Donald Trump

A terrible force of destruction meets an immovable object - Early reactions to Correctio Filialis - Sunday 24th to Saturday 30th of September

It turns out that the Correctio Filialis de haeresibus propagatis was released at exactly midnight of September 24th, and not on September 23rd as I had previously written. What confused me was the fact that I went to Rorate Caeli shortly after midnight and found it there, and naturally assumed that it had been posted somewhat earlier. If we check their timestamp though it seemed to have been set for publication at exactly midnight. I had caught wind of something being released from reading Fr. John Hunwicke's post from the day before, in which he claimed that something big was expected on the Sunday. For that reason I was surprised to learn that it had been released before, or so I thought, and it didn't help that so many blogs I read put the 23rd on it.

Time zones help explain that confusion, because many of the blogs I follow are from the Western hemisphere, where it was still the 23rd on the day of publication. I would much rather use the Rome time since the document was meant for Rome, and since it was released on the 24th my time as well, so I'll henceforth refer to the 24th as the release date, but I digress, although...Distinctions Matter!

The phrase "an irresistible force meets an immovable object" is I believe quite common in weather-speak and I believe it is used when a weather front meets a mountain area or some such thing. In my particulary context, it obviously refers to Bergoglio and while he has been immovable in his obstinacy against Catholic doctrine and practice, in this particular analogy he predictably plays the part of "a terrible force of destruction" with the signatoris of Correction Filialis acting as representatives of the immovable object that is the deposit of faith.

For my part I acquired it from "The Dark Knight" - one of the best movies ever made, by the way, and unquestionably one of the most well-made, if not the ouright winner of that particular category. In the final confrontation with the Joker, Batman saves him from an untimely death out of moral principle, despite spending most of the movie actually trying to stop him, at great danger to his own life and that of others. In that particular scene, the Joker says "this is what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object".

My memory tweaked it a bit to read "terrible force of destruction" but I'll stick to that terminology since Bergoglio is unstoppable only on account of the timidity of the hierarchy of the Church, along with the complicity of many modernists in the Catholic establishment at large. He is by no means unstoppable, but that he is a terribe force of destruction I deem indisputable.

The more I think about it, the more I realise just how numerous are the similarities between Bergoglio and the Joker as portrayed in that film. Some time, I might get around to writing about that.

In any case, the correction was an attempt to stop Bergoglio's seemingly unstoppable march towards the destruction of what remains of the Catholic edifice. For what it's worth I don't think he will succeed with or without the correction, but the correction is a huge stumbling block. This has been proved very clearly as Bergoglio's enablers and attack hounds have had no other course but to attack the signatories in defence of Amoris Laetitia, and not the content of the correction itself.

Some have pointed out that there is nothing in the correction which shows that Amoris Laetitia actually teaches heresy, completely bypassing, it seems, the main charge of the signatories, which is that in his words and his deeds since the publication of Amoris Laeitia, Bergoglio has encouraged heretical readings of it (an already dubious text at best), in turn propagating heresies. If you're going to critique a document, the least you can do is read it and attack what the document actually asserts.

Others have pointed out that the number of signatories is small, the hypocrisy of which one writer, I believe on Rorate Caeli, took exception. He notes that the Bergoglio party has spent the better part of 5 years (and 5 long long years, I hasten to add) intimidating those who disagree with the dangerous direction this horrendous pontificate has taken us, only to point to the number of his opponents being small as proof that the majority is not with the opposition. We remember, by the way, that Bergoglio speaks constantly of dialogue and parrhesia, all the while either threatening or ignoring those who actually attempt to dialogue with him. It seeems hypocrisy is his only mode.

The most ingenious and at the same time non-sensical defence of Amoris Laetitia is that it is all due to a mistranslation! They claim that the whole furore was due to a mistranlation of the Latin. You couldn't make this stuff up!

Christopher Ferrara took dissected this ridiculous claim  at the Remnant. I suppose their implicit claim is that Bergoglio is somehow a Latinist who wrote the whole thing up in Latin, no doubt in their mind consulting the great treasure of Latin writings that the Church possesses. This is a staggering claim, in defending a man whose grasp of Italian evidently is as incompetent as his grasp of Spanish. No matter which language he speaks hardly anybody can figure out what he actually said. I suppose Latin being his primary language might explain why nobody understands him when he speaks any other language, but we are left with the small issue that the official Latin version of Amoris Laetitia was only published in July of this year, well more than a year after the original publication of Amoris Laetitia, and that the document itself was probably written in Spanish, given the large input of Tucho 'art of kissing' Fernandez, the ghostwrite and brains -...

