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...
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:
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,...
