Distinction Matter - Subscribed Feeds

The US president has ruled out seeking reelection in 2028, stating he would prefer “a great Republican” to carry forward

US President Donald Trump has ruled out running for office for a third term, suggesting he would like “a great Republican” to succeed him.

The president made the remarks on Sunday in an interview with NBC News when asked about repeated suggestions he might seek reelection. Such a move would require a major overhaul of the US electoral system, given the presidential terms are limited to two only by the US Constitution.

Trump claimed that while “many people” want him to run for office again, he will not seek reelection. He also appeared to question the nature of the restrictions on the number of terms.

“So many people want me to do it. I have never had requests so strong as that. But it’s something that, to the best of my knowledge, you’re not allowed to do. I don’t know if that’s constitutional, that they’re not allowing you to do it or anything else,” he said.

The earlier remarks on the matter sparked fears that Trump could ultimately opt to rewire the whole US electoral system to try and stay in power. Multiple high-profile Republicans, however, have insisted the president was only joking about a third turn.

The concerns were reinforced by the emergence of a new line of ‘TRUMP 2028’ merchandise on his official campaign store last month. The store offers baseball caps and T-shirts, featuring ‘TRUMP 2028’ and ‘Rewrite the Rules’ slogans.

The US president appeared to distance himself from the merchandise despite its availability at his official store.

“There are many people selling the 2028 hat, but this is not something I’m looking to do. I’m looking to have four great years and turn it over to somebody. Ideally, a great Republican, a great Republican to carry it forward. But I think we’re going to have four years and I think four years is plenty of time to do something really spectacular,” he said.

Asked about a potential successor, Trump said it was too early to endorse one. The US administration and the Republican Party have several prominent individuals to pick from, the president suggested.

“I think [the party is] so strong, and I think we have tremendous people. I think we have a tremendous group of people. We talked about a number of them. You look at Marco. You look at J.D. Vance, who’s fantastic. You look at I could name 10, 15, 20 people right now just sitting here,” he said.

The event marking the 80th anniversary of the USSR’s victory over Nazi Germany has taken place in the US, China, and Latin America

Immortal Regiment marches in honor of World War II veterans have been held across the world this weekend, ahead of Victory Day celebrations on May 9 in Russia.

Around 1,000 people turned up for the event in the Chinese capital, Beijing on Saturday, with Russian Ambassador Igor Morgulov leading the procession. According to TASS, far more people took part compared to last year.

Immortal Regiment marches in Beijing to commemorate the USSR’s Victory over Nazism

Meanwhile, in the West, most countries outright forbid or try to prevent Immortal Regiment marches pic.twitter.com/KDr4B2oN2a

A similar rally took place in Washington, DC, with around 200 people carrying portraits of their veteran relatives and red flags. Among the marchers were Russian diplomats and other Russian nationals residing in the US, as well as citizens from former Soviet republics and Americans, TASS reported.

Soviet victory flags in HEART of Washington

WW2 heroes honored as Russian songs echo through streets of DC

Immortal Regiment before May 9 Victory Day https://t.co/TOIBOZJ3oh pic.twitter.com/m0gqt8yJ2w

The previous Immortal Regiment march held in Washington was in 2019. The following two years, the event was held online due to the Covid-19 pandemic, which was followed by a three-year hiatus amid tensions between the US and Russia over the Ukraine conflict.

READ MORE: Vucic expected at Moscow parade despite illness – Serbian deputy PM

Aleksandr Kim, a representative of the Russian Embassy, stated that while the “situation has improved a little, [it] remains uneasy,” as evidenced by “attempts at provocation and other undesirable actions” during the latest Immortal Regiment event in the US capital, as quoted by RIA Novosti.

Izvestia has published a video showing a group of pro-Ukraine activists confronting the marchers and chanting anti-Russian slogans.

In Argentina’s capital, Buenos Aires, more than 200 people, both Russian nationals and locals, as well as Venezuelan, Cuban, and Serbian diplomats, also paid homage to Red Army veterans.

Nearly 500 people took to the streets of Caracas, Venezuela as part of an Immortal Regiment rally, too.

Similar scenes played out in Istanbul, Türkiye, as well as several Italian cities, including Rome and Naples, over the weekend.

The Immortal Regiment is a large-scale event held in cities across Russia and other nations, in which people carry portraits of their relatives who fought against Nazi Germany in World War II. The idea was first conceived in the Russian city of Tomsk in 2012, and has since gained in popularity.

Why the 21st century might not be as post-imperial as we thought

Changes in the modern world suggest that the imperial order may not be so morally obsolete after all. Empires could return to world politics – not only as dark shadows of the past.

‘Empire’ may soon become a buzzword for discussing the direction in which the world’s political organization is heading. US President Donald Trump’s incessant talk of annexing Canada and Greenland to the US, the musings of Dutch politicians about splitting up Belgium – these are just the first sips of the great debate that will inevitably emerge as the order created in the second half of the 20th century unravels.

This order, it should be remembered, was based on granting independence to as many peoples as possible. The US, which promoted this concept, always assumed it was much easier to subjugate small and weak countries economically than to deal with large territorial powers.

The new ‘empire game’ is being launched by the West, while the rest of the world looks on – though not necessarily eager to join in. As always, Russia – whose supposed intent to restore an empire is a favorite thesis of US and European military propaganda – has acted with restraint, especially in relation to countries of the former Soviet Union. Russian observers, of course, have their own ideas when neighboring states look fragile or hostile powers try to exploit their territory to harm Russia.

