Part of winning a war, or even a battle - perhaps the most important part - is knowing who the enemy is. When someone comes at you wielding an axe, it is easier to assume the person is more your enemy than say, the manager of your hostel, no matter how bad he treats you.
It would be difficult to imagine that the manager of your hostel would want you dead given that you think he needs your money for his establishment, even though he has been trying to kick you out ever since he took over management. That bitter taste in your morning porridge may wreak of chlorine or cyanide, but you are probably going to dismiss it. "Pouring chlorine or cyanide into my morning porridge is something he said he would never do", you convince yourself.
That little intro brings us to a piece which ran on Russia Today, or more specifically, RT America - the American version. I much prefer the international version because it is far more serious in its work, and employs far more serious journalists rather than simply slim and young women, although I suppose when in Rome...
The piece is the one below:
It is about Christians who were killed in Libya for their faith, by ISIS or people claiming to be ISIS anyway, whose mass grave has now been uncovered - or at least found. In the piece they are labelled Ethiopians, but I remember them being Egyptians and much of the talk in the piece ends up being about Coptic Christians in Egypt anyway, so I don't know whether it is RT America's young slim women who have made an error or whether the victims referred to were actually Ethiopians or whether they were Egyptians. I digress...
The debate then comes around to something I have often mentioned myself: Namely, that people who claim to be Christians in the U.S. often end up supporting wars in the Middle East whose one consistent outcome has been depriving Christians of their ancestral homelands.These so-called Christians are mentioned as the biggest pro-war faction, which is hardly a controversial opinion, to be fair. The evangelicals in particular are pointed out, again, not in any way unfairly.
The journalist makes the case that it is probably about ignorance; that the U.S. public does not know much about what happens in the world, that it has been duped by the media and political establishment to support wars it otherwise would not do. There is probably some truth to that.
Much more to the point though, is the fact that Christianity is not the biggest religion in the U.S., but actually zionism is, or ameri-zionism, which I suppose is a mix of zionism and americanism in which no number of victims are too great if the U.S. does the killing or zionism is the cause. Most so-called Christians in the U.S., when push comes to shove, would rather support Talmudist Jews who hate Christ and hate everything about the Church that Christ founded than they would support Christians in the Middle East, Arabs or otherwise. That is the cold hard fact that most people do not acknowledge.
In fact, as someone put it recently, Americans would rather give up Alaska than give up support for the zionist state of Israel.The particular appeal of zionism is that it appeals to no particular faith: One can be a zionist with little or not faith in God, and in fact atheist zionists are just as bloodthirsty as their 'religious' peers. Most zionists in the U.S. are not even Jews, but people who claim to be Christians. Of course, zionism is a heresy, so no Christian can hold to it without apostasising.
I wish this were only an evangelical problem, but years of listening to Catholic Answers has taught me otherwise, as have many conversations with people who call themselves Christians, even Catholics, in Sweden. I am often tempted to ask them: "If Judaism is so swell, why don't you just convert to it and leave Christianity to those who follow in the footsteps of the early Christians, the earliest of whom converted from Judaism to Christianity, often at great peril?" One day, perhaps in a bout of anger, I shall ask that question.
That evangelicanism is a creation of the devil is a topic I might have time to pursue in future. For now, suffice it to write that evangelicanism is entirely devoid of intellectual substance, so it should surprise us little that they will claim to care for Christians while supporting regimes which kill them and starting wars which are sure to leave Christianity worse off than it was before. The devil is smart that way, in that he can use our intellectual and moral blindness to fight for evil in the name of an imaginary good.
In the meantime, it bears remembering that the very same people who wage wars in the Middle East - ostensibly against dictators or Islamists - are the very same people who attack Christianity in the formerly Christian lands of Europe. It would indeed, take a very massive mental disconnect, to believe that these people want Christianity expunged from Europe but have it thriving in the Middle East. That these same peope - and the zionists who support them - have been arming the same Islamists who they claim to fight, even in the face of clear evidence that these Islamists want to destroy every last shred of Christianity in the region, is also worth remembering. Let us recall that with the possible exception of Iraq, the U.S. and al-Qaeda have fought on the same side of every war that has taken place in the Middle East over the past 20 years or so - whether that be Libya, Yemen or Syria.
It is sad that I have to contextualise my piece with the following clarification but, given times are as they are I must: I am no friend...
As far as scandals in the Church go, this was a normal week by NOChurch standards.
