neocons

Part of winning a war, or even a battle - perhaps the most important part - is knowing who the enemy is. When someone comes at you wielding an axe, it is easier to assume the person is more your enemy than say, the manager of your hostel, no matter how bad he treats you.

It would be difficult to imagine that the manager of your hostel would want you dead given that you think he needs your money for his establishment, even though he has been trying to kick you out ever since he took over management. That bitter taste in your morning porridge may wreak of chlorine or cyanide, but you are probably going to dismiss it. "Pouring chlorine or cyanide into my morning porridge is something he said he would never do",  you convince yourself.

That little intro brings us to a piece which ran on Russia Today, or more specifically, RT America - the American version. I much prefer the international version because it is far more serious in its work, and employs far more serious journalists rather than simply slim and young women, although I suppose when in Rome...

The piece is the one below:

It is about Christians who were killed in Libya for their faith, by ISIS or people claiming to be ISIS anyway, whose mass grave has now been uncovered - or at least found. In the piece they are labelled Ethiopians, but I remember them being Egyptians and much of the talk in the piece ends up being about Coptic Christians in Egypt anyway, so I don't know whether it is RT America's  young slim women who have made an error or whether the victims referred to were actually Ethiopians or whether they were Egyptians. I digress...

The debate then comes around to something I have often mentioned myself: Namely, that people who claim to be Christians in the U.S. often end up supporting wars in the Middle East whose one consistent outcome has been depriving Christians of their ancestral homelands.These so-called Christians are mentioned as the biggest pro-war faction, which is hardly a controversial opinion, to be fair. The evangelicals in particular are pointed out, again, not in any way unfairly.

The journalist makes the case that it is probably about ignorance; that the U.S. public does not know much about what happens in the world, that it has been duped by the media and political establishment to support wars it otherwise would not do. There is probably some truth to that.

Much more to the point though, is the fact that Christianity is not the biggest religion in the U.S., but actually zionism is, or ameri-zionism, which I suppose is a mix of zionism and americanism in which no number of victims are too great if the U.S. does the killing or zionism is the cause. Most so-called Christians in the U.S., when push comes to shove, would rather support Talmudist Jews who hate Christ and hate everything about the Church that Christ founded than they would support Christians in the Middle East, Arabs or otherwise. That is the cold hard fact that most people do not acknowledge. 

In fact, as someone put it recently, Americans would rather give up Alaska than give up support for the zionist state of Israel.The particular appeal of zionism is that it appeals to no particular faith: One can be a zionist with little or not faith in God, and in fact atheist zionists are just as bloodthirsty as their 'religious' peers. Most zionists in the U.S. are not even Jews, but people who claim to be Christians. Of course, zionism is a heresy, so no Christian can hold to it without apostasising.

I wish this were only an evangelical problem, but years of listening to Catholic Answers has taught me otherwise, as have many conversations with people who call themselves Christians, even Catholics, in Sweden. I am often tempted to ask them: "If Judaism is so swell, why don't you just convert to it and leave Christianity to those who follow in the footsteps of the early Christians, the earliest of whom converted from Judaism to Christianity, often at great peril?" One day, perhaps in a bout of anger, I shall ask that question.

That evangelicanism is a creation of the devil is a topic I might have time to pursue in future. For now, suffice it to write that evangelicanism is entirely devoid of intellectual substance, so it should surprise us little that they will claim to care for Christians while supporting regimes which kill them and starting wars which are sure to leave Christianity worse off than it was before. The devil is smart that way, in that he can use our intellectual and moral blindness to fight for evil in the name of an imaginary good.

In the meantime, it bears remembering that the very same people who wage wars in the Middle East - ostensibly against dictators or Islamists - are the very same people who attack Christianity in the formerly Christian lands of Europe. It would indeed, take a very massive mental disconnect, to believe that these people want Christianity expunged from Europe but have it thriving in the Middle East.  That these same peope - and the zionists who support them - have been arming the same Islamists who they claim to fight, even in the face of clear evidence that these Islamists want to destroy every last shred of Christianity in the region, is also worth remembering. Let us recall that with the possible exception of Iraq, the U.S. and al-Qaeda have fought on the same side of every war that has taken place in the Middle East over the past 20 years or so - whether that be Libya, Yemen or Syria.

It is sad that I have to contextualise my piece with the following clarification but, given times are as they are I must: I am no friend...

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...