Manchester United

The English Premier League is back again

So,the English Premier League for the 2020-2021 season starts today. It's only a few weeks since the season ended, on account of the suspension owing to the Covid-19 fiasco. It was gone for 3 months, which is about as long as I have gone without football since I started watching, but in truth it hardly need have bothered coming back.

Leftist virtue signalling is all the rage in U.S. sports right now, but before sports resumed in the U.S., it had resumed in Europe. The Premier League, as far as I know, was the worst offender.

During the first round after the comeback, for the first 12 games, all players knelt and had the 'Black Lives Matter' banner on their jerseys where their names should have been. This took me by surprise, to say the least. The Premier League has claimed in the past that political sloganeering is not allowed, and here we had a full-on political slogan.

It as so disgusting that I could not watch any of those first 12 matches. After those matches, the 'Black Lives Matter' insignia was reduced in size to a patch on the sleeve. It was still too much, but at least enough such that I would watch  my favourite team play out the season. As it turned out, the only positive was that Manchester Unitedi did manage to clinch Champions League qualification as they finished in 3rd place. Other than that, the whole 'Project Restart' as they called it, was a complete and utter waste of time.

There is much that can be said about the nonsense that took place, but perhaps the most aggravating thing is that the political elite in the U.K. who greenlight sports and entertainment and public thought felt that they would use the one thing many people turn to in order to avoid politics - sports - to force-feed them political ideology. No football fan surely in their right mind can still be a racist, not least because many of the top teams field players who are 'non-white', for lack of a better term. In fact, we already had a no-racism campaign for a while in English football called "No To Racism", with which surely virtually everbody can agree. It was a non-political statement.

The 'Black Lives Matter' slogan, however, is entirely political. In fact, not only is it political, but it is a U.S. political slogan used to enable all sorts of shenanigans during primarily election years. In fact, the BLM-movement seems to have little or anything to do with respect for black lives, and all to do with furthering crazy leftist agendas. 

Leave it to Britain to prove just how much of a lap dog it is to the U.S. that it would embrace U.S. political slogans for its most non-political events. The U.K. really is a basket-case of a nation, but more of that some other time. Suffice to write, I don't think I would last long in the U.K. considering how all-in it has gone on the suppression of free speech due to political correctness.

What if you don't think black lives matter? Well, too bad, you are not allowed to play football in the U.K. or comment on football. 

What if you think that black lives matter but cannot get behind #BlackLivesMatter on account of their homosexualism, transgenderism or the fact that it is a extremely unfortunate phrasing? Again, too bad, the U.K. is closed for that sort of radical political notion.

What if you think black lives matter but would rather use #AllLivesMatter? Again, too bad, because people may get offended.

What if you think "Unborn Lives Matter" or "Black Unborn Lives Matter" or "Palestinian Lives Matter", or "Syrian Lives Matter", or "Libyan Slaves' Lives Matter"? That is fodder for being sent to a re-education camp, or as they call it in England, "sensitivity training" or "diversity appreciation course". Any player who tries to have that on his football jersey or a vest under his jersey would be met with severe sanctions.

In other words, under the guise of caring for black lives, what the U.K. political elite is saying is that they can force-feed you with any political slogan, and designate it non-political, and you are expected to play along.

I started watching football in 1999, in the treble-winning season for Manchester United in which they won the Premier League, the F.A. Cup and the Champions League, in that order. Since then I have watched virtually every round of Premier League football. I have watched Manchester United play almost all their games, unless something on a list of extremely important events came up - something which came to include going to Mass. I had never willingly missed any match before say 3 seasons ago, when the Premier League introduced its sodomy round. In that fixture round, all teams have the captains' armbands in sodomy flag colours, while they also show banners with sodomy flag colours.

When the calamitous Covid-19 responce hit football, it disrupted my normal football schedule. The shutdown was supposed to be one month long, but football resumed only after 3 months. I had never gone that long without football and frankly, I didn't think I could. The Premier League and all sports leagues should have been desperate to bring everyone back since the shutdown showed that people really could live without sports for extended periods. Instead, they all seem to have gone out of their way to harass and repel decent people away from viewing sports.

The Premier League came back after a 3-month hiatus, longer than many people would have thought they could do without football. In truth, it really needn't have bothered.

In just over 2 hours we shall find out whether the BLM-slogan and other letist tripe will once again be force-fed to the watching public.  I hope it is not, otherwise I shall have to find a new weekend hobby, and limit myself to only watching my favourite football team, if eventhat....