We had Carlo Capella, a former Vatican diplomat, being arrested on child pornography charges in the Vatican - well overdue, one might add.We had Cardinal Schönborn intimating that we could have priestesses in the Catholic Church.
Bergoglio issued yet another apostolic exhortation, this time called "Gaudete et Exsultate" - 'Rejoice and be Glad', which, let not the title deceive you, was yet another big rant against those who hold to the Catholic faith. We also had Bergoglio seeming to aplogise for his handling of the Barros sexual abuse affiliation scandal in Chile, and I write "seeming" because he found a way to say that he was not actually to blame and that he only acted wrongly because of the information he had received.
The big news were of course that the U.S. and its NATO lap dogs launched strikes against Syria. This time at least it took them almost a week before launching strikes against Syria, which is more than the 2-3 days it took them at roughly the same time last year.
Much of the week - by anyone honest - was spent actually exposing the absurdity of the alleged chemical attacks which were used as the justification for this NATO attack to have been carried out by Assad. A rather large chunk went to actually showing that the alleged events never actually took place, and that the whole narrative had been a hoax. That did not matter for Donald Trump and co. , however, as they launched their airstrikes on the very same day that the OPCW inspectors were supposed to visit the site of the alleged incident.
Most of the media covered itself in shame yet again, with Tucker Carlson the one notable and admirable dissenter in the U.S. In a series of episodes he showed just how much the U.S. has lied about this stuff before, that the U.S. defence minister had just 2 months prior come out and said that the chemical attack which was alleged to have taken place last year and which was used as the justification for airstrikes then was never actually proved . He also pointed out that there seems to be a pattern in which as soon as it seems as though the U.S. might be pulling out or drawing down its involvement in helping the Islamists in Syria, a 'chemical attack' takes place, which is used to drum up support for some sort of U.S. intervention in Syria.
The Russians, are, of course, in Syria and helping the Syrian government strike back against the head-chopping heart-eating Islamists who the U.S. and its Western allies - not to mention Turkey - have been hell-bent on unleashing in Syria. Russia had warned that it would shoot down any missiles which threatened its forces in Syria, and not only that, but that they would also target any launch platforms which were used. Fortunately, that did not come to fruition as the NATO strikes were cosmetic at best. Nobody died, which is the most important thing, and the equipment that was destroyed does not seem to have been irreplaceable.
Still, we are talking about an unprovoked attack on a sovereign country founded on a very lazy lie which was easily disproved and we should all be concerned that the NATO gang feel they can attack any country for any reason, or no reason at all. It should also be a cause of embarassment for all Americans that the president of the U.S. has more latitude in attacking countries for no reason than he has to put a stop to spurious money-sucking investigations directed towards him, or even building the wall which was the cornerstone of his presidential campaign.
A petition was launched by prominent Catholics in an attempt to impress on Trump the importance of the just war doctrine, not that it did much help.
I have already had occasion to write once on "The greatest fantasy in the Western rogue states' latest attack on Syria" and I intend to follow this story because it deserves to be followed, and also because of the disgraceful actions I have seen from both Catholics and non-Catholics regardin this latest Western aggression against yet another sovereign state. The mainstream media was predictably extremely vociferous in its support and encouragement for military action against Syria, relying on lies and disinformation based upon previous lies and disinformation to make its case.
Some of the most prominent traditionalist Catholics were very vocal in their opposition to these strikes, as was the Christian community in Syria. The Remnant and OnePeterFive deserve honourable mentions as well as contrast. At The Remnant, nobody commenting on the story believed the U.S. government story. At OnePeterFive, the publishers did not believe it, but since the quality of Catholicism is lower there - it is not exclusively or even primarily traditionalist in nature - the quality of the responses towards the official Western narrative was also noticeably worse.
One more important thing to take home from this is that Donald Trump missed a golden chance to assure his re-election. If he had turned to the people who elected him and told him that this is just another fake news media ploy, I have little doubt that he would have stood out as a giant among (granted, mediocre) men. Instead, he missed the oppostunity to look smart for once and now looks just like another stooge of the deep state and the American war machine. As far as I am concerned, the U.S. would be better off if Donald Trump was to be impeached because at least that would pull...
There are very many neo-Catholics who look down smugly on traditionalists. They want to claim that they still hold to the Catholic faith but do not soil their hands by mixing with those who question disastrous multiple (im)prudential decisions by the Holy See since Vatican II.
