false opposition

Fidelity to the Church, and not to perverted shepherds - Sunday 31st of December, 2017 to Saturday 6th of January, 2018

This entry covers the last day of last year and the first few days of this year. It is indeed fitting that it covers the last day of last year because an event took place on that day that could well set the tone for the year in the Church.

Over in Kazakhstan, 3 bishops issued a profession of fidelity towards the teaching of the Church and against Bergoglio's heresies in Amoris Laeitia. It was a very direct attack on Bergoglio's teaching, and although it did not attack Bergoglio by name, everyone took it as a direct attack on Bergoglio himself.

Those 3 bishops have now been joined by 4 other retired ones, including 1 cardinal, from Latvia. It is sad that no other active bishops have joined in the profession, but I suppose we would not have expected anything else really, given the sad state of NOChurch. Truth be told, if the number rises to about 100 bishops then it won't matter whether none of the other signatories are in activey ministry.

There are some who feel that the profession should have called out Bergoglio for his heresies directly, and I am not inclined to disagree. However, it is a good step, and far more than the dubia cardinals have been doing. If nothing else it will be one more large nail into the coffin of Bergoglio, in the condemnation which will surely come once the Church regains her sanity.

Speaking of dubia cardinals: Not content with Bergoglio having stayed silent on the dubia presented to him, Cardinal Brandmüller has now answered his own dubia! Good grief, just when you thought the dubia circus couldn't get any more comical!

Look, there is not a single even half-decently informed Catholic who was in any doubt as to what the faithful answers to those dubia were. If this is the cardinal's attempt to draw a line under the whole dubia episode then he really will come out of it looking like a clown.

We were informed that the dubia cardinals would issue a formal correction, an even which is still a coming attraction. If the dubia cardinals were trying to bluff Bergoglio then it is one of history's greatest failures, because unless they issue a formal correction, now that Bergoglio has been very forthright in what his intentions are, they will in history be known as not the dubia cardinals but the duped cardinals, or the cardinals who huffed and puffed but couldn't do anything when it counted. At worst, they could come to be known as false opposition.

As I have written before, whatever their intentions, they have been acting as the false opposition already. Perhaps finally tired of the dubia cardinal's formal non-opposition, the Kazakhstan bishops felt they had to do something on their own. Right now the dubia cardinals are looking like attention-seeking clowns; cowardly failures of the highest degree. If they don't want that to continue they need to either keep quiet or issue a formal correction. Nothing else will do at this point in time.

Of course, the path towards the disastrous Bergoglio pontificate started a long time ago, and the most sutitable starting point is with Vatican II, started as it was by an popularity-seeking pope and ended by a very strange pope in the figure of Paul VI. It is this strange pope that is the subject of the newest NOChurch canonisations, as it is rumoured he will be canonised soon. Many wonder what this will mean for the Novus Ordo Missae and over at Novus Motus Liturgicus, it is argued that it will not mean much since many popes who have been canonised have had their legislation pulled back at a later date. I think he is too optimistic, and we can count on the Novus Ordites to constantly sing the praises of the Novus Ordo since they will now have a 'saint' as its promulgator. Louie Verrechio argues that his canonisation cannot come soon enough, for reasons he is better off elucidating than I. Hint: He is no fan of the man.

On the topic of Paul VI, I stumbled upon a very interesting article on akaCatholic which discussed the Church's stance on homosexuality and how this changed under this pope; I had not been aware that it had changed. It was rumoured at the time he was living, from many socialites, that he himself was a sodomite. I only became aware of these allegations by reading the article and I must admit that I had never heard such stories before. The claims are substantiated though so it would seem as though a lot of people in Rome and beyond thought he had a homosexual past at the very least. This does not seem as though it can be put down to the sodomites trying to claim every one as their own, given the diversity of the claimants.

If this man is canonised, this is one which is likely to be used further on to show that NOChurch canonisations were dubious, defective and done for the wrong reasons. I suspect it is more than likely that it will be one more bullet in the arsenal against NOChurch, once the Catholic Church regains her sanity, and I have no doubt the she will, and that NOChurch will come to be condemned and the appropriate lessons learned from it's reign.

Let's face it: Bergoglio is not the only sub-standard NOChurch pope. I stumbled upon a story in which the former Gahanian President Kufour states taht he received a pontifical knighthood from Pope John Paul II himself, despite having explained that he was a freemason. I am the last person who defends Bergoglio as I think the man is exactly as evil as he seems, but it is injust to lay the blame of NOChurch apostasy all, or even principally, on that Argentinian pervert. There is plent of blame to go around.

No one entity epitomises NOChurch more than the Church in Germany - what...

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...

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 false opposition