warmongering

A psychopathic warmonger is fired and virtually everybody is happy, except...

It has always amazed me just how wrong EWTN seems to get pretty much every news piece they report about. It's almost impressive.

EWTN is, of course, part of the problem in the Church because it has been a mouthpiece for NOChurch at least for as long as I have been watching them. However, its  views on most other issues are also misinformed. 

Perhaps I have an inkling for a mild form of broadcast self-flagellation, but I do watch some of their news from time to time. It is not one of my proudest boasts, but I also do subsribe to their YouTube channel where I am constantly bombarded with 'fake news from a NOChurch americanist perspective'.

Their reporting on Church matters misses the mark most often on account of omission, simply ignoring more obvious angles to front some viewpoint only NOChurch agents can find. When it comes to U.S. domestic policies, they are pretty much like Fox News, except they are anti-abortion and they cover more of what has been called the 'life issues', but they will generally hit and miss in roughly the same way. It is when they report on international politics that they miss the mark most, and that their reporting often veers into lies of commision, not unlike any of the mainstream press, it must be stressed. 

As most know by now, the arch-warmonger of the Trump administration - John Bolton - was fired, or quit, whatever the case may be. All the same virtually everybody was happy with this because they saw in him a man whose solution to everything seemed to be lobbing a few missiles, or starving a population. Even on Fox News there was jubilation - largely from Tucker Carlson, who is pretty much the only anti-warmonger on mainstream American television, but still. It had not occured to me that there would be mainsream 'Catholics' who would be against his fiering until I turned on EWTN.

There I was treated to this horrible show:

I still remember when he was hired. A lot of the people who voted in Trump saw it as a form of betrayal for Trump to appoint a man who has been directly responsible for much of the decision-making surrounding the 2nd Iraq war, which Trump had in a round-about way complained about while on the campaign trail.

They brought in someone who informed us that Bolton was a "great pick", I believe was the exact phrasing. It was a black woman, I remember. Normally, race would not be an issue, but I found it odd that they chose her to laud the pick of this warmonger, suspecting they did it to ease the optics given that the Trump administration (wrongly) and the neocons (not without justification) have been accused of being racists.

I should, in fairness, not have been surprised by their love-fest for Bolton upon his dismissal given how they covered his appointment, and given that EWTN is pretty much a warmongering neocon station. I normally call it Fox News for people with rosaries, or who don't mind them. They claim to present news "from a Catholic perspective", apart from any news which have anything to do with "just war", the inviolability of human life outside U.S. shores or such issues. Still, I must admit I was not expecting them to leap to his defence.

Now, some might argue that I only saw one piece of possibly many, some of which may have been anti-Bolton, and this may indeed be true. However, how we choose to present ourselves says a lot about us. If they did other critical pieces, they did not want these saved for posterity on the Internet. EWTN purposely chose to upload a piece which lamented that the Trump administration has lost a man who seemingly has never seen a war he didn't like. That says a lot, and frankly, it says all that is relevant on this issue.

If EWTN wants to propagate for war then "who am I to judge"? However, I resent most that they choose to front themselves as "news from a Catholic perspective". Never once , for instance, have I ever heard them discussing the most Catholic concept of the "just war doctrine". Their reporting on Iran is almost always uninformed when it is not outright lies, as can be evidenced in this clip. Iran kept its end of the nuclear agreementt, for instance, something which even the U.S. deep state apparatus confirmed, along with all other international organisations.

They make it clear to me why Catholics in the U.S. are so misinformed about the world at large. For instance, I have seen many reports from then on Syria, and not once have they ever mentioned that the U.S. has been working alongside Islamists to oust Assad - frequently presenting the U.S. as caring for Syrian lives. Even worse, not once have they ever mentioned - in the reports I have seen - that the Catholic and Orthodox bishops of Syria have condemned the Western intervention and are fully behind Assad. 

Here we have Catholics going out of their way to stay out of mainstream media lies, only to come to a neocon operation fronting itself as Catholic. 

It is profoundly sad that they have chosen to mislead Catholics and the only mitigating factor I can allow for is the possibility that they do this out of extreme ignorance and not out of sheer malice. 

Still, it is ignorance which obviously crosses into being sinful. The Roman Catechism is, after all, keen to stress that one  lies if one says something false believing it is true, but having been neglegent of finding out the actual truth. In other words, they have an obligation towards justice and truth to find out the actual truth instead of misleading their viewers, even if we accept the charitable notion that they misninform by accident, which I obviously do not.

 ...

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...

