Turkey

More dubious canonisations: Heads decency loses, tails perversion wins - Sunday 7th to Saturday 27th of October

We had yet another dubious NOChurch canonisation, as Pope Paul VI was canonised by Bergoglio, the man who seems to want to attack Humanae Vitae - pretty much the only thing Pope Paul VI did somewhat right, just about. The miracles attributed to Paul VI are as dubious as his character, but that didn't stop NOChurch from counting them as genuine, and using them as proof for his sanctity; these people are nothing if not relentless in their quest to destory all things Catholic.

Needless to say, real Catholics did not take this lightly. The SSPX issued a statement issued questioning it. Peter Kwasnieski went even further, and explained Why We Need Not (and Should Not) Call Paul VI ‘Saint’. Louie Verrechio, in his own particular way, had his take on this queer man being raised to the altars. I have no idea what NOChurch media wrote about this, but I am quite certain it was entirely uncritical.

With so many canonisations, and so many dubious, people have begun to wonder: What exactly are we to think of canonisations? Does it mean the same thing? Are we bound to accept these things? How come there are so many of them nowadays and every pope seems to get a halo as his retirement present. Well, Canonization: Old vs. New Comparison in Unam Sanctam Catholicam attempted to show us what has changed and it shows clearly that whereas the old process was concerned with the integrit of the process, the integrity of the faith, the new one seems to be more interested in expediting the process, and not so concerned with anything which might slow or halt a canonistaion.

Part of the problem with the McCanonisations, is that we often do not get to evaluate objectively what was done, as much of the information is still hidden. The McCarrick scandal, for instance, has done much to cloud John Paul II's legacy, since it has come to light that there were warnings about McCarrick long before he got made cardinal, and that he was promoted in spite of these warnings. We were informed by ChurchMilitant.tv that the Vatican is gigging the McCarrick Investigation so as to place the blame on Pope John Paul II, now sainted by NOChurch's saint factory, and deflect attention away from Bergoglio - soon-to-be-sainted by said factory. Mundabor saw in this proof that Bergoglio is clearly an atheist, arguing that no true Catholic would canonise someone and then question the man's virtues after he had been canonised. I shall not waste your time in pointing out that Bergoglio is not Catholic at all, since that much should be obvious from what I have written many times on this blog, but I agree with Mundabor that this can count as proof.

My take on that is the following: This is a classic case of Bergoglian intrigue. It's a case of "heads, I win; tails, you lose". By this I mean that Bergoglio wins his greater plan to destroy the Catholic faith no matter how it turns out if he implicates Pope John Paul II in the McCarrick scandal, and the stronger the implication, the stronger his victory, and there is a connection to Pope Paul VI here as well. Let me explain...

It is no secret that Bergoglio is partial to sodomy. There are strong reports that Pope Paul VI at least before he became pope was involved in sodomitical relationships of the homosexual nature. If it turns out that Pope Paul VI is definitely proved to have done this, then now that he is a 'saint', what Bergoglio will have done is to create the space for him to claim that homosexuality is no big deal, since even some saints were homosexual. If, however, it turns out that the blowback is so large, then he can tar all canonisations by saying that canonisations are not infallible, are not trustworthy, and therefore the Catholic faiith has no certainties. It is the same with McCarrick: If you pin the blame on Pope John Paul II, then you  say thatt McCarrick's perversions either were not that grave, or failinng that, that Pope John Paul II was a flawed pope, who still managed to become a saint, and therefore we can be as flawed as we like and still manage to become saints. One can expect him too caption it "canonisation is  medicine for a fall world, not a prize for the perfect", just as he does with Holy Communion.

So what are we to do, given all these canonisations, a large chunck of tthem highly dubious? Well, a piece on either Rorate Caeli or Novus Motus Liturgicus tackled this issue head on. The conclusion was that perhaps we do not need to take an all-or-nothing approach. Although the Church does not define canonisations as infallible, certainly not within the scope of the dogma of infallibility, we can still maintain that pre-Vatican II canonisations are infallible, while those after the process was changed are not infallible. If the intention and the matter of canonisation has changed, then surely this cannot be without consequence for how we approach them.

