traditionalists

A problem so urgent it can be put off for 5 months, and making the Chinese military great again - Sunday 9th of September to Saturday 6th of October

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...

You don't need God; You have me! Sunday 14th to Saturday 20th of January

There is a lot of ground to cover this week so I shall try to be brief on each topic.

We begin with some good news in the form of a series of articles by the always-unpredictable Fr. Allan J. McDonald. I refer to him as unpredictable because one never knows what he is going to write. One day he could be attacking the latest destructive Novus Ordo novelty and the next day he could be attacking not only an analogous novelty, but the very Novus Ordo mentality that brought the novelty into being in the first place.

This time he published 3 posts on Vatican II, the sum total of which was geared towards defending the Catholic Church pre-dating before Vatican II. He linked to a series on interviews from people who lived before Vatican II, and only one of 6 was negative, and that 6th one turned out to be a bitter feminist who was a toddler at the opening of the Second Vatican Council, so her opinion can be dismissed out of hand. What we have is a snapshot into the life of a Church which was caring, loved and vibrant; a Church which was the centre of the lives of many of her sons and daughters. It was a loving Church which inspired those under her care to aspire to be the best they could be.

In a follow-up post, he responded to a comment from the original piece, in which the notion that the pre-Vatican II Church could not have been that good given that it collapsed virtually overnight once NOChurch went into high gear was advanced. He finished off with citing a study which shows that only 24% of Catholic women in the U.S. go to Church nowadays. This number was naturally much higher before the Novus Ordo. In other words, in spite of - or perhaps, due to - the mass effeminisation programme undertaken by NOChurch authorities, even women find NOChurch unappealing.

On Rorate Caeli, Peter Kwasniewski outlined the Church's traditional wisdom in having post-Christmas and pre-Lented periods, to slow us down from the highs of Christmas before we enter the gloom of Lent. It was a piece well-worth reading.

We were also informed that at least 20% of non-religious people pray, often in times of trouble. I would have thought the figure was higher. So perhaps the old adage that there are no atheists in foxholes should be updated, but I would think that even 80% of the rest have some kind of notion of God, only they let their anger get in the way of their humility. You find it commonly expressed in the "God doesn't exist, because if he did then so-and-so would not have died" and so on.

In the U.K., we had Bishop Egan visiting a foreign diocece and to his dismay and horror most Catholic churches were locked. He did not appreciate that, and neither do I since I have also attempted to go to many churches which I found locked. That this diocese seemed to be in England precludes the possibility that he could have paid a visit during siesta hours. Churches being locked is yet another fruit of Vatican II, and a bitter one at that.

We then get to the bad news, and not entirely unpredictably, these are headed by our very own Bergoglio.

The world's favourite attention-whore was up to his old tricks again, although this time he outdid even himself. On another of his scandalous trips - this time to Chile and Peru to do nobody-knows-what-good, he 'wedded' a couple on the plane, after joking that it is witchcraft which gives him all his wrecking-ball energy. The couple both worked as air stewards, and the story they gave was that Bergoglio by chance inquired as to their marriage status, and finding out that they were not sacramentally married - only civilly -, volunteered to wed them on the plane. I must admit that I never bought the story for a second, because more or less everything Bergoglio does is a stunt. Furthermore, we are talking about a man who says that most couples who are married are not married and many couples who are not married are actually married. It is an unlikely candidate for an inquisition into whether the steward serving him is in a sacramental marriage.

It reminded me of a scene from an X-Men movie, in which the grandfather mutant tells Charles that he doesn't need Cerebro (the machine he uses to reach into far-away minds) in order to reach out to all the world, because he can do with his powers instead, saying "You don't need a machine to amplify your powers. You have me!". Bergoglio was simply stating "You don't need to call on God for marital blessings; You have me!". The mutant seems to have been correct, as he had the power; Bergoglio, not quite so, as he doesn't.

Now, at a wedding Mass, we call down God's blessings on the new couple and pray that they will have a fruitful marriage. Bergoglio obviously seem that a wave of his hand can replace the blessings that are brought down from Heaven upon a newly-wed validly and sacramentally married in the House of God.

It never seemed likely that Bergoglio would warmly speak to flight attendants anyway, as insider portrayals of Bergoglio paint him out as a rather unfriendly man. It seemed even less fanciful that a man who has launched a fully-fledged assaunt on the institution of marriage would care whether a couple was canonically and sacramentally married.

To nobody's surprise, therefore, the whole stunt turned out to have been pre-planned but that didn't stop Bergoglio continuing to lie about the whole event and sticking to the original story.  What id did, however, was show just how irreverent and narcissistic all involved were. No longer could...

