Western islamism

Acknowledgning Christianity's true enemies in the modern world would kind of help...

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...

The Christmas octave clarified, and reverence loses out again, starring your favourite whatever-he-is - Sunday 30th of December 2018 to Saturday 5th of January 2019

As part of my vow to try and be more timely in my weekly reviews - and to have proper weekly reviews - I thought I would release one in record time. I hope, as usual, to be brief, but given that I've been hoping for an end to the Bergoglian plague for over 5 years now with no end in sight, be prepared to learn that my hopes do seem to often end in disappointment! Anyway, here goes...

The year starts with what used to be called "The Feast of the Circumcision", but which was renamed to "The Solemnity of Mary" in the Novus Ordo deforms, on the 1st of January. Fr. John Hunwicke has often written about how this is a return to ancient tradition and not a proper novelty, strictly speaking. I have been willing to accept this notion, even though I have had my doubts, given how all the readings of the Mass have to do with the Circumcision and do not even mention the Blessed Virgin Mary. That is even without going into the question of whether reverting to ancient practice would not fall into the heresy of antiquarianism, given there was no particular need for it.

Well, I need not have worried much because Gregory DiPippo over at the beautiful blog Novus Motus Liturgicus had my back covered. He explained in The Ancient Character of the Feast of the Circumcision first of all how stunning it is that historians who ought to know better manage to get this issue wrong despite all evidence to the contrary. He also explained why the confusion came about, and why the feast is not called "The Feast of the Circumcision" until much later: It seems as though in the early Church there were 2 celebrations which fell on that day - none of which were particularly Marian -, these being the Circumcision and the Presentation.

Here are my first reflections of his piece, as commented on that day:

I am indebted to Gregory DiPippo over at Novus Motus Liturgicus for clearing up a few points of irritation I have had with the whole notion of the Octave of Christmas. It has become fashionable to say that it only acquired the name of circumcision later and that traditionally it was dedicated to the Blessed Virgin Mary. This would seem to vindicate at least in part NOChurch practice.

He manages to slay that notion entirely by showing that the most ancient sacramentaries all have reference to the Circumcision and that possibly the only reason it was not called the Feast of the Circumcision is because it might have been united with the Feast of the Presentation of Christ in the Temple.

Given what  I know - however inadequate - about the Tridentine Reform, it would have been odd to see them innovating on titles. The explanation given in his piece titled  The Ancient Character of the Feast of the Circumcision does much to bring clarity to this whole issue.

He then followed his initial article with another one titled The Marian Character of the Feast of the Circumcision. That is also well-worth reading.

It often gives me pause to disagree with the good Fr. Hunwicke, but Gregory DiPippo is a very meticulous scholar, and he provides very strong evidence for his assertions - which Fr. Hunwicke does not even attempt to do - so I have no hesitation in following Gregory DiPippo's line on this. Ultimately, whether or not there may have been observance of some Marian feast on this day, the theological significance of Christ's Circumcision is much more necessary to commemorate on that day, especially given that it cannot escape anyone that all of Christmastide is a celebration of the divine motherhood of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and we detract nothing from it by not celerbating it on the octave day of Christmas, the day on which Jesus Christ was circumcised.

The Bergoglian apostasy tour continues as do his attempts to try and prove to anyone paying attention that he absolutely abhors anything that Catholics hold sacred. The latest installment in his displays of irreverence was standing and absolutely refusing to kneel in front of the Blessed Sacrament  during Eucharistic Adoration on new year's eve. The man will kneel for all and sundry, but not for God. I commented the following:

The Bergoglio menace - a beast of irreverence - does it again, refusing to kneel in front of the Holy Eucharist. Quite how anybody can claim that Bergoglio is a Catholic of any stripe is beyond my comprehension, because I doubt there are many who have worked harder to prove that point than Bergoglio has.

In fact, I would be willing to wager he is a satanist, a free-mason, a Talmudic Jew, even a Muslim, before I can call him a Catholic, and I can't even wager on him being a  believing protestant because although most such protestants, though they do not believe in reason, natural law or Sacred Tradition, at least they pretend to believe in the Bible, which Bergoglio clearly does not.

I don't know who or what Bergoglio is, but as I have often remarked, if there is a problem with perceiving Bergoglio as an anti-Catholic, the problem is not on the broadacasting side, but on the reception side. He has been broadcasing in high-fidelity audio ever since at least Maundy Thursday of 2013 that he has little regard for the Catholic Faith.

