Venezuela coup attempt

The gullibility of Catholics when presented with false opposition continues to horrify me

There has recently been a coup in Bolivia. If you only get your information from more established news sources, or even most Catholic alternative sources, you are probably under the opinion that it was an overthrow by the people of a violent government, instead of a military coup.  You are mistaken.

I had certainly heard of the protests in Bolivia for a while but I did not expect them to lead to the overthrow of the government. It took me quite some time after the coup to realise that it was actually a military coup the likes of which the U.S. had unsuccessfully attempted to implement in Venezuela, but which bore much greater success in Bolivia when the army issued what essentially was an ultimatum to Evo Morales: Resign or be removed, or worse.

It shocks me not one bit that the established media has carried the line of the U.S. government - selling state ideology being its primary role, with the choice of whether to use a leftist or rightist lens seemingly being the only one left open to debate. What has shocked me is how positively the news of a military coup, the violent consequences of which are ongoing, has been received by Catholics who should know better. I am not talking about EWTN types, who get their news from Fox News in Catholic drag, but from those who at first hand don't seem to swallow every government lie unquestioningly.

As anybody familiar with Evo Morales will know, he is the source of the infamous communist crucifix with which Bergoglio was gifted on his state visit to Bolivia, I would presume. I believe Morales has also been at the Vatican a few times. He is the first elected indigenous president of Bolivia, or so I have been informed. I have also been informed that Bolivia is about 60% 'indigenous' - i.e., the majority - with most of the rest presumably being either wholly or partially of Spanish descent. He was a 'populist' figure in the true sense of the word, as proved by his multiple election victories. He had just won his 4th term, reportedly with the required margin of more than 10% which prevents a candidate having to have a run-off election. Under his rule, the levels of poverty drastically reduced and the native population of Bolivia was left much better off, in a country which had experienced one of  the  highest rates of economic growth in South America under his leadership, if not the very best. In other words, we cannot accuse him of having failed his base, unlike many other populists, some of whom are quite popular with Catholics right now.

Those are the facts. Now comes the conjecture.

I do now know whether the man is Catholic. Nothing of his public behaviour has implied to me that he is - his close relationship with Bergoglio would naturally imply that he is not Catholic, but he may well be. I do not know anything about Bolivia's record on the rights of the unborn, nor of Morales' stance on killing or saving them, and I have not bothered to look it up as it is not relevant to this piece. He is said to have lost a referendum on running for a 4th term yet ran anyway as the ban was ruled unconstitutional by the high court - or something to that effect. Regardless of that, his victory margin was well in line with the vast majority of polls ( I have read figures of 5/6 from one source). Whatever people may have felt at the time of the referendum, that he would win the presidential election seems to have not been in any doubt.

It is widely assumed that the CIA was behind this coup, and I have not come across anyone - for or against - who even questions this assertion. The fact that Donald Trump - himself somewhat of a victim of a CIA coup attempt - was one of the first to congratulate the new junta in charge, and the fact that Juan Gaido - the self-appointed president of Venezuela, a CIA stooge - also joined in should be enough to alleviate any doubts about who was behind it.

One would expect Catholics who claim to be against globalism and in favour of nationalism and populism to support a man who was obviously popular in his own country, and who had obviously improved the economic conditions of the poorest sections of his country. Yet, that is not what seems to have happened. Here is where the dreaded pachamama comes in.

It has been reported that one of the leaders of the coup declared “Pachamama will never return”, which was evidently enough to get Catholics on the bandwagon . Then we had the self-declared president posing with what seems to be to be a liturgical book and what is reported to be the Gospels, and that was enough for others to give jump over to her side. Even, which is generally against americanist interventions and American imperialism, has not criticised what is obviously an externally-orchestrated coup and has reported on the anti-Pachamama statements and the holding-the-Gospels show without much question or suspicion.

It seems that Catholics, even those against NOChurch, are quite easily fooled. All you need to do is utter some words against pagan statues, and hold a liturgical book, and all of a sudden you will have even battle-hardened Catholics jumping for a coup like a bitch in heat. To me though, the ostentatious anti-paganism is in and of itself a mark of the whole thing being plotted from abroad.

What seems obvious to me is that the coup plotters would have been following what happened at the syond of the Amazon. They would know that a lot of Catholics would have been against pachamama. They would have known that it was a trending word so they had one of their guys stand in front of a camera and say something against...

