Nikki Haley

Bergoglio gets his annual Christmas spank on, and sucking a banana in public may not be all it's cracked up to be - Sunday 17th to Saturday 23rd of December

In Rome, Bergoglio was up to his usual annual Christmas insults to the Roman Curia. This is what Novus Ordo Watch, the sedevacantist website, called the "annual spanking".

It is hard to imagine that there is any other organisation in the world which would tolerate a leader who does not believe in its mission statement and spends most of his time demoralising his subordinates all-the-while praising the competitors. Yet that is what we have in Bergoglio. In a sense, I suppose this serves to prove that the Church is not of human hands, for had it been, it would have collapsed into oblivion ages ago. Perhaps Bergoglio serves a positive purpose then, after all.

It is good nonetheless to see opposition towards Bergoglio spreading over much of the Church, and while it is true that it has not become entirely mainstream yet, we have a lot of people feeling emboldened enough to poke fun of Bergoglio assuming a context which would only have been knowable by a small group of faithful some 2 months ago. The satire I have particularly in mind is a cartoon version of Raymond Arroyo interviewing Bergoglio. It's hit-count is not astronomical at this time of writing, but I would expect it to grow. The youtube channel itself seems set up specifically to combat modernists and it is telling that the 2 first videos feature Bergoglio.

There is also no hint of the creators being traditionalists, so we can assume that criticism of Bergoglio, disregard for his false humility and realisation of his hubris has spread far and wide. As I often say, it is only neo-Catholics who don't seem to see it, as both modernists and the secular world clearly are of the opinion that Bergoglio is one of them.

Some kind of good news, of sorts, in Egypt, also was brought to my attention. These have to do with a pop singer who was sentenced to jail over lewd acts in a music video, which included sucking a banana in a sexually suggestive way, presumably - I could only get through a section of the music video, and this was the non-banana part. Her director was also sentenced to prison. She got 2 years. I highly doubt that she will spend that much time in prison, but it's important to note the was sentenced to prison for corrupting public morals. Many will point to this and see nothing but Islamic subjugation but the fact of the matter is that public decency is a cause worth fighting for and if the Muslims are doing it then we should applaud them for it. If the Western world had punished celebrities who corrupted public morality we would hardly be in the mess in which we currently find ourselves.

Over at the U.N., Trump and the U.S. were reprimanded by both the U.N. Security Council - which the U.S. naturally vetoed as the only member voting against - and then at the U.N. General Assembly after the U.S. had vetoed as the sole dissenter. The issue was condemning Trump for recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and proclaiming that the U.S. embassy would be moved there, in direct contravention of international law, which I have been led to believe, considers Jerusalem to be occupied Palestinian territory. It's interesting that despite all their overt threats, the U.S. only managed to get 8 states on its side - most of them "micro-states" , including the occupying country, of course -  in a vote it lost 128-9, with 34 abstentions, if memory serves me right.

We had Nikki Haley, a woman with a Ph. D in hillbilly studies according to Russia Today's show host Peter Lavelle, threatening that she would be taking notes and reporting who voted against them, with Donald Trump chiming in that the U.S. would stop sending aid money to countries which voted against them, and Haley again saying that since the U.S. pays most of the money they deserve respect. I shall briefly point out here that the U.S. gets more money from the U.S. than any other nation on account of all the diplomatic missions stationed in New Yor, as well as the fact that if all you have is "I'll kick you in the courtyard later" and "I pay more than you so I am always right", you really do prove that you have no leg to stand on. I very much applaud the members of the U.N. which took the U.S. to task on this.

Some felt that Britain betrayed America in voting against them in the U.N. Security Council. This should alert any Brit as to how Americans see the U.K. - as nothing more than a poodle to whatever policy the U.S. laps up.

One man who got a filip from this was Erdogan, who is desperately trying to position himself as the leader of the Muslim world. He warned Muslims that "Muslims may lose Mecca if they fail to hold on to Jerusalem". Frankly, I doubt that much will come of t his move, as Trump must well know. The Arab countries are far too tied down to American policy and far too duplicitous to make any demands against the U.S. on this.  Although the decision bodes badly for Trump's morality, as a political decision it was quite shrewd - no tangible downside and many upsides, domestically at least. At least it ends the facade that the U.S. was an impartial mediator in the Middle-Eastern conflicts.

Truth be told, Donald Trump's foreign policy to date has been nothing short of disastrous. It would be much better if he only stuck to domestic policy - where he has an almost flawless score, a 95% rate by my count - and withdrew from international meddling altogether. In fact, that is the very platform on which he ran!

One good bright spot from the U.S. was the head of their ministry...

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
  • ...
Subscribe to Nikki Haley