No doubt the Novus Ordites will tell us that standing is the new kneeling,  but anybody using his mind ought to be able to see that Bergoglio is now simply mocking us, and is being very forthright in his atheism. If  you don't believe me, then keep in mind that the Bergoglian Vatican press had written in celebration of...

Bergoglio shatters the irony-meter as the synod against the youth ends with gay abandon - Sunday 28th of October to Saturday 24th of November

Sometimes this Bergoglio character is quite amusing, probably without even meaning to be; almost certainly so. Without a hint of irony, the man who has led what is without a doubt the most sustained attack on the Catholic faith ever carried out by a bishop found it fit to tell us that we should, as one newspaper titled it "Defend Church from those who seek to destroy it". It deserves mention that he also implicated those who reveal sins of the hierarchy in this. He wasted no time in labelling them "the great accuser", no doubt in reference to Archbishop Vigano, who has exposed him as the sexual abuse enabler that he is.

I hope this will be a short entry, as I am running far behind current events and I would like to catch up. So I'll jutt make it a recap of what I think were the most interesting topics which caught my attention.

The synod, or "gaynod", as it was aptly called by some, finally ended, and not a moment too soon. The whole exercise was a waste of money, time and opportunity, or as Mundabor put it, "the faithless leading the stupid", although that was in reference to Cardinal Tagle who managed to demonstrate the absolute imbecillity of those who run the Church by engaging in a silly dance with some youth. What is it with NOChurch and the cult of  youth, and old men always debasing themselves trying to look hip? I shall not even mention the dance at the closing ceremony, in which even Bergoglio seemed to realise the stupidity of it all and chose to remain in his seat while all the geezers and  youths danced with gay abandon around him.

The always-combative and often painfully-honest Louie Verrechio had his say on the final document, which he described as "Montini’s gift to the LGBT cause", in reference to a Vatican document published during his time as pope. There is much to read in that piece but the most eye-catching was the following line:

As for the mitred bozos that approved of this text, their minds are another matter altogether.

There was once a time when I would have considered such a statement out of line, but frankly, that is much better than I care to address them, and "mitred bozos" actually flatters much of the NOChurch hierarchy.

It has been reported that most of the people who voted on the document didn't actually understand what they voted on, since the final draft was only available in Italian, and they had but a few hours to read them. If this is true, then it makes me think even less of these bozos who think so little of the Church and of their office that they are willing to sign off on documents which they do not understand. That fact alone ought to render anything they did as inadmissible, and them as certifiable, but in NOChurch, it seems absurdity and incompetence is rewarded instead of punished, and we can be sure that those who signed off without question were given much more of a red carpet treatment than those (if any) who resisted what was obviously underhanded tactics.

One of the many idiotic ideas proposed at the synod was the idea that there needs to be some sort of Catholic blog certification. Obviously, the Bergoglians are tired of the fact that all of the authentically Catholic blogs are against them so they aim to silence their critics as they have managed to do on the ecclesiastical front. Quite why they think anybody takes them seriously enough to consult them for advice on what they should read is anybody's guess. It just outlines how out of touch they are with reality. If such a list were introduced, a "FrancisCertification", if you may, it would act as nothing more than a list of outlets to avoid .

Come to think of it, I would be very much in favour of them publishing such a list! It would make my job of discerning what not to read that much easier.

Enough on the synod against the youth...Bergoglio's attack on Catholicism is multi-pronged after all.

One of his favourite tactics is going after faithful orders, which almost exclusively seem to be Tridentine-Rite, or trending that way. This period was no different, as we were informed that Bergoglian commissars have gone after the French order of sisters in France called "Little Sisters of Mary, the Mother of the Redemer". About 90% of the sisters have asked to be dispensed from their vows, rather than put up with a commissioner who is almost certain to be working counter to the mission of the Church and the charism which attracted them. As usual, they made up claims in order to justify their intervention , with the odious Braz de Aviz licking his lips to get in on the action, yet again. This is the man who claimed that the Church had never been better, some years back, which makes one wonder whether  his memory is bad, his grasp of the current situation is bad, or whether he simply does not understand what the word "better" means.

It bears wondering whether the man has ever seen or heard of a faithful order he did not wish to see crushed...

Destroying Holy Mother Church (or at least attempting to) is not a task at which Bergoglio can manage alone, nor is it one which he is undertaking on his own, as he seems to have ample help from most of our largely faithless Catholic hiearchy. Case in point: In Italy they had a bishops' conference, and one of the things some bishops brought up was the need to  abolish Summorum Pontificum. Only a few brought it up though, which in these times must be considered a sort of victory for sanity. No...

Pages

Subscribe to Western islamism