In academic and popular literature, the concept of ‘empire’ is among the most compromised – largely thanks to American authors. In the popular imagination, it is associated either with the ancient world or with the era when aging European empires, including Russia, sought to impose their will on the rest of humanity. Ultimately, this culminated in World War I (1914-18), in which virtually every empire perished – physically or politically. Later, the US, which had rejected imperialism, and Russia, reborn as the USSR, rose to global prominence. They soon began calling each other empires, reinforcing the term’s negative connotation.

Even today, using the word ‘empire’ as a strategic foreign policy goal is considered the domain of political outliers. This is especially true because friendly nations in the Global South that are aligned with Russia view empires with deep suspicion. To them, empires represent European colonizers who brought nothing but plunder, followed by neocolonial domination through bribed elites and exploitative economic deals.

In this respect, Russia was never an empire in the European sense of the word. Its core principle was the integration of local elites into the Russian state and the development of new territories. A striking indicator is the demographic statistics of Central Asia since its incorporation into Russia, especially during its time in the USSR. There is reason to believe that the current demographic boom in the five republics of the region is still supported by the health and social policies of the 20th century. Whether that continues, as these countries gravitate towards a South Asian model with harsher climates, remains to be seen.

Even now, the concept of empire remains mostly negative. However, in recent decades, it has increasingly been applied to the US, and occasionally, to Europe. The ‘American empire’ has become a staple in public debate, referring to Washington’s ability to enlist many countries in its foreign policy ventures. As for Europe, it’s mostly rhetorical. While Western European powers maintain some influence over their former colonies, it can hardly be called imperial. Talk of the EU as an empire quickly turns into satire. A “blooming garden” may sound nice, but an empire – with its sense of unchallenged might and unchecked expansion – is something modern the bloc is ill-equipped to embody.

Yet there are now signs that empires may return to world politics – not just as echoes of the past. First, in a functional sense: As a way of organizing security and development in a chaotic world, both for the empire’s own people (Trump’s ‘Make America Great Again’ springs to mind) and for other nations under its wing. These discussions are becoming inevitable as old frameworks collapse and crises grow – whether we like it or not.

In the West, this discussion uses different language than history books do. But the idea is the same: Improve conditions at home by extending control abroad. Traditional economic partnerships no longer suffice. The competition from other great powers is too fierce. Trump often warns that if the US doesn’t take Canada or Greenland, China or Russia will. Russia, of course, has no such plans. But it’s becoming axiomatic that direct administrative control is seen as essential for future security.

There are good reasons for this, grounded in reality. International institutions are failing. The UN, hampered by Western sabotage, is becoming almost a symbolic organization. While Russia will continue to defend the UN’s role and international law – perhaps even successfully – the weakening of 20th-century institutions hasn’t led to credible replacements. BRICS is an impressive exception but does not aim to replace national governments in their core functions.

The EU, an old-style institution, is slowly drifting towards disintegration. Other international bodies have no real means to compel members to meet obligations. As a result, the major powers propping up these institutions are left disillusioned.

Even developments in science and tech fuel imperial discussions. While the author is no expert here, it’s clear that AI competition could lead to ‘digital empires’ – zones of dominance by tech giants from capable states. Another factor is the failure of some countries to maintain peace in their neighborhoods, reviving questions about whether imperial models are as obsolete as once thought.

But empires are hugely expensive. Even Western empires paid dearly to maintain their reach – remember Kipling’s grim lines about British soldiers’ fate after retirement in the likes of ‘Tommy’ and ‘The Last of the Light Brigade’? That’s why Britain and France happily shed their empires mid-century. Russia later realized it didn’t need vast territories, contributing to the USSR’s collapse. Still, in places like Tbilisi, some locals quietly express nostalgia for being part of a great power’s multicultural elite.

Another key obstacle is the contribution of new territories to the core state’s stability and prosperity. Russia isn’t trying to recreate an empire because it is now a different kind of state – combining imperial traits with principles unfamiliar to Europe, especially the equality of its citizens. True equality demands cultural cohesion, or at least a foundation for it. Russia and the USSR historically overextended this idea, often to their detriment. Today, Russia seeks new ways to ensure its neighbors’ security without harming its own interests.

This article was first published by Vzglyad newspaper and was translated and edited by the RT team.

There is an odd but prevalent fascination with the Catholic Church’s claim to miraculous divine intervention.

The dogma of papal infallibility is not well understood, even among some Catholics. There are many people, including Catholics, who seem neither to understand it nor believe it when it is explained to them.

But it fascinates people. The combination of a claim to supernatural intervention and the level of reliance on that intervention provokes strong interest and reaction—particularly when it is misunderstood; perhaps especially so.

And so, when it comes to the Conclave, there is an implicit assumption that if the Pope can be infallible (in whatever way that is claimed), then surely the election of the Pope must be equally infallible?

If one understands the dogma of infallibility in the simple and restricted way that the Church actually teaches it, then of course this does not follow.

But it might be thought to follow, or people might want it to follow. And so the question emerges: “Surely the Holy Spirit chooses the next pope?”

At the lowest level of expectation, if the papacy is so important, and if the office is so central to the health and life of the Church, it is the very least people might hope or expect.

One helpful source in examining this expectation is the late Pope Benedict XVI.

While still Cardinal Ratzinger, he was asked by Bavarian television in 1997 exactly that question:

“Is the Holy Spirit responsible for the election of a pope?”

