Russian politics

Sometimes good deeds do not go unrewarded - Sunday 18th to Saturday 24th of March

As far as the Vatican goes, this was a slow news week, which is good. The biggest news of the week, without a doubt, was the re-election to the Russian presidency of Vladimir Putin, who was rewarded for his stellar work.

Few were surprised at the outcome, not least since the polls showed him to be winning with a very large margin. The goal they had set was 70/70, which is to say, a 70% of a 70% voter turnout. The turnout was not quite as high as 70% - I believe it came up just short - but the support was even higher.

Here we have a man who towers above all heads of state in the world today, one who has charted a course which has seen his country steer away from destruction and utter despair into once more being a powerhouse. There is no doubt that most of the scaremongering regarding Russia is blantant propaganda and lies, but there is also little doubt that Russia is a feared nation once again, and most of the credit for that has to go to Putin, a man respected by most who have not not fallen victim to the propaganda of mainline Western narratives.

In the Soviet days, 'Russia' was feared, but today it is very much also a respected country. It is respected by many in the global South, and in the East, and in Latin America, because it has shown that one does not have to bend over to appease the West. In fact, Russia's greatest error after the collapse of the Western Union was allowing itself to be lulled into a sense of friendship with the West, for which it paid very dearly, with the country being looted almost literally to the point of bankruptcy.

There are those who, predictably, have said that the elections were rigged, although they have received a passing grade from observers. What many will find striking is the nothin that 76% of a country's electorate can vote for a single man, can support a man so as to essentially obliterate any meaningful opposition to him.

What a lot of people don't realise is that in Putin, Russians see a man they can trust, a man who they know loves his fatherland, and who has spent his life trying to serve his nation. Most Russians will definitely not agree with everything Vladimir Putin does, and neither do I, because the man is not perfect, as no one is. However, I doubt you will find many Russians who question whether what Putin does politically he does because he thinks it is the best for Russia.

Of which rulers (and I call them rulers and not leaders for a reason) in the West can we say that? Not even Trump comes close, because Trump's "America first" mantra in reality seems to translate to 'Israel first', to 'military-industrial complex first'. We definitely cannot say that about the rulers of the U.K, nor Sweden, nor France. What people also fail to realise is that Russians, although diverse in many ways with regards to ethnicity, have been forged by a common history, and they have a common sense of duty towards their nation.

It probably deserves mention that most Russians are 'ethnically' Russian, but the broader point is that their is a national sense of being Russian, and it would seem as though Russians want a strong ruler who they can respect and who also gets others to respect their motherland. It would seem as though Putin is a near-perfect embodiment of this rule, who actually is a very good leader as well.

One could make a comparison between Putin and Bergoglio, and if one can do it while maintaining a straight face one would realise that the two are polar opposites. The less said about the cabal running things in the Vatican today the better, but I shall say that those who claim that Bergoglio seriously thinks he is acting for the better of the Church, are more than kliley trying to convince themselves of that more than anything else.

I know that this is Edward Pentin's line, but how such a learned and good-natured man can say that in public I really do not understand. He knows more about Bergoglio's evil machinations and the mess they are making than most, so his claim does assume a seriousness that it would not otherwise merit. However, given all the scandals that have been uncovered, all the scheming, all the anti-Catholic statements, I really would like Edward Pentin to elaborate on how exactly it is he concludes that Bergoglio is trying his best and not working out of sheer malice.

So much for intentions. As for outcomes, I'll not waste anyone's time comparing Bergoglio's to Putins save to mention that one has turned his country into a feared and respected nation, while the other is well on his way to turning the Church into an obscene and blasphemous joke. That he will not succeed in his evil plans is neither here nor there, but it says much of the man that those who have always defended the papacy and papal authority are now his most fierce opponents, and that even the general audience is more or less tired of this lewd man, appropriately enough showing up in fewer and fewer numbers at his general audiences, such that some mockingly wonder whether they are still free to attend. As the elections in Russia showed, the people in Russia have taken the opposite view, and feel entirely content with handing over to Putin all the power he needs to do what he thinks is good for the country. If his record is anything to go by, it probably will be.

Finally, it is also interesting to note that Putin got more votes this time around than in 2012, whereas with Bergoglio, genuine Catholics seem to find him more offensive by the month, if not week, if not day. Now, some of those who voted for Putin have said that they would not have voted had it not been for the big fuss that Theresa May has made of the alleged Skripal poisoning. It is clear to me that this incident was whipped up by the British for political reasons, either to undermine Putin for his efforts in Syria, before the elections or before the World Cup. Either way, these anti-Russia actions by the Westerners seem to have had the opposite effect.