The doomsday that wasn't, but could still spell doom for Bergoglio - Sunday 17th to Saturday 23rd of September

There was great apprehension about what was going to happen on the 23rd of September, 2017. This was on account of an astrological constellation which only appears about once every 7,000 years,  something about 12 stars being aligned in a particular way, with possibly a planet or a 12th star above them. This alluded to the scriptural passage in Revelation, which is taken to refer to the Virgin Mary having the stars under her feet.

The day came and I did not notice anything. The world did not end and life went on as normal, or so it would seem...

What transpired was that a group of established Catholic scholars released a filial correction of Bergoglio, urging him to denouce the heresies which have spread like wildfire on account of Amoris Laetitia. It was titled "Correctio Filialis de haeresibus propagatis". Since I first read it on the 24th of September and much of the fallout has come since them, I intend to cover this document and surrounding events as part of the analysis of the following week.

I would like, however, to point out that the truth is out: Bergoglio is an unrepentant heretic and the whole world knows that prominent Catholics are onto him.

Over on the other side of the pond we had the whole hoopla about kneeling. It evidently began on Friday in a speech held by Trump in Alabama in which he called the kneeling players "son of a bitch", "sons of bitches" or both. Here was a point at which the media could have acted as a uniting force, criticising Donald Trump for his choice of words while villifying the players for their actions. Instead, the media chose to make Donald Trump out as some kind of nutcase who wanting his country's flag respected.

At best, this whole kneeling thing is a distraction from real issues, so I'll not waste too much time on it. Suffice it to write that Donald Trump is right on the substance.

I have always found it ridiculous that in the U.S. they play the national anthem before sporting events. It has a very Orwellian feel about it: "Fun, brought to you by the state". I would much rather see that kind of nonsense abolished altogether. There is also a deeply unhealthy and psychotic association of the flag of the U.S. with the military, which is just another of the many absurd tenets of the americanist religion.

Nonetheless, it is good decorum to stand up for one's national anthem, and frankly, even those of other nations. It is a simple mark of respect , shallow as it may be. It shows a lack of class to show disrespect to one's country if one chooses the singing of the national anthem as the moment of personal protest.

I would remiss if I did not take this opportunity to take a shot at the Novus Ordo. No doubt many of those upset at this kind of behaviour are Catholics of the Novus Ordo persuasion. Many of them will be church-goers. I submit that it is far more disrespectful to fail to observe basic Christian dress codes in church than to kneel when the national anthem is being sung and anybody who fails to observe the former has no right whatsoever to criticise those who fail to observe the latter.

This is specifically aimed at women who refuse to cover their heads, as I have never seen a non-Muslim man in a Catholic church with head-covering, not even in clown masses - and any Muslim man invited into a Catholic Church for feel-good purposes has every right to disrespect those who invite him. The rules are apostolic and very clear and very simple: Women, head-covering; men, no head-cover. There is no 5-year old of ordinary capacity who would not be able to understand and apply those rules if so required, so I am at a loss to understand why Catholic women nowadays find it so impossible to grasp or apply.

It would certainly seem as though divinely-inspired apostolic commands such as those deserve far more respect than standing before a national anthem, whether it is being played in or out of place, as the case may be when national anthems are played before domestic sporting contests.

Speaking of distractions, although more positively-charged ones, we  had note that the awful Lady Gaga was going through somewhat of a spritual/mental crisis and had even postponed her tour. I only mention this because a while back I had mentioned that she was Catholic after having read it. My statemet was something akin to "you wouldn't know she is Catholic and she even goes to Church, sometimes". I had seen a picture of her with her parish priest, in which the parish priest was defending her from what he thought was uncharitable accusations. The point of this story is that I had almost started to wonder whether I had imagined the whole thing, until she posted a picture of herself holding a Rosary as she goes through trying times.

She wrote that she had sold her soul to the illuminati and that her fibromyalgia was the price she was now paying for it. I am sure I am joined by many fellow Catholics in hoping that this wretched woman who nonetheless still seems to cling to some notion of God and some notion of the Catholic faith finds the peace which only God can provide. We should all pray that she can turn her back on all her wicked and blasphemous ways because  it would seem as though deep under all that filth there is a sensitive soul crying towards the LORD, and honestly wishing to find Him.

It is a mark of the Novus Ordo that we have so many crypto-Catholics, which is to say, people who one would never assume were Catholic at all until they all of a sudden claimed to be.  NOChurch seems intent on promoting the notion that...