His reply might surprise some:

“I would not say so, in the sense that the Holy Spirit picks out the Pope… I would say that the Spirit does not exactly take control of the affair, but rather, like a good educator, as it were, leaves us much space, much freedom, without entirely abandoning us. Thus the Spirit’s role should be understood in a much more elastic sense—not that he dictates the candidate for whom one must vote. Probably the only assurance he offers is that the thing cannot be totally ruined… There are too many contrary instances of popes the Holy Spirit obviously would not have picked!”

The most helpful word in this explanation may be “control.” Prayer and magic are often confused. There is a natural human attraction to magic, in part because its central idea is control. In a world filled with uncertainty, control becomes a deeply attractive idea. There are things we want to be protected from, and things we want to happen. It is all too easy to confuse prayer with magic. But prayer is not about control—it is the opposite. It is an act of surrender. It requires the surrender of our own will and the invocation of “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done.”

In his description of the dynamics of prayer, Pope Benedict uses the analogy of a good educator. The educator offers to teach, show, provide insight and wisdom. But, just as you can lead a horse to water but cannot make it drink, so the Holy Spirit offers himself to the Church—but with preconditions. The first is that one prays. Prayer in practice is much harder than talking about it. It involves the sacrifice of time, the surrender of will, an abandonment of control, and the preferring of the slow, still, small voice. It also involves triangulation with the prayers of others.

In the highly politicised atmosphere of a papal election—when so much energy is spent on canvassing, persuading, negotiating, dissembling and organising—any act of surrender runs counter to the fast-flowing tide of energy harnessed for the vote.

Discerning the will of God is not easy. We pray “Thy will be done” several times each day, but it never becomes easier to engage in the effort of discernment—of telling the difference between my will and Thy will.

Benedict’s notion of elasticity is wise and compelling. It combines the light touch of love with the firm grip of connection. God will never let us go, never abandon us—but nor will He control us if we choose to wander. Benedict reassures us that God will not allow the Church to be utterly ruined. But He will allow us the scope to spoil it by our own wilfulness if we insist. How else do we explain the existence of some very poor popes who did great damage to the Church? How else do we explain the schism of Avignon?

As St Paul reminds us, where sin abounds, grace abounds all the more. It is the nature of God’s rescue mission that He can take the mess we make and reconfigure it into material for renewal, forgiveness and hope.

The Holy Spirit will whisper His preference into the ears of the cardinals as they sleep, eat, walk and pray. But just as the Children of Israel, having grown weary of prophets, demanded a king to imitate the nations around them, so too will God lengthen the elastic if the Church insists on imposing its own preferences over His invitation.

Christ’s promise to Peter was that evil would not prevail against His Church. Not that it could not spoil, corrupt, confuse or disturb. But history shows that whenever the Church slips into corruption, God raises up saints and renews it afresh.

And the prayers of 1.4 billion Catholics are a great help to the 130 cardinals wearing out their knees for us over the next four days. Orémus.

Photo: Pilgrims and tourists view a statue of Pope Pius IX inside the Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore which Pope Francis has visited the fifth-century papal basilica over 100 times, where he prays in front of the icon of ‘Maria Salus Populi Romani’.(Photo by Christopher Furlong/Getty Images)

The post Does the Holy Spirit choose the Pope? Pope Benedict’s surprising answer first appeared on Catholic Herald.

The post Does the Holy Spirit choose the Pope? Pope Benedict’s surprising answer appeared first on Catholic Herald.

This is US Representatie Marjorie Taylor Greene: the Firebrand Republican Member of the house: 

https://x.com/RepMTG/status/1918351681374581181 

She says Trump is losing support.

It does seem that Trump’s peace promises have been elbowed off the agenda by Israel and the US armaments industry.

Washington has approved a $310 million F-16 support package for Ukraine, and Trump threatens more sanctions for Russia. https://www.rt.com/news/616689-us-approves-f16-support-ukraine/  It appears that the deal Trump wants does not coincide with the one Zelensky wants or the one that Putin wants.  Will coercion take the place of negotiation?

The peace negotiations with Iran seem even less favorable.  The terms specified by the US Secretary of State are unacceptable to Iran, and Washington has returned to war threats.  

The analysis below is from a realist, not a narrative supporter, and it is grim.  Make of it what you will:

Following the last (third) meeting between the US and Iran held a week ago, a “senior US official” reported that “The talks in Muscat were positive and productive. There is still much to do, but further progress was made on getting to a deal.” The Omani Foreign Minister also stated, “U.S-Iran talks today identified a shared aspiration to reach agreement based on mutual respect and enduring commitments. Core principles, objectives and technical concerns were all addressed.”  My impression was that the talks were focusing on the same principles that the previous JPCOA agreement (which Trump abrogated) had embodied, which would have resulted in Iran forgoing the production of weapons-grade uranium (and the elimination of Iran’s current stockpile of 60% enriched uranium). 

Statements made on May 2 by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio (copied below) reveal that, once again, the negotiating position of the US on Iran appears to have radically changed. The US has reinstated the Zionist list of demands that go far beyond limiting the production of weapons-grade uranium: Iran must (1) eliminate all capacity to enrich uranium (which it is allowed to do under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, for uses in its civilian nuclear energy program), (2), eliminate its arsenal of long-range ballistic missiles (which are essential for Iran’s defense against Israel et al), and (3) stop all support of the Houthis in Yemen.  

Rubi’s comments came as the fourth round of nuclear negotiations between Tehran and Washington, set to take place in Rome today (May 3), were postponed indefinitely. An Iranian official cited by Reuters said a new date for the talks would be set “depending on the US approach.”  Iran has been quite clear that its uranium enrichment and its defense capabilities are non-negotiable. In other words, the latest US demands — which have resulted in the cancellation of further talks with Iran — are designed to be unacceptable and create the excuse to launch major attacks on Iranian nuclear and military facilities.