On the topic of the Skripal case, I must point out just how utterly absurd the reaction of the British media has been. The leftist Jeremy Corbyn had the temerity to suggest that proof is needed before one can jump to conclusions, the result of which has been a torrent of abuse from both the political and media establishment. Once again, Peter Hitchens stood out as an oppoing voice and he warns us that "The 'patriotic' thought police came for Corbyn. You are next". The British, I have long maintained, are the most mind-controlled people on the planet. I have spent a lot of time reading British online outlets, and from the comments section, one can tell that most of them would not be able to have an independent thought if their life depended on it. One of these days, their lives may just depend on opposing a government policy, but I doubt they will be up to the task.

Incidentally, and before you jump the gun, I would not bring up Brexit as a counter-argument to this, as I have always analogised Brexit to someone wanting to eat a buffé at an expensive restaurant without having to pick up the tab. The truth is that most of the British people voted for Brexit under the false notion that the EU was responsible for the crazy freedom-loathing laws of Britan, while in fact, most of the worst laws in Britain have had nothing whatsoever to do with the EU, and also, the worst laws of the EU have always had the support of the British governments.

Now onto more Bergoglio, who managed to misguide the youth yet again, on several topics. First it was that we should not be afraid of tattoos and that they can be a way of priests to connect with the young. Again with the young! What is it with this guy and his cult of youth!

Then we had his idiotic statements regarding prostitution, whose undertone was that feminism is the solution to these problems, the Church is to blame for them, and he also got in one of his many meaningless apologies, wherein he apologies on behalf of people who probably would not feel responsible, much less, apologetic. I am unsure as to whether he apologised in his capacity of a man, or in his capacity as the head of the Catholic Church on Earth, or whatever he is. As I wrote at the time:

From the most idiotic pope in history we have another doozie:

I ask myself and I ask you, is it possible for a Church that is still too male chauvinist to be able to question itself truthfully about this high demand by clients?

He manages to insult the Church and men at the same time. Then he issues another one of his meaningless apologies on behalf of everyone but himself. Interestingly, I am yet to learn of an apology that Bergoglio has made on account of sins that he himself has committed - it is not as though the list of those is short.

It's interesting that he gets in another barb for feminism in his pre-synod scheme-fest:

“The woman is exploited,” he said, noting that “today there is no feminism that has been able to take this out of the unconsciousness” in societal thought. “It's a sickness of mentality, it's a sickness of social action, it's a crime against humanity.”

I then asked who he was to judge, given that he has told us that one cannot intefere in the spiritual lives of others.

Self-loathing is a feature of NovusOrdoism, at least insofar as these people consider themselves connected to Catholicism, a contentious point at best. They loathe Catholicism but like its material benefits. The latest example of this phenomenon could be seen in France, where a priest had his cassock digitally altered into a pair of jeans on a poster which was used as part of an outreach programme to youth - again with the youth. As Gregory DiPippo noted:

If, as this rather sad little episode seems to indicate, a diocese becomes not merely reluctant to show a priest as a priest, but positively embarrassed by the idea, it should at least be honest and admit that the money collected in its fundraising appeal will be used to pay the lawyers who handle its receivership.

Last week, I had mentioned that I had wondered whether the Novus Ordo gang was good at anything, but finally found that at least a few of them could find paid work outside the Church doing image alteration. This was in reference to the Vigano lettergate incident. I also noted then, that they are obviously not good at deception, since their lies are so blatant that any half-hearted investigation will uncover them. This week proves me correct once again.

There are many myths surrounding the protestant revolt, not entirely dissimilar to the lies surrouding the Novus Ordo. Basically we had big had old Church, then people evolved and then we had either no church, in the case of the protestant revolt, or NOChurch, in the case of the Novus Ordo. In " When England Was Catholic", as Patrick Martin writes about what Catholic England was like before the gruesome protestant revolt, which robbed the British of much of their cultural heritage.

In the U.S., Trump appointed a new foreign minister, one who is considerably more bellicose than the previous one, and also a supporter of torture, as Trump himself is. In true neo-con fashion, many have have chosen to point out that the sodomy pushers and the abortionists are upset at the guy being chosen. That migth be the only virtue he has, because he is not a man one would want to have to support. He is definitely not 'pro-life', unless that term is to be reduced to being solely against the killing of unborn (preferably) American children.

Having tired of false flag attacks by the Americans, the Russians decided to pre-emptively warn that the U.S. was planning one with the help of Islamists in Syria. This seems to have worked as we have not had any major false flag propaganda recently, as one would have expected what with the Islamists seemingly being cornered. If everybody knows that you are going to launch a false flag, then all credibility is lost when the false flag attack is carried out. The Russians and the Syrians have played this one very well.

Finally, a word of gratitude to the folks at Pre-1955 Holy Week, who have put up resources for the pre-1950s celebration of Holy Week. Long live authentic Catholic resources!

This week's Bergoglio victim-of-the-week would have to be the struggle against he ghastly scourge of tattoos and body alterations. I might have chosen the fight against feminism and for a proper understanding of complementarity between the sexes, but I feel relatively certain that Bergoglio will provide ample opportunity for that to be chosen at a later date, should we have the misfortune of having to put up with him for any longer than we have already been burdened.

Subscribe to RSS - Russian politics