Streetfighting and the Alt-Right as the decepticons and false oppositions - Sunday 13th of August to Saturday 19th of August

Like most people, I have been left somewhat perplexed at how quickly the divisions in the U.S. have metastasised into the sorts of flares which in many countries are the prelude to violent revolution, in almost all cases as part of orchestrated political revolutions. I have no doubt that the leftist violence we see is pre-planned and directed towards a politcal end. Some have claimed that there are paid actors, but I am more sceptical, believing that there is not exactly a shortage of stupid leftists who are itching for a fight.

This event took place last week, but the fallout took place mainly during this week, so it is worth taking time to address it.

First the facts: I don't have all of them, so we shall have to dispense with a factual reading.

The only facts I do have and the only one that is relevant:

  • The protest was over removing a statue of what I understand to be the greatest general of the Confederate army, Robert E. Lee.
  •  The protest over removing the statue was legal and had a permit.
  • Among those protesting was a contingent of white supremacists of various sorts, and how large they were in proportion to the rest I honestly have no doubt, nor have I bothered to check. They might all have been white supremacists, or they may have been 1%. It really is irrelevant.

Nobody can with any credibility label me a white supremacist, so I can with full confidence state that those protesting over the removal of the statue were not to blame - not one bit. Let's call them statuists, because it seems very offensive to the truth to label them all white supremacists.

The violence was initiated by the left, as is par for the course, and the statuists retaliated. Many of the statuists, and perhaps of these a greater number were white supremacists, came armed, and that proved wise as the police did nothing to police the rally. That is perfectly understandable, and would prove wise, given that they were attacked, and given that the leftists in the U.S. have been using violence for well over 2 years now to shut down any debate regarding any substantive issue. We saw this at the Trump rallies with various leftists groups, and we have seen this violence at universities. One would have expected the leftists to attack the rally violently, so it is no surprise that the statuists were prepared for confrontation.

The leftists had no permit, so their protest was illegal. If they wanted to avoid violence they could easily have applied for a permit and held their rally at a later date, instead of focusing all their attention on a legal rally. The police were clearly given orders not to police the rally so that the violence would be visible for all. There are 2 possible reasons for this, the one being that the politicans are in favour of leftist violence, and the other being that they are in favour of any violence which creates social unrest in the U.S. which will enable them to have some sort of political machination against Donald Trump.

It is a running joke by me, and one I picked up from CrossTalk on Russia Today, that the only reason that Trump is still president is that the U.S. does not have an embassy in Washington. In other words, what we are seeing in the U.S. is an orchestrated campaign to create chaos in order to legitimise regime change, from exactly the same playbook that we have seen used in Ukraine (twice), Egypt, Kenya, Syria, Libya, Iran, Yugoslavia and Greece, to name but a few. It is probably the same book playing out in Venezuela now, although in Venezuela's case, the collapse of the country has absolutely everything to do with the socialist policies of the rules than anything else, so although it would seem the U.S. is formenting chaos, we would probably have seen the chaos regardless.

In any case, Trump had every right in the world to state that the violence was on "many sides", although a more truthful account would have pinned the initiation of the violence firmly on the leftists.

This brings me to the case of the Alt-Right, who are clearly playing the role of false opposition in all of this. While I am not sure that the leftist protesters were paid vandalisers, I am less sceptical about those 'white supremacists' being paid actors.

An article on The Remnant chronicled the meteoric media-driven rise of a prominent member of this group, and one issue which perplexed them was how it has come to be that this 'movement' and its leaders have received so much free publicity when the media completely ignores the Catholic opposition and in fact any principled opposition. In fact, we saw it with Ron Paul: What the media wants silenced it ignores.

It also questioned the credibility of many of its leaders, who seem to have come out of nowhere and who seem to have had leftist leanings. None of them are particularly interested in public or private morality, and for the most part they seem to be leftists who detest non-white people, but who are perfectly okay with leftists policies on the whole, apart from, perhaps, wholesale confiscation of private property, communism-style.

It seems at least plausible to me that the Alt-Right is a false opposition movement designed either to:

  • Discredit the movement on which Donald Trump rode to his presidency
  • De-Christianise the opposition to the political elite by making the oppostion seem abominable, and therely alieaning Christians
  • Absorb all the evil of the general leftist trend of the society into a movement which seems to oppose it at first sight, but which in practice does not
  • Distract media attention from the issues on which Trump vowed to focus
  • Divert political attention towards sideshows and force Donald Trump into neo-con policies abroad in order to focus American attention away from domestic
  • ...

Pages

Subscribe to Donald Trump