The zionists in occupied Palestine continued their aggression. It was in many ways inevitable, as not having Syria as a playground for their airforce, they were bound to find other victims for Etheir murderous appetites . Donald Trump withdrew from yet another treaty, this time the INF Treaty, yet again proving that he will stop at nothing to placate the war party, contrary to his many statements on the campaign trail speaking of a responsible foreign policy. There were reports that the U.S. helped coordinate the drone attack on Russia's aribase in Syria earlier this year , really to the surprise of nobody since the U.S. has admitted to helping the Islamists ever since the start of the Syrian war, which they themselves helped to...

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...

The greatest fantasy in the Western rogue states' latest attack on Syria

On the 7th of April, I wrote about how Russia, having grown tired of the numerous false flag events that have been deployed in the Syrian war, had tired and decided to pre-empt false flags by warning beforehand of what they believed to be plans to conduct some. I wrote:

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.

With impeccable timing, the very next day, on the 8th of April, reports came out of an event bearing all the hallmarks of a false flag event; not even that, a hoax. The event supposedly took place on the very same day I released that article. Videos were circulated purporting to show how the Syrian government had attacked its people. Donald Trump went on his customary twitter rant, Hillbilly Haley did her thing at the U.N, and the lap-dogs in Europe of Theresa May and Le Creep Macron chimed in.

As few will have missed, the gang of rogue agents bannered under NATO launched airstrikes against Syria on Saturday the 14th. Only 3 countries did it in the end, but let not that fool you into thinking that the rest of the members are peace-lovers and warmonger-haters. The only other country which could reasonably had joined in was Turkey, and it has its own agenda which would not have been served by going along with this illegal action - although let us recall that Turkey has illegal actions of its own inside Syria.

There will be plenty more to write about this as more details become known, but I'll just mention one thing before getting to my main point: Unlike the events in Syria last year, which may indeed have been a genuine false flag (if the event ever took place, that is) this one appears to be a genuine hoax. In other words, the details which have come to light seem convincing on the matter that there was never any attack involving chemical attacks to begin with.

The term "false flag" is used quite a lot nowadays but it's worth making proper distinctions, given that it's often used wrongly.

A "false flag" proper is an event which takes place, carried out by someone other than the one who gets blamed, with the specific goal of using the blame apportioned to achieve other ends.

A "hoax" is a non-event which is prevented as an event.

Nothing takes place, but it is claimed that something took place, and blame is pinned as though an event had taken place. Before last week I would have argued that hoaxes were much more difficult to carry out effectively than false flags, but given the compliance of the media and the ignorance of the general population, I think the powers-that-be have decided that they do not need to go to the trouble of carrying out false flag events when hoaxes, cheaper and safer as they are, will do the job just as well.

It would seem as though what we had on the 8th of April was a complete hoax, which Donald Trump, the American establishment, the British establishment, the Western European establishment, the media, all of these sorry excuses for adults, fell for like a bitch in heat.

All we know for sure is that the White Helmets were involved. How many others of the aforementioned agents were involved is impossible to know at this point in time. The Russian government has pointed the finger at British intelligence in any case, although they have not yet presented any proof for this.

Back to the main point of this article, which has to deal with fantasies, and more specifically the fantasies which have enabled this tragic situation.

There are many flying around at the moment, far too many to list. One could be the idea that dropping bombs is humanitarian. Another is that the "rebels" are fighting to save Syria from a brutal dictator. Yet another is that the U.S. is an independent actor in all of this, only intervening to make sure that the sides are fighting fairly. Another is that the Western media can be relied upon to report on anything truthfully.

By far the biggest fantasy in all this let's-bomb-Syria-for-the-Syrians campaign is the absolutely ridiculous notion that the United States, that Donald Trump, that Theresa May, that Le Creep Macron, that Angela Merkel , that the media, that any of these narcissists care one bit about the well-being of the Syrian people.

They don't even care about the people in their own countries.

These people have been arming the band of militant head-Chopping Islamists who have terrorised all of Syria over the past 7 years. These people have mercilessly bombed the Syrian Arab Army in order to help the cause of the Islamists. These people have introduced sanctions on Syria to prevent it form being able to re-build after the war is over. These people have done everything in their power to prevent the war from being over. These people have occupied the riches parts of Syria to prevent Syria from having the funds to rebuild.

We are then supposed to believe that Donald Trump, Le Creep Macron, and medicore May care about Syrian lives, Arab lives, any lives. All the while they are claiming this, they are not only doing nothing to stop a genocide in Yemen on account of a naval blockade initiated by Saudi Arabia, but they are actively involved in helping Saudi Arabia enforce this blockade which is starving millions as...

Pages

Subscribe to Turkey