark upon the same slippery slope which led us to where we are in NOChurch today, i.e., little if any reverence at Mass, with priests who treat the Mass as if it is their plaything, and laity who froth in anger at hearing that there are authentic Catholic alternatives. Another point that Dr. Kwasniewski made which is worth repeating is that Latin is the language of the Church, and the Chartres pilgrimage is the most international pilgrimage that we have today. It therefore makes little sense to have the readings in French when many of the attendees will be non-French. They could, if they so wished, read out in Latin according to the rubrics and then afterwards read in French (which is allowed by Ecclesia Dei, it turns out, although even that is a slippery slope) but that's not what they did. In other words, I am quite certain that whoever made the decision did it knowing full well that it was against the liturgical laws and against the spirit of the Tridentine Mass, yet did it anyway, perhaps to force the point that the Tridentine Mass has to get along with the Novus Ordo mass.

This being NOChurch times, of course, not everyone was upset. As I have previously mentioned, Catholics as a whole have lost the ability to get angry at anything directed against the faith. In "WHEREIN ROBERT CARDINAL SARAH GETS IT RIGHT AND FATHER Z DOESN'T " (I've no idea why he insists on capital letters for his headlines), a response to Fr. John Zuhlsdorf's Why we Say The Black and Do The Red, which was in turn a commentary on what Dr. Kwasniewski had wrriten , Fr. Allan McDonald chimed in that Cardinal Sarah was right to make adaptations in order to get people to feel at home, once again showing that the Novus Ordo has poisoned the minds of even many of those who say the Tridentine Mass occasionally. We don't adapt the Mass to ourselves; rather we adapt ourselves to the Mass, and the arguments he was making were well-adressed in Dr. Kwasniewski's original piece, which it seems blew completely over his head.

The best commentary on Fr. McDonald's piece came from Henry , who wrote:

A single instance of vernacular abuse, as at Chartres, is not a big deal. No doubt God will survive the desacralization of a couple of moments in this one Mass, and the

...

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...

Pages

Subscribe to Donald Trump