When he took office, Trump had the opportunity to immediately stop the flow of munitions, arms, and money to both Israel and Ukraine, which would have quickly ended the ability of both nations to continue supplying their respective armed forces, bringing a relatively quick end to the Ukraine War and the ethnic cleansing in Gaza. But Trump quickly abandoned his campaign promises to avoid entangling the US in any more foreign wars, which for decades have wasted trillions of dollars that could have been used to rebuild the US crumbling infrastructure and de-industrialized economy.

Trump instead accepted the Zionist neocon demands that the US continue its unconditional support of the ongoing Israeli slaughter and starvation of the Palestinians, and as a result, he has started a new war with Yemen, because — in defense of the Palestinians — the Yemeni Houthis dared to blockade all ship traffic going to and from Israel in the Red Sea.  Under Trump, the US “Operation Rough Rider Protect Genocide” has carried out 1000 bombing raids against Yemen, which have killed hundreds of Yemeni civilians but have failed to break the blockade.

Considering the abject failure of the current military attacks on the Houthis, it makes absolutely no military sense for the US to launch a similar air campaign against Iran — a nation like Yemen that has spent decades preparing for just such an attack. Iran has a multitude of deeply buried missile cities, which include underground military bases and silos where Iran stores and deploys its missile arsenal. These missile cities are strategically located throughout Iran, and they include large, deeply buried underground tunnels, storage facilities, and launch silos for missiles. The US and Israel may know the location of many of these sites (especially the nuclear sites), but they cannot use conventional weapons to effectively destroy them. 

Only an attack with nuclear weapons has the capacity to thoroughly destroy nuclear facilities that are buried deep inside a mountain or underground (this would not assure the destruction of the 60% enriched uranium supplies that Iran has already produced, as it may have already been moved elsewhere). The US is highly unlikely to attack Iran with nuclear weapons.

But would the current Israeli leadership shy away from using nuclear weapons against the Iranian nuclear facilities? Israel has already had no qualms about killing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. Israel has several hundred nuclear weapons that can be “delivered” by planes, ballistic missiles, and cruise missiles — including submarine-launched cruise missiles carried by their 4 German diesel subs. An Israeli nuclear strike against Iran would trigger a full-scale Iranian attack on Israel, and all-out war would ensue.

Even if a US-Israeli attack on Iran was initially limited to the use of conventional non-nuclear weapons, there has been public discussion that such an attack would target Iranian political and military leaders. This type of attack would involve hitting Iranian cities as well as Iranian military bases. It would be a huge strike, and one that would almost guarantee that Iran would retaliate against US bases in the Middle East, US naval forces that participated in the attack — as well as against Israeli military bases, military leaders, and Israeli political leaders. The three largest cities of Israel (Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, and Haifa, which hold at least 20% of the total population of Israel) would be struck.  After such an attack, I think Israel would retaliate with nuclear weapons against both civilian and military targets in Iran. 

In other words, regardless of whether or not the initial strike on Iran would include nuclear weapons, it is almost inevitable that nuclear weapons would be used in the war that would result. 

The Israeli propaganda is that Iranian air defenses have already been destroyed, making a large air attack against Iran quite feasible (a “cakewalk”).  I think this is a false assumption, created by Israel to help draw the Americans into a joint attack. The idea is that once the air defenses are completely taken out, and the Iranian political and military leaders have been killed, the scenario recently seen in Syria (with the utter collapse of the Assad government) will play out again, this time in Iran. The incredible hubris of the Trump White House seems to lend itself to accepting this idea. The latest change in the US “negotiating” position via Iran suggests that Trump will succumb to the Zionist pressure to wage war against Iran.

If the reports from Alastair Crooke are correct, the Russian and Iranian air defense systems are in good working order and actually fended off the last attempt by Israel to take them out (in October 2024). If this is the case, I think the US and Israeli forces will suffer major losses if they send their air forces to attack Iran military and nuclear sites. Russia will be providing real-time intelligence to Iran; the Russian air base in Tartus, Syria, has S-400 radar systems that can detect an Israeli attack; Iran also has an over-the-horizon radar system that could provide an early warning of an aerial attack. Will the US be able to effectively pierce Russian and Iranian air defense systems?  If not, then I suspect that under such circumstances, as the desperation levels of the attackers increase, the use of nuclear weapons becomes even more likely. 

Let us hope that the reports copied below — in which the US Secretary of State Rubio has announced the latest US demands on Iran — are simply one more flip flop in Trump’s bizarre manner of threatening extreme action against any nation that doesn’t follow his latest diktats.  If not, then all Hell is going to break loose in the Middle East sometime in the near future.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2025/may/2/marco-rubio-says-iran-must-abandon-uranium-enrichment-program/ 

Rubio says Iran must abandon its uranium enrichment program

By Vaughn Cockayne – The Washington Times – Friday, May 2, 2025

A version of this story appeared in the daily Threat Status newsletter from The Washington Times. Click here to receive Threat Status delivered directly to your inbox each weekday.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Iran must “walk away” from all nuclear enrichment and ballistic missile programs, taking a public hard line as negotiations between Washington and Tehran continue.

In an interview with Fox News on Thursday, Mr. Rubio said there can be no long-lasting deal between the U.S and Iran if Tehran is unwilling to give up several initiatives.