In "An attack on older Traditional Catholics in the Catholic Herald", Joseph Shaw chronicled a new type of Catholic - the "self-hating self-righteous not-really-trad Trad" as evidenced by Michael Davis, writing for the Catholic Herald. In his piece he managed to cobble up just about the most extreme caricatures of traditionalists, while claiming that he is a traditionalist, but of the friendly type. He trashed the older generation of traditionalists while praising the novus traditionalists of whom he obviously counts himself.
My regard for the Catholic Herald went down the drain with the Libyan war, which they cheered as enthusiastically as the war propaganda room of NATO. Things have not improved under Bergoglio but have only gotten worse. Occasionally we have a piece which is provocatively truthful, but for the most part whenever they cover anything remotely political you can count on it being anti-Russian propaganda, and when it comes to Church news, their reporting is often less than stellar, and they often gloss over the most offensive utterances of Bergoglio for nobody-knows-why. I am therefore not surprised that their new American editor found time to write such a vitriolic piece attacking traditionalists.
Sticking to that newspaper, we had a piece by Francis Philips titled "How many of us would truly resist an evil regime?" Its focal point was a woman who died not long ago, but who is best known for serving as a secretary for Goebbels, Nazi Germany's propaganda general. I only bring this up to highlight the lack of self-reflection to which we can all fall victim. As I wrote previously, the Catholic Herald and I have fallen out, so it may well be that Miss/Mrs. Philips has been writing about the diabolical scheming of Bergoglio in the most resistant of ways. I suspect she hasn't. It could also be that she has been shouting from the rooftops and denouncing the British government as it has attacked the sanctity of life, the sanctity of marriage, the facts of nature, and armed Islamists who have killed hundreds of thousands in the Middle East while driving out millions from their home. I suspect she has done none of that either.
In essentials, modern U.K. is every bit an evil regime as was the Nazis - most visibly with its callous disregard for human life and its incessant attack on the family -, but Francis Philips has done little to resist it. In essentials, the Bergoglio regime is even worse than the Nazis, since the Nazis - we are led to believe - wanted the death of our bodies, whereas Bergoglio seems hell-bent to see our souls damned for eternity. She has done even less to resist that, I suspect. So the question is open as to how many of us would resist an evil regime, but we can be relatively certain that Miss/Mrs. Philip wouldn't recognise one unless it popped up in her schoolbooks.
Without a hint of irony she asks us "How many of us would resist an evil regime?" That one can be so blind as to one's surroundings should concern us all.
I shall stick to the "evil regime" of the U.K. and illustate my point. We had yet another case of a child being pulled off child support by a judge against the wishes of his parents. This is a death sentence with a twist though, as the judge cited Bergoglio as justification for his decision to have the child die. This comes, of course, hot on the heels of the Charlie Gard story in which the judges denied a child the chance for experimental treatment because they wanted the child to die in a U.K. hospital. The diabolical Bergoglio effect on full display.
Moving onto the Church in the U.K., we are told that the number of Catholic weddings falls by two-thirds since 1990. So much for the sprintime of Vatican II. I doubt the quality of marriages is as high as it was before the Council either.
With yet another blasphemous Vatican stamp, this time with a homo-erotic presentation of some approximation of some Christ-like figure, Fr. Ray Blake asks "Where is the Vatican going?"
Finally, to finish of the theme of the United Kingdom, we have some good news, with Graeme Garvey mapping the English Catholic martyrs on a map that is now available online. The map is non-interactive, but I can do nothing but applaud the efforts of this layman and hope to emulate his efforts in one way or another down the road, in paying homage, however unworthily, to our Catholic forebears and the sacrifice they paid.
There is normally enough bad news in BergoglioChurch to leave one depressed for a week, and hardly a week goes by without a paedophilia/pederasty/homosexual scandal from a higly-placed cleric. It's depressing, and it's oftentimes demoralising and I wish I could just ignore it but we have to face NOChurch as it is. This week was no exception, as a former diocesan vocations director priest in the U.S. was arresed for homosexual sex assault on a 17-year old boy/man. I'll spare you the details.
Cardinal Cupich was up to his old Bergoglio-approved sin-promoting ways, and Fr. Gerald Murray took him to task for it.
Since the U.S. does not have the same simoniacal church tax system that the Germans have, and that Sweden has - although to a less nefarious degree - one has the option of refusing to support a bishop who one knows is causing harm to the faith. In " Excellent Idea For Annual Bishop/Cardinal Appeal" , the author argues for withholding money from one's diocese if one has...