Chronicling several months of Bergoglio and U.S. roguery - Sunday 27th of January to Saturday 29th of June

Yes, I know: I have been atrociously bad at doing my weekly reviews. I wish I could guarantee an improvement, but I so dislike making empty promises that I can't bring myself to even attempting an assurance of that. In any case, I had been considering going away from weekly reviews towards shorter more pointed articles but since I had started on this 'weekly' review at the end of January, I thought I woudl extend it. First it was for a month towards the end of February, but as fortune would have it, it ended up covering several months and now covers the end of June.

My site was hacked in the meantime, which set me back a while. Most things are back to normal but the update has messed up my tagging system so I am limited to about a 5th of the tags I used to have and I haven't found a way around it. At the same time the browser I use (Firefox) seems to have experienced a problem on the operating system I use (Ubuntu Linux) and so I have not been able to use the content editor. Fortunately I realised that the content editor might work on other browsers, and I am now writing this article on Brave - a browser I can recommend to anyone. Not everything works though - hyperlinking to links doesn't, for instance - so I can't link to anything from within the article and I have to rely on the links at the bottom of the article instead. That is more than likely problem with my CMS (Drupal) than with my web browser.

I don't mean to bore you with all this nonsense, but to point out that I can come up with excuses like the best of them. In other words, it is not out of a lack of excuse-making that I refuse to jump on the "it-can-be-read-in-an-orthodox-way" bandwagon so popular among Bergoglio's enablers and defenders. Yes, I could come up with about 500 reasons why I haven't done my weekly reviews, and some  of them might even be valid, but there is really only one which counts: I have simply not taken the time to do it. It has certainly not been due to a lack of material. However, since this piece covers such a long period, I shall only be able to hit the highlights, or lowdarks, as it were, in both the secular and ecclesiastical world.

The best news is that it's been 5 months, which means I am 5 months older, which means Bergoglio is 5 months older, which means we are 5 months closer to the end of this horrific pontificate, or pseudo-pontificate, or whatever-you-wanna-call-it.

Right off the top of my head I can list any number of offences against the faith, and that's even without going back on my links. There's the appointment of McCarrick's closest friend as camerlengo, to take over when he retires. Then there is the Cardinal Wuerl replacement for Washington DC, who is really Cardinal Wuerl, with all his vices and then some, except a darker shade. While it is always exciting to see a black bishop in the U.S. considering that so few black people in the U.S. are Catholics, the man chosen to replace Wuerl is a disappointment in any measure, save for one which places perversion as a positive, which of course, is the scale Bergoglio seems to like most. Then there is Bergoglio choosing not to meet Matteo Salvini on account of Salvini not having the same fetish for kissing Muslim feet as he does, although Bergoglio put it in another way, obviously. We must also not forget the Abu Dhabi document, which I believe was signed during these past 5 months, and if ti wasn't doubtless there was a similar assault on the faith.

What we have not been treated to is another monsignor been arrested an account of a drug-fueled party at the Vatican, or a bishop openly converting to Talmudism, or wicca or some such. So I suppose it could have been worse, although I wonder if it would not be better for many of these NOChurch bishops to openly declare the religion to which they adhere because much of the time it is obvious that it is not Catholicism or even any of its heretical offshoots.

Bergoglioism is not a one-man religion though and on the face of it sometimes it seems like the world's fastest-growing religion - among ecclesiastics anyway. We have, of course, been treated to the horrendous Instrumentum Laboris of the Amazon synod, in which the authors seem to be declaring in all but name the official abandonment of the Catholic religion by NOChurch. Gone at least is the discussion of having the Eucharist in other matter than wheat - the only valid one. However, in are all manner of things, both pagan and protestant. Apparently instead of converting the Amazonian tribes, we are not supposed to learn from them how to be better in harmony with the world., and of course there is the issue of ending clerical celibacy which seems to be the whole point if this sham synod. 

You know what I can't understand? These people - Bergoglio and his minions - spend half their time talking about how we mustn't be dogmatic, how protestantism - in any of its 100,000 sub-domains - is equally good to Catholicism, how atheists go to Heaven, how everything is going to Heaven actually according to Bergoglio in one if his 'magisterial documents' (which one eludes me and frankly my brain cells are better not wasted on that). However, when it comes to the Amazon synod, then we are all of a sudden treated to the realisation that the Eucharist is important, that priests are important, and in fact so important that it is worth giving up all our doctrines and dogmas in order to provide priests for the Amazonians, without whom they might not your-guess-is-as-good-as-mine. The document does...


Subscribe to Venezuela coup attempt