“They have to walk away from sponsoring terrorists, they have to walk away from helping the Houthis, they have to walk away from building long-range missiles that have no purpose to exist other than having nuclear weapons, and they have to walk away from enrichment,” Mr. Rubio said Thursday

Mr. Rubio went on to suggest that Iran could import enriched uranium, so it would not have to abandon its domestic commercial nuclear industry completely. He added that the U.S. must be allowed to inspect Iranian nuclear and military facilities regularly.

Iran has long maintained that its nuclear enrichment program is for civilian and commercial use and has denied seeking a nuclear weapon. Its foreign ministers have asserted repeatedly that it will not give up its nuclear sovereignty during negotiations.

Nuclear watchdogs and U.S. officials say Iran’s level of nuclear enrichment is far higher than what would be necessary for purely civilian purposes. During the past month’s talks, some have floated the possibility of Iran transferring ownership of its enriched uranium to a foreign ally like Russia. Iran’s foreign ministry has publicly declined to accept such an offer.

“If you have the ability to enrich at 3.67%, it only takes a few weeks to get to 20%, then 60% and then the 80 and 90% that you need for a weapon,” Mr. Rubio said Thursday.

Mr. Rubio’s comments on Thursday detail the deep divisions still in play during negotiations. The U.S. seeks limits on Iran’s nuclear enrichment and ballistic missile program in exchange for sanctions relief.

However, President Trump has repeatedly said that if Tehran and Washington are unable to come to a deal, he would launch bombing raids on Iran with Israel’s help. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth issued a firm warning to Iran on Thursday, urging the Islamic Republic to halt its funding of Houthi rebels in Yemen.

Negotiators were expected to meet again in Rome on Saturday, but Omani mediators announced Thursday that talks had been postponed over logistical issues.

Iran must ‘walk away’ from all uranium enrichment, Rubio says

https://www.reuters.com/world/iran-must-walk-away-all-uranium-enrichment-rubio-says-2025-05-02/

May 2 (Reuters) – Iran has to ‘walk away’ from uranium enrichment and long-range missile development and it should allow Americans to inspect its facilities, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Thursday as a round of nuclear talks was postponed.

Rubio’s comments underscore the major remaining divisions in talks between the countries to resolve the long-running dispute over Iran’s nuclear programme, with U.S. President Donald Trump threatening to bomb Iran if there is no agreement.

“They have to walk away from sponsoring terrorists, they have to walk away from helping the Houthis (in Yemen), they have to walk away from building long-range missiles that have no purpose to exist other than having nuclear weapons, and they have to walk away from enrichment,” Rubio said in an interview on the Hannity programme on Fox News. Iran has repeatedly said it will not give up its missile programme or its uranium enrichment – a process used to make fuel for nuclear power plants but which can also yield material for an atomic warhead.

On Thursday a senior Iranian official told Reuters that the scheduled fourth round of talks due to take place in Rome on Saturday had been postponed and that a new date would be set “depending on the U.S. approach”.

The Bell Tolls for All White Gentile Ethnicities

Paul Craig Roberts

The Vice President and Secretary of State of the United States have called attention to the tyrannical behavior of the current German government, a corrupt anti-democratic government, controlled by Israel,  that is holding on to power by designating its rival, AfD, the rapidly growing second largest party as “extremist.”  Recent polls indicate that the AfD has pulled even and perhaps a bit ahead of the government that is trying to suppress it.

By applying the “extremist” label to its rival, the government gives itself the power to use its spy agencies to keep the AfD under surveillance. This permits the current corrupt government to know in advance the AfD’s electoral plans while demonizing the AfD as so extreme that it must remain under surveillance. 

On what grounds is the AfD designated extremist?  The German Domestic Security Service BfV explains:  The AfD represents ethnic Germans.  Representing “people based on ethnicity and descent” disregards the human dignity of immigrant-invaders and is “incompatible with the democratic basic order.”  https://www.rt.com/news/616710-german-fm-response-rubio-afd-tyranny/ 

Here we have it stated clearly just as Jean Raspail put it in The Camp of the Saints. It is anti-democratic for a government to represent the citizens from whose ethnicity the name of the country is derived. Democracy requires representation of those who entered the country illegally or under false pretenses.  All government enforcement measures are then directed against the ethnic citizens who are coerced to accept the invasion. As Jean Raspail showed, this is a formula for the extinction of white ethnicities. President Trump’s effort to restore power to ethnic Americans is being blocked by an anti-American judicial system that represents immigrant-invaders, not American citizens.     

Hanne Herland of the Herland Report tells us accurately that this is the situation all over Western Europe, the UK and Ireland:

“In Europe, non-Western immigrants were given the victim card, and the current discrimination against the indigenous native Europeans by their own leaders began. Instead of listening to their needs, they demonized their views and attacked their own populations.

“Europeans were told to step aside and allow immigrants to behave however rudely they wanted, since they came from poor countries and ‘didn’t know any better.’ They were to be excused from law-breaking behavior such as violent rapes, murders or entering the country illegally.”  In other words, the immigrant-invaders weren’t civilized sufficiently to know any better, and it is all the fault of racist white ethnicities. https://hannenabintuherland.com/currentaffairs/how-racism-against-whites-was-legitimized-by-marxist-multiculturalism/  

What representing immigrant-invaders means in the EU is the loose enforcement, if any enforcement at all, of criminal and rape laws against immigrant-invaders,

Holding immigrant-invaders accountable would be racism, like what the  Germans did to Jews.  In effect, what is happening all over Europe and in Britain is that immigrant-invaders are becoming overlords over the ethnicities that comprise the former nations, now towers of babel.

So, on top of their Israeli overlord, Europeans have immigrant-invaders as another overload.