Bergoglio cracks down: No fags for your orgies! - Sunday 5th-Saturday 11th of November

Like him or loathe him, one has to admit that were Bergoglio's pontificate not so tragic, it would be hilariously comedic. One of the most amusing things about the man has to be his gift for mis-prioritisation, was was on full display this past week. Another tragically amusing thing about him is taking narcicissm to whole new levels. That too was on display this week.

First Bergoglio whined about how people take pictures at Mass, reminding pilgrims - although I would rather use the term victims for anybody who gets exposed to one of Bergoglio's audiences - that it is not a show. This is strange talk, from a man who has himself had clown Masses and who forced a beach ball to sit firmly on the altar - a beach ball which seemed more pious than Bergoglio at the time since it seemed to realise it was out of place and tried to roll off several times. It is interesting though to note the words that the big hypocrite used:

...And I tell you that it gives me so much sadness when I celebrate here in the Piazza or in the Basilica and I see so many raised mobiles (cell phones), not just of the faithful, but even of some priests and bishops too. But please! The Mass is not a show...”

What is interesting with that is not that Bergoglio often treats the Mass as a show - cue the feet-kissing and the sign of peace which takes him all around the Church at times - but condemns others when they do it. In fact, I am kind of happy to learn from Bergoglio that he doesn't think the Mass is a show, seeing as he often treats it as such. No, what is interesting is the fact that even when he is right - that the Mass is not a show - he manages to make it all about himself: "It gives me so much sadness". It's just more "Me! Me! Me!, I, I , I! Me! Me! Most humble me!" from this narcissist.

My policy has always been that one ought not to take pictures at Mass, and if one does so it should be discreet, and one should not receive Holy Communion at a Mass in which one has been taking pictures as one has not been in total submission to the occasion. However, if it annoys Bergoglio, I am willing to revise my policy.

The most amusing thing, however, was that his chronic mis-prioritisation was in full display during the week as it was announced by Greg Burke that Bergoglio has decided to forbid the sale of cigarettes in the Vatican. I couldn't help but laugh when I realised it was not a spoof, I had to find multiple sources reporting this because at first sight I thought it was a joke.

When you think of all the scandals which have hit the Vatican in just the past few months - from population control advocates giving talks, to adultery promotion, to sodomy promotion, to financial improprieties, and of course, the infamous homosexual orgy monsignor, of whom Bergoglio and the Vatican media apparatus has remained silent - it is remarkable to think that the one thing Bergoglio thought it wise to crack down on was cigarette smoking. If one had read the headline "Pope outlaws fags on Vatican premises", with a Catholic pope one might have tended to think "I didn't even know there were any at the Vatican! Be gone with them!". With Bergoglio though, it is a different fag which is being banned.

The reason is very simple: The Holy See cannot contribute to an activity that clearly damages the health of people.

The message was certainly clear, homosexual orgies I'll not talk about or condemn, but cigarettes are banned. My regime couldn't care less about spiritual death even though Jesus Christ speaks of it as the most dangerous thing, but if the WHO mentions smoking as physically harmful, you can count on me to act on it. The message, I am sure, was clearly received, but I summarise it below in case anybody has missed it.

In other words, no cigarettes after your orgies, or during, or before, or whatever the protocol is at Bergoglio's Vatican. No mercy for smokers, but for adulterers and everyone else; well, unless they count Rosaries or say the Confiteor in Latin. In other words, no fags for your orgies!

Another noteworthy thing is that Bergoglio chose to have his media folks announce this as though it was a momentous event. Look, the Vatican has 1 store of which I know, and possibly 2 if they have a bar at the Domus Santa Marthae. We are talking at most about 3 stores at the Vatican, so there was no good reason to make it out as though this was momentous news. If Bergoglio had considered cigarettes so harmful as to want to ban them at all Vatican stores, all he would have needed to do was to advice his assistant to do it in all the 3 places in person. I am sure it would have taken less than 20 minutes to walk to all the joints which sell cigarettes at the Vatican. Such discretion was not good enough for an attention whore of an apostatate, and once again, his media manager had to make it seems as though the most humble pope in history was doing a great service to mankind by announcing his decision to the whole world.

It could have been worse, I suppose: He might have forbidden the sale of all cigarettes which were not made from organic tobacco. So I suppose in that sense he did not exhaust all the comedic possibilities of this particular absurdity. Maybe he is not finished with this topic then.

That covers most of my reflections this week, and the rest I shall mention only in passing.

In another...

Pages

Subscribe to warmongering