torture

Bergoglio's stupidity catches up with his perversion - Sunday 12th of August to Saturday 8th of September

It has been far too long since I wrote, and it has not been for lack of topics, rather perhaps the exact opposite. There has been so much to write about that it has been difficult to know where to start.

Most of what has caught my attention has been Church scandals, but there have been some siginificant secular news as well. I shall make the unusual choice of starting with the secular news, although I shall only cover  the secular world in brief.  The rest will be taken up by Bergoglio's most headline-grabbing scandal to date, so perhaps it is just as well that my update-rate has been sub-optimal, for otherwise I would have been writing about that very thing all this time; so dominant has it been.

The most significant news was that China may scrap it's abhorrent two-child policy after 40 years of callous murders. What has often been called a one-child policy was for most people always a 2-child policy, since people outside the cities were 'allowed' 2 children, as were those without siblings. I write allowed in quotation marks because I cannot get over how absurd it is that the government sticks its nose into how many children  a couple has. A government can no more allow people to have more than 2 children than it can allow its citizens to breathe, which is to say that having children is a natural right which the government has no right to infringe upon more than it has on our right to breathe. It can only allow it only insofar as it has violated that right in the first place.

In any case, the 2-child policy created a childless society en large, which was not helped by the Chinese traditional preference for boys, or Chinas world-leading suicide rate among women. China is on course to have the oldest population in Asia in a few decades,  and all because of its communist ideologues. When you fight against nature, you will always lose.

I have, however, long maintained that China might indeed become the first country in modern times to outlaw the killing of unborn children, after having allowed and even mandated it. This is because the Chinese are not as ideological as their Western leftists. To them abortion was what they thought would bring them out of poverty. To the Westerners, abortion was a way to rebel against God and former Christendom's cultural and moral heritage, through the 'liberation' of women, which of course, has been the enslavement of women to their sexual appetites. The Chinese have no time for this nonsense; they are materialists. If killing hundreds of millions of children is what they think will bring them wealth, then kill hundreds of millions they shall. They have finally realised that children are not a cause of poverty, but rather a nation's greatest resource, and now they are despreate to increase the birthrate. The easiest and cheapest way is to simply outlaw the killing of children, and you can be sure that if they think that will help their bottom line, then it is exactly what they will do.

I recently read that the Chinese have spoken about introducing a tax on those who don't have children. In other words, my prediction is not far off from being realised.

A bridge collapsed killing at least 35 in Genoa, Italy. This collapse affected me more personally than most other tragedies since I am certain I drove over that very bridge last summer on my way to Florence. In other words, I could have been one of those people. The Italian government, with Salvini at the helm, blamed it on the EU, given it has forced Italy into budget cuts. I hope that was a statement brought out more by being overcome by emotions more than calculated political opportunism, because even by modern political discourse, that is stretching political truthiness beyond breaking point. I do like Salvini a lot, but that was well below the belt. There is much blame to go around, but the EU cannot be blamed for this.

The EU, to the extent it can even be blamed for forcing the Italians to attempt to live within their means, simply called for budget cuts. I am quite certain they never mandated that these cuts be on vital infrastructure. As one good piece pointed out, if Italy did not invest so much on the NATO racket, it might have had more to invest in its infrastructure. Instead of buying fighter jets costing hundreds of millions of euros, they could build very good bridges for much less than that, and save lives while doing it, instead of taking them.  Instead of going along with sanctions on Russia which could have brought billions which might have been used on infrastructure, they decided to go along with the American racket. They could have stood for their sovereignty in both cases. Instead they decided to put the money into the hands of the U.S. military-industrial complex, and the lives this and similar decisions took just ended up being their own.

Russia kept warning against a false-flag chemical-weapons attack in Syria, even providing evidence to the OPCW and the U.N.. The U.S., meanwhile, continued to protect its Syrian Islamists by making the militants know that any false or hoax flag conducted on them would lead to strikes on Syrian government positions, and being the lap dogs they are, the British and French followed suite. This comes as the Syrians and their Russian allies are preparing the final assault on the last major Islamist strong-hold in Syria, having cleared most of the country, despite American interference. The Netherlands, in turn, decided to end support for Syrian militant groups, which confirmed what we have been saying all along - that militants in Syria have been backed up by secular Western countries - in addition to Arab sheiks and Jewish zionists...