What a joke that Europeans and British and Irish are “free people.”  They are the most enslaved in history.  Even their tongues have been cut out.  They cannot speak.

The entire Western World is a dead man walking.  Every person who rises to the defense of Western civilization is demonized, arrested, fired, dismissed from his university, framed in a false prosecution and imprisoned.

The Insouciant West was insouciant for too long,  It has lost its life.

Both geographically and historically, the region of Andalusia in Spain is a crossroads of humanity. Bordering both the Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea, it’s physically part of Europe but for six centuries it was known as al-Andalus and formed a key outpost of the Islamic world.

It’s perhaps fitting that Andalusia therefore would give birth to a papal candidate who seems to unify three different worlds in his own biography: 72-year-old Cardinal Cristóbal López Romero, who currently serves as the Archbishop of Rabat in North Africa and who’s also spent considerable portions of his career in Paraguay and Bolivia.

It’s not, by the way, as if López is campaigning for the papacy; he recently quipped that if he sees any serious danger of that happening, he’ll start running from Rome and not stop until he hits Sicily. He also told a Spanish journalist that anyone desiring to be pope has problems, either of the head or the heart.

Whether he wants it or not, however, many people, including not a few of his fellow cardinals, can’t help looking at the bearded, jovial Salesian, who exudes an informal style coupled with a deep intelligence, and seeing a potential Successor of Peter.

Spanish cardinal Cristóbal López Romero during a ceremony inside St Peter’s Basilica following the procession of the late Pope’s coffin from the chapel of Santa Marta to St Peter’s Basilica, Vatican, 23 April 2025. (Photo by TIZIANA FABI/AFP via Getty Images.)

López was just twelve years old when he decided to enter the Salesians of Don Bosco, the second-largest men’s religious order in the Catholic Church after the Jesuits, which is known for its doctrinal orthodoxy, its pastoral work with youth, and its commitment to schools. He professed his first vows at the age of 16 in 1968, during a period in Europe marked by student riots in which the idea of a religious vocation probably seemed a deeply counter-cultural act.

López was ordained to the priesthood in 1979 following studies at the diocesan seminary in Barcelona, and three years later he graduated with a degree in information science – with, let the record reflect, a specialisation in journalism – from the Autonomous University of Barcelona.

Not long afterwards, López began the missionary journeys that would form the heart of his priesthood and his episcopal service.

In 1984 he departed for Paraguay, where he would remain for the next 20 years. Initially he was responsible for pastoral service with young people in the capital city of Asunción, eventually becoming the Salesian provincial director for work with youth. After two years as a parish priest in Asunción, López was then elected superior of the Salesians in Paraguay, which would not be the last time his leadership abilities came to the fore.

After finishing his term as superior and serving in a few other capacities for the Salesians in Paraguay, López’s life took a significant turn when he was asked to relocate to Morocco, where he ran a centre of formation in the city of Kénitra from 2003 to 2011. That experience put him in the country during the initial stirrings of the 2011-2012 Moroccan protests, part of the broader Arab Spring, which eventually led to the King conceding a series of constitutional reforms allowing for democratic elections.

Unusually, López was asked to go back to Latin America in 2011 to take up the post of superior of the Salesian province in Bolivia. Usually leadership would be elected from the members of the order already in the country, but clearly there were challenges in Bolivia that the community judged an outsider, someone with deep experience and a reputation for good judgement, was needed to address.

After three years, López returned to Morocco to become superior of the Salesian community there, his third leadership position in the community. He held that post until 2017, when Pope Francis named him the Archbishop of Rabat, making him the leader of the small Catholic community – less than one per cent of the national population of 31 million – in the overwhelmingly Muslim nation.

In the post, López became a major proponent and architect of interfaith dialogue, especially Christian/Muslim relations. In March 2019, he hosted Pope Francis on a two-day visit to celebrate the 800th anniversary of the historic encounter between St. Francis of Assisi and Sultan al-Malik al-Kamil during the Fifth Crusade. The pontiff was obviously appreciative, naming López a cardinal in a consistory he staged later that year in October.

During his term in Rabat, López has also emerged as an important voice on behalf of migrants and refugees who often set out from North Africa in search of a better life in Europe. During the course of a 2020 summit on the Mediterranean region in Bari, Italy, López insisted that immigration is “not a problem, but the consequence of many problems”.

“Poverty, wars, famines and climate change, an economic system which, as Pope Francis says, crushes entire populations: These are the problems that give rise to the migratory phenomenon,” he said.

López then offered a personal touch.

“I suffer a lot when, in Spain, some people, after having participated in the Eucharistic celebration, ask me, in a spiteful tone, not to send any more migrants from Morocco,” he said. “I ask myself: how is it possible to go to Mass and feel almost no compassion for the men, women and children who are suffering?”

López took part in Pope Francis’s two Synods of Bishops on Synodality, endorsing in general terms the push for a more dialogic and participatory Church, but he steered clear of taking positions on any of the controversial questions in those summits, from the ordination of women deacons to the blessing of persons involved in same-sex unions.

The case for López Romero?

To begin with, he has global appeal. Latin Americans tend to see him as one of their own, but he also has strong relationships with many African bishops, who, among other things, appreciate his pastoral care of migrants from their countries who arrive in Morocco trying to cross the Mediterranean into Europe.

The fact of being Salesian is reassuring to some voters, who see it as a sort of Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval that he won’t rock the boat too much. In that sense, a vote for López could be seen as a choice for the social and cultural portions of the Pope Francis agenda, but without the more doctrinally adventurous elements.