In Bergoglian times, fake papal news is indistinguishable from real papal news, and a novel idea - Sunday 6th of August to Saturday 12th of August

There was a statement alleged to have come from Vladimir Putin regarding Bergoglio. I cannot for the life of me figure out if the news is fake or whether it is real.

I came to the piece through Fr. Zuhlsdorf's site. In the piece we found the following (emphases from his site):

President Putin has slammed Pope Francis for “pushing a political ideology instead of running a church”, and warned that the leader of the Catholic Church “is not a man of God.”

“Pope Francis is using his platform to push a dangerous far-left political ideology on vulnerable people around the world, people who trust him because of his position,” Putin said. 

“If you look at what he (the Pope) says it’s clear that he is not a man of God. At least not the Christian God. Not the God of the Bible,” Putin said at the Naval Cathedral of St. Nicholas in Kronstadt.  

“He dreams of a world government and a global communist system of repression.

“As we have seen before in communist states, this system is not compatible with Christianity.”

The charges made against Bergoglio are certainly true, but the tone is certainly not that of Vladimir Putin, who is the most diplomatic statesman around. He is very cautious in his statements and I fail to even see why he would bother taking time from his busy efforts rebuilding Russia to criticise a man who is busy destroying the Catholic Church, of which he is not a member (the 'which' refers to Putin here but since heretics cannot be members of the Church...). I just don't see Putin making these statements, and at a cathedral no less.

Mind you, I would certainly not respect him less if he said it!

The truth is that Bergoglio's attack hounds have  been critical of Putin so it would be only fair of Putin to point out that Bergoglio is not a man of God and that he is deceiving people. I just don't think that Vladimir Putin said it, because I have not seen any confirmation of this piece from trustworthy newspapers or blogs, and even Fr. Zuhlsdorf seems to think it is fake news.

There were many comments on this piece at the website, but one in particular was noteworthy:

Fake news or not (I think it is largely invented), Pope Francis is to blame for having said things that make people wonder if articles like this are true. What this article says would not be remotely plausible if it pertained to either of our previous two popes. Not so with Pope Francis. Even if Putin never said what the article says he says, it is plausible that he did say those things and it is also plausible that there is some element of truth to at least some of them.

The truth is the more absurd a story coming from the Vatican nowadays the more likely that it is true, and the more anti-Catholic it is the less we can dismiss it. Even Bergoglio's defenders cannot pretend that the man is not a disaster for the Catholic Church.

The same priest writes about the 'North Korean' situatoin and suggests some solutions. There was only one contributor who wrote anything worthy of a Catholic response, while the rest showed off their americanism. As it turns out, he is British, and seemed generally to be the most informed. One of his responses captures his general attitude towards the 'problem', and he had many.

Simples. Don’t threaten North Korea. Don’t put THAAD missiles in South Korea. Don’t carry out massive battle manoeuvres in the south. In fact go back home and look after your own people.

I have a novel idea: Just leave North Korea alone!

My idea runs roughly along the same sentiments in other words. The fact is that most other countries have come to terms with the fact that North Korea is a nuclear power, including all of its neighbours, which are well within the range of North Korean weapons. It is only the U.S. which thinks it is so special that it has a right to prevent another country from defending itself.

North Korean concerns are not exactly unjustified, as the U.S. has been on a global campaign to take down anyone who opposes its policies and not strong enough for self-defence. We have seen Iraq, Libya and Syria attacked militarily by the U.S. and on top of that you can add other countries the U.S. has bombed int the recent past on multiple continents. As a sovereign country, North Korea have every right to defend themselves or at the very least to assure the destruction of anybody who attacks them, adn contrary to popular opinion, it is the U.S. which is the aggressor as it keeps holding military drills - some with such ominous names as "Operation Decapitation" - and imposing sanctions on what is already one of the most impoverished countries in the world. Truth is, sanctions are considered an act of war.

It is time for the U.S. to stop acting as if it is special - and being allowed to get away with it - and live with the rest of the international community as part of the community, and not as an overlord. It is the U.S. which is the real rogue state!

There is simply no good reason why anybody should accept the ridiculous notion that the U.S. has a right not to be under threat from other countries, given that it threatens virtually all countries on the planet. Furthermore, there is nothing irrational about the behaviour of North Korea: They simply seek the survival of their nation, as do most right-thinking people (which obviously excludes most of the Western politicians and electorate at this point in time). I would hope that at least Catholics can agree that it is unjust to threaten a country with annihilation simply for seeking the means to preserve itself,...

Pages

Subscribe to traditionalists