As hubristical as he was wrong-headed: new transcripts shed light on the father of NOChurch - Sunday 13th to Saturday 19th of May

One of the saddest things about Novusordoism's destruction of Catholicism, is that Pope Paul VI was warned about it both before, during and after the council, and before, during and after the many modifications made to Church documents, Church law , Church practice and even the Church's own liturgy.

In what must seem to us like infinite hubris, Paul VI brushed it all off , insisting that everyone should follow him since he is pope, and more concerned that people dared to question him than that the changes made were causing actual harm. That is the take-away from the release of a transcripts from a meeting between Pope Paul VI and the honourable Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre some time in the 1970s.

The honourable archbishop pointed out why he had to resist. He pointed out just how far people had wandered off from the faith. He pointed out how his resistance was done out of love for Holy Mother Church than out of a spirit of rebellion. Pope Paul VI, on the other hand, seemed to be more concerned that Archishop Lefebvre did not accept everything from his mouth as binding, and that he had pinpointed him as the source of many problems, than he was about the souls being lost.

That in a nutshell, is what Novusordoism is all about. It is more important that one never utters a word against the many harmful novelties, than that the souls who are harmed as a result of these novelties be brought back to the faith. Then, of course, if you defend NOChurch enough, there is a dubious canonisation at the end of it for you.

One who will not go quietly down into the bad night is Bishop Gracida, who at 94, is now retired. This week he wrote about how a conclave should be held to depose Bergoglio. I would agree with him , were it not for the fact that I cannot see what authority a council of cardinals has to depose Bergoglio. By all means, Bergoglio should be condemned, but there is no Earthly power to depose a pope, short of  killing the man, and I don't see how that can be done licitly, given that no cardinal can stand in judgement over Bergoglio to issue him with a death sentence, even if they were so inclined.

In the Korean Peninsula, North Korea announced that it would dismantle its nuclear test site in ahead of the Kim-Trump summit. Then they threatened to withdraw from the summit given that the U.S. and South Korea were holding drills outside its shores. It's hard to know what to make of this whole scenario, because I think a lot of details are lost in the headlines, and without these details, the timelines are often off, and we cannot appropriately apportion blame.

The same cannot be said of the Iran nuclear deal, which Trump pulled out of the week before. Iran has been compliant, but Trump decided to pull out, no doubt egged on by his zionist and wahhabist handlers. In anticipation of what everybody excepts will be the cave-in of the spineless Europeans, China announced that it would enter Iran should Total - the oil company - pull out as a result of the sanctions.

In other Trump-roguery news, the U.S. opened its new embassy to zionism in Jerusalem. Among those in attendance were some of the most vile warmongering zionist televangelists around, most notably Haggee.  Those Catholics who blindly defend Trump would do well to learn what a man such Haggee teaches. He almost makes John McCain look like a peacemaker, such is his love for war in favour of zionism.

Peter Hitchens asked "What moral standing do we have after this outrage? And are we about to join *another* idiotic war, like feeble minions? " The war part was about Iran, I suppose, but the moral standing bit was in retaliation to news of British torture and kidnap victims. That answer to his question is simple, and it is that the U.K. has never had moral standing. What it has had though, is the appearance of morally upright behaviour. I associate the U.K. with the murder and torture of Catholics in the 16th and 17th centuries, barbarous colonisation of Africa in the 19th and 20th, and endless poodleship in American wars in te 21st century. I don't have much on the U.K. in the 18th century, but I doubt they were up to any good then either.

The German president - a protestant - was out in the press saying that the Catholic Church should allow intercommunion. His wife is supposedly Catholic and she pays tax, so he wants a stale waffer on Sundays as well, I suppose. You know what, I don't blame him, because he is only parroting what the German bishops and Bergoglio have been saying for years. I do, however, have to ask whether he cannot afford tastier bread than the one offered on Sundays in Catholic churches, because I cannot for the life of me entertain the notion that he believes in the Real Presence, so I have to wonder why he doesn't instead visit a buffet on Sunday mornings instead of attending Catholic church services. Surely he can afford it.

Finally, the Vatican released a document on the economy, or finance, or some such. I honestly couldn't care less!

If they cannot be trusted with clarity on that which ought to be their speciality, and their bread-and-butter - i.e., the faith - , and they can't, then we ought not to pay attention to anything they say about anything else.

This week's Bergoglio victim of the week has to be Vatican documents. Given the mess in which we find ourselves, the Vatican finds itself with nothing better to do than to write a document on the economy. Some have written that the document is actually quite good, and it may well be, but we ought to insist that...

There is none that calleth upon justice, neither is there any one that judgeth truly...