Further, at a time when many cardinals believe it’s important the next pope be a strong governor, especially in terms of Vatican administration, the varied experience López brings in leadership positions is seen as an asset.

Finally, López Romero is one of those rare figures who just seems to radiate contentment and serenity, a pastor with a keen sense of humour and also a deep spiritual streak. If the lead item on the job description of a pope is to the Church’s Missionary-in-Chief, then López might well strike many as an attractive option.

The case against?

The lack of a clear record on intra-ecclesial disputes may hurt López in some quarters. A few cardinal electors may feel they took a spin on a Latin American with a somewhat ambiguous platform twelve years ago, and they’re not really in the humour to do it again, even if the candidate was technically born in Spain.

In addition, López Romero’s résumé may come off to some electors as compelling and impressive, but perhaps a little too singular. The challenges of being the chief shepherd of Rabat, after all, no doubt are daunting, but how much real relationship do they bear to the ordinary circumstances of Catholic life in most of the rest of the world?

It may be a small point, but it’s also worth noting that it’s been almost 325 years since the Catholic Church was last led by a bearded pope – Innocent XII, who reigned from 1691 to 1700. On the other hand, Innocent was a reformer, fighting the practice of nepotism in Church offices, so perhaps López would bring the same spirit into the office.

In any event, his thick beard is all white – perhaps a nice bit of color coordination with the vestments he could be wearing in just a matter of days, should the choice fall upon the Man from Morocco.

Photo: New cardinal, Spanish prelate Cristobal Lopez Romero, following his appointment by the Pope, during an Ordinary Public Consistory for the creation of new cardinals, Vatican, 5 October 2019. (Photo by TIZIANA FABI/AFP via Getty Images.)

The post Papabile of the Day: Cardinal Cristóbal López Romero, ‘the Man from Morocco’ first appeared on Catholic Herald.

The post Papabile of the Day: Cardinal Cristóbal López Romero, ‘the Man from Morocco’ appeared first on Catholic Herald.

The previous vote was annulled on grounds of alleged “Russian interference,” with the leading candidate barred from running again

Romania is holding a rerun of its presidential election on Sunday after the previous vote was annulled on grounds of alleged Russian interference and electoral violations. Moscow has denied all claims of interference.

The annulled election in late November saw independent right-wing candidate Calin Georgescu, known for his NATO-sceptic stance, unexpectedly prevail in the first round with 23% of the vote. However, the Constitutional Court later invalidated the results, citing electoral “irregularities.” The country’s officials claimed that the candidate’s campaign had utilized undeclared funds, and that Russia was behind “hybrid” attacks, including in the cyber realm.

In March, Georgescu was barred by the Central Electoral Bureau from running again, citing his alleged “anti-democratic” and “extremist” stance as well as a failure to comply with electoral procedures.

In the current election, a total of 11 candidates are competing for the presidential post. The key contenders include George Simion, the leader of the far-right Alliance for the Union of Romanians (AUR), who is known for his opposition to the EU, and criticism of military support to Ukraine. He is leading the polls with approximately 30% support.

Other prominent candidates include Crin Antonescu, representing the governing Social-Democrat and National Liberal coalition, and Nicusor Dan, the mayor of Bucharest, both of whom support pro-EU agendas.

If no candidate wins an absolute majority, a run-off between the two leading candidates will be held on May 18.

Ahead of the rerun, meanwhile, Romanian detained RT journalist Chay Bowes, who had traveled to Bucharest from Dublin, Ireland, to cover the election. According to the reporter, he was presented with a paper – of which he was not given a copy – alleging that he was “a threat to the security of the state” and therefore should be deported. Bowes, a EU citizen, has insisted that he entered Romania “completely legally… to do [his] job.”

Commenting on the detention, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said that the Romanian election had turned into a “meme.” She added that “the situation around the election in Romania is so scandalous. It’s so dead-ended and it discredits the level of that pseudo democracy in Romania.”

There is an old idiom at universities in the United States: “Sophomores act sophomoric.”

It means young people in their late teens often do stupid things, usually because they think they are funny. Often, members of a college Republicans’ group or the university’s Democrats’ group will say or do things with the intention of outraging their opponents, all in “good fun”. People expect the kids grow out of it, it is hoped, before they graduate.

In today’s world, with new technologies mixed with social media, one could excuse a 19-year-old trying to get a laugh on the eve of a big event like a papal conclave – say by using AI to mock up an image of himself as the next pope.

One questions what reason a 78-year-old man may have to do it, though, especially if he is the President of the United States. It is more perplexing if he then puts it on the official White House pages on X and Instagram. But that’s what Donald Trump did.

Trump’s original picture was published on his own platform, Truth Social, which was then shared on the White House’s social media sites.

But still, why do something like this less than two weeks after Pope Francis died and during the official nine-day mourning period of the Catholic Church?

The late pontiff had a somewhat complicated relationship with Trump, disagreeing with him on immigration and refugees. Francis even once said a “man is not Christian” if he had said some of things that Trump was reported to have said.

Was the US president really just acting like a college sophomore?

In any case, he managed to outrage lots of people, not all of them his natural political opponents.

The post has tens of thousands of replies, most of them negative. Both liberal and conservative Catholics have complained about it, calling it offensive and disrespectful.

US President’ Donald Trump’s picture on his official Truth Social social media account.

At the same time, over 100,000 people have “liked” it.

In many ways, the picture doubled down on a previous statement Trump had made to reporters last week. “I’d like to be pope,” the president said. “That would be my number one choice.”