The German problem colludes with the Bergoglio problem - Sunday 29th of April to Saturday 5th of May

There was a Pontifical High Mass held by a relatively young archbishop on the 28th of May. Much has been written about this Mass and especially the homily that accompanied it, but I would remiss if I did not take the opportunity to point out the fine work done by Olivia Rao in her article for The Remnant covering this event.

The piece was exemplary in its attention to detail and I especially enjoyed the list over all the celebrants. Virtually nothing was left to assumption, which is a rarity in modern reporting. Olivia Rao certainly deserves credit for her fine work and I hope to read much more from her in the future.

The archbishop in question was Achbishop Sample, one of the best bishops in the U.S. who for the most part gets it right and it was held at the Basilica of National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, the U.S. capital.  It is especially pleasing that he learnt the Tridentine Mass after Pope Benedict had issued Summorum Pontificum - the 10th anniversary of which the Mass was meant to celebrate (delayed due to construction issues ) - because he wanted to act in accordance with the pope's wishes. He says very reasonable things much of the time, with the odd Novusordoism from time to time, as even this homily proved.

The homily itself I must admit I have not listened to, but I have read a lot of reports on it and most of them have been positive. I have read, for instance, that he sees the liturgical revolution as a mistake, and he makes a point in highlighting that a lot of young people are attracted to the Tridentine Mass, thereby destroying the prejudice that it is a Mass which only caters to the "nostalgic", as Bergoglio put it.

He also spoke of "mutual enrichment" and this is the bit I don't like. I can certainly accept that he can't be seem to be making an unapologetic love poem to the authentic Roman Rite, but talk of mutual enrichment bothers me because it will inexorably lead us back to the mess which started all this stuff. Indeed, Tantumblogo had a similar reaction, writing "I also see basically no ways in which the Novus Ordo might enrich the TLM" and I cannot but agree. I do see one utility for the Novus Ordo though, and that is as a negative example. If the Tridentine Mass is Latin Rite worship as it should be, then the Novus Ordo Missae is 'worship' - or it's bad imitiation anyway - as it ought not to be. It serves the purpose of a cautionary tale, a warning to future generations of what to avoid and what not to do, and above all, of the dangers of allowing a bunch of atheists and heretics to butcher what is sacred for reasons most un-Catholic.

Christopher J. Malloy grapped with the question of aggiornamento in "Make Catholicism Relevant? Or Let it Be What it IS." I vote for the latter, for nothing is more irrelevant than something struggling to make itself relevant to fickle minds.

EcclesIsSaved continued his mocking of the bishops of England over their handling of the Alfie Evans case in "Eccles explains it to the bishops" and "English bishops to be replaced by jelly-babies", and the mockery is well-deserved. No insult is too great for these pathetic sorry excuses formen. In fact, titled one of it's articles "Cardinal Nichols Defends Alfie's Murder" and I have to admit that the title is not misleading.

Donald Trump's admninistration's threats and warmongering continued, as newly-installed foreign minister (secretary of state as they call them over there) arrived in Saudi Arabia. I believe that was one of his first foreign trips. His very first foreign trip was to NATO headquarters if memory serves me right, which says a lot about the outlook of those serving in the Trump regime. In any case, when in Saudi Arabia he naturally didn't waste time threatening Iran.

The other Middle-Eastern state which receives  unconditionaly support from the U.S. is, of course, the zionist criminal state of Israel, whose crimes against the Palestinian people continue in full earnest in response to the Great Return March. Scores of unarmed and non-violent protesters have been short and killed, including journalists and medical personell. Bleeding-heart Trump and Ivanka cheer on, so I suppose we can only assume that whoever is in charge of their TV-watching has screened the broadcasts to leave out images of crying children, as no doubt they do when Trump watches images from Yemen. If we are to believe the 2017 Syrian false flag bombing, after all, we are to believe that Donald Trump launched strikes against Syria because bleeding-heart Ivanka saw images of suffering children and talked her daddy into bombing the bad man who was causing it.

One of my theories regarding why Donald Trump attacked Syria a month ago - following the 2018 hoax flag - is because he wanted to deflect attention away from the zionist crimes in Gaza. It worked largely well, as attention has mainly been on Syria since then.

In a rare piece of good news, the leaders of the two Koreas met last week and agreed to pursue peace and de-nuclearisation of the peninsula. Much credit has to go to Moon Jae-in, who has pursued an independent policy of seeking peace with the North and one suspects this has dragged Donald Trump into the process as he no doubts wants to claim the credit for it, as he does for much else even where he has had no hand in the achievement. That he took credit for 2017 being the safest year in aviation history, as well as taking credit for the defeat of ISIS in Syria, are two very glaring examples of this tendency.

The German problem continues in the Church, and this time it colluded...


Subscribe to Manchester United