The full verse of Isaiah 59:4 reads:

There is none that calleth upon justince, neither is there any one that judgeth truly - but they trust in a mere nothing, and speak vanities: they have conceived labour, and brought forth iniquity.

I was tempted to go with Psalm 93:16, which reads:

Who shall rise up for me against the evildoers? Or who shall stand with me against the workers of iniquity?

That would have allowed me to lead with "certainly not the bishops of the U.S. or the neo-Catholics"! As it is, I chose to stick with Isaiah.

The topic for today is the U.S. election, which takes place tomorrow. So at least soon we shall be out of our misery with regards to that soap opera. Specifically, I wish to write about the disgraceful silence of the U.S. Catholic hierarchy, their even more disgraceful interventions where those have been present, and the scandalous acts of the neo-Catholic establishment, specifically with regards to Donald Trump's bid to assume the presidency. There will be time for a dishonourable mention of Bergoglio's attempts to interfere.

On the day before the election, I finally took time to glance at the Donald Trump's campaign policies from his own website. They didn't bring much insight as I already knew much of it. The most noteworthy were left out, these being his pledge to fight the abortion industry and his resolve to make peace with Mother Russia instead of inciting conflict.

One might have thougth that Donald Trump's Catholic detractors would at least base their criticism of him on his policies, but no, it has been anything but. From bishops to neo-Catholics, the tone has been that Donald Trump is ungentlemanly, all the while creating a false equivalence between the boorishness of Donald Trump and the sheer evil of Hillary Clinton, whose campain promises read like a what's-what of intrinsic evils. From killing the unborn in their millions in her country and abroad, to forcing the Church and her members to participate in it, to promoting sodomy and wanting to punish those opposed to it, to starting unjust wars abroad, arming Islamists, picking fights with world powers, this woman seems to he some kind of arch-agent of death.

To compare the policies of these two individuals would be akin to comparing the actions of  St. Peter St. Paul with the Emperor Nero - so big is the difference between the positions. Yet one  would never know it from listening to the myriad of bishops who have commented on this, and even worse from the many neo-Catholics who have come out openly against him from the very beginning. On which grounds is Donald Trump so odious? Apart from the myriad of personal attacks on the man's boorish character, we never get a response to that. Some have claimed that he is against immigrants (which is not true given he was married to the daugher of one), while some have cited that he has spoken derogatively on women. I am not the man's etiquette coach so I shall not delve into that debate, but I would expect any half-grown-up human being to realise that Donald Trump is no saint and is not running as one, so any critique we make of the man would have to be based on what he puts forth as his policies, and not who he was as a person say, 10 years ago (when, I should add, he was a member of the party he is now running against, a party which stakes its political claim on demeaning womanhood).

A few of the bishops have acquitted themselves satisfactorily, but they are few and far between. Some have been disgraceful, and there are no guesses that Cardinal Dolan is a shoe-in for that list, as is par-for-the-course by now. The actions and inactions of these bishops just serve to emphasise how much damage the Novus Ordo has done to the Church and how complicit the Church has been in much of the evil we see in the Western world today. The choices could not be clearer - one promises to attack the Church, another to defend it - yet the bishops are satisfied with "no candidate is perfect", as though there has ever been such a thing as a perfect candidate! One wonders whether these people are stupid or evil, or both, or whether they simply like to play the role of useful idiot when they have time left over for non-evangelisation!

The Remnant has done a good job of pointing out why Catholics at the very least have a duty to vote against the wicked woman - a woman who appears more satanical by the day - and made a convicing case why one would more or less have an obligation to vote for Trump. It is not a case of lesser evils (which Trump definitely is not), but one of double-effect. ChurchMilitant.tv has also done a good job, as have many traditionalist sites. The neo-Catholic sites though, on the whole, have not been as clear in their opposition and have often muddied the waters.

There are only 2 things (of which I know) for which I can fault Trump - and I write this as someone who has been following his campaign almost from the start. One of them is his position on torture, an intrinsic evil. No Catholic can support that. On this point, it is difficult to imagine Hillary Clinton thinking otherwise since she has expressed a will to bomb pretty much anybody anywhere, and is in favour of killing the unborn till the point of birth, and almost certainly afterwards; in other words, torture and death for the most innocent. The second position of Trump which worries me is that on Iran, where he has been outrageously aggresive in his rhetoric. Again, this can be compared to that wicked woman, who in 2008 said that if elected president she would attack...

Pages

Subscribe to torture