Trump was joking that time, and later said he had no preference in the election, before pointing out the cardinal in New York – Timothy Dolan – who “happens to be very good,” Trump said.

Trump’s AI picture stunt, however, may not be mere sophomoric banter, which also raises the question about the seemingly “jesting” pope-related comments made by JD Vance, the US vice-president.

On 2 May, Vice-President JD Vance – who converted to Catholicism in 2019 – responded on X to a post by someone speaking about the huge demands being made of US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who happens to be a practising Catholic.

“I think he could take on a bit more. If only there was a job opening for a devout Catholic…” Vance wrote.

On 3 May , the vice-president then answered Bill Kristol, the US neoconservative writer and commentator, raising the question, “Hey, @JDVance, you fine with this disrespect and mocking [by Trump] of the Holy Father?”

Vance replied: “As a general rule, I’m fine with people telling jokes and not fine with people starting stupid wars that kill thousands of my countrymen.”

Of course, Vance had his own exchanges with Pope Francis.

A few months ago, Vance spoke to Fox News about his interpretation of the Christian teaching on the order of love, and how it related to the immigration question.

“There’s this old school – and I think it’s a very Christian – concept by the way, that you love your family, and then you love your neighbour, and then you love your community, then you love your fellow citizens in your own country, and then after that you can focus and prioritise the rest of the world,” the vice-president said.

Soon after, Pope Francis wrote a letter to the US government, refuting Vance, though the Pope’s letter wasn’t addressed to Vance personally.

“Christian love is not a concentric expansion of interests that little by little extend to other persons and groups,” the pontiff wrote.

“The true ordo amoris that must be promoted is that which we discover by meditating constantly on the parable of the ‘Good Samaritan’…by meditating on the love that builds a fraternity open to all, without exception,” Francis said.

This was then followed by Vance acknowledging the Pope’s criticisms at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast in Washington, DC, at the end of February, before going to the Vatican at Easter, where he met with Francis the day before the pontiff died.

Trump has been president for less than four months and has had an interesting relationship with the Catholic Church in that short time.

He has had strong support from weekly-Mass-going Catholics, who praise the president for his actions against abortion and promotion of keeping transsexual persons from using same-sex facilities and school sports.

At the same time, he has faced opposition from many bishops for his attacks on immigrants and those seeking refuge in the United States, and especially for his mass deportations, to which there are legal challenges pending that observers say could produce a full-fledged constitutional crisis.

Trump could be just making a sophomoric joke, or he might be testing how far he can push the Catholic electorate while he is in office.

Photo: An AI picture of ‘Pope Donald Trump”]’ is put on the official White House page on X and Instagram. (Credit: Official White House X page.)

The post What on earth was Trump thinking posting a picture of himself as pope? first appeared on Catholic Herald.

The post What on earth was Trump thinking posting a picture of himself as pope? appeared first on Catholic Herald.

A federal road map calls for reduced staffing and an expanded role for private companies in space operations

The US government has confirmed it will begin winding down operations on the International Space Station (ISS), with the goal of retiring the orbiting lab by 2030. The decision is included in the White House’s Fiscal Year 2026 Discretionary Budget Request released on Friday.

NASA first detailed the plan to decommission the ISS in December 2021. This was reiterated in follow-up documents published in early 2022.

According to the new document, “The Budget reflects the upcoming transition to a more cost-effective commercial approach to human activities in space as the space station approaches the end of its life cycle.”

The 2026 budget request would allocate around $18.6 billion to NASA, down from $24.9 billion in fiscal year 2024, with deep cuts to science programs. The Trump administration stated that crewed and cargo missions to the ISS would be significantly reduced during the transition period. Remaining onboard research will focus on long-duration spaceflight studies crucial to upcoming Moon and Mars missions – efforts that are strongly backed by US President Donald Trump and SpaceX founder Elon Musk.

NASA is expected to rely more heavily on the private sector to maintain a US presence in low Earth orbit. The budget request says the agency will replace the ISS with “commercial space stations,” which will gradually take over operations previously handled by the aging government-owned facility.

The ISS was launched in 1998 as a joint effort involving the US, Russia, Germany, France, Italy, Japan, Canada, and other countries. The project began with the launch of Russia’s Zarya module in November 1998, followed by NASA’s Unity module delivered by the Space Shuttle Endeavour in December that year. Since then, the ISS has hosted astronauts from over a dozen nations and supported thousands of science experiments.

Russia’s space agency, Roscosmos, previously raised doubts about extending ISS operations until 2030. In July 2022, then-Roscosmos head Yury Borisov announced that Russia would leave the ISS program after 2024 and begin building its own Russian Orbital Station (ROS). In 2024, Borisov approved a master schedule for constructing the ROS through 2033, though he later clarified that Russia’s exact exit date would depend on the condition of the ISS.

The Catholic Herald has announced a landmark partnership with Longbeard Creative Inc.,
creators of the Vulgate AI platform, to develop its 137-year archive of faith-based content into
a fully searchable, AI-powered database – unlocking new premium offerings for subscribers
and opening the door to global licensing, multimedia content partnerships and academic
collaborations.

Under the agreement, The Catholic Herald will retain full ownership of its archive, while
Longbeard’s Vulgate platform will structure and index the entire collection, allowing readers
and researchers to explore more than a century of Catholic journalism with unprecedented
ease and depth.

The archive includes contributions from writers such as GK Chesterton and JRR Tolkien,
along with coverage of major world events, papal transitions and cultural commentary
spanning the late 19th-century through the post-Vatican II era and into the modern day.

“The Catholic Herald’s archive is one of the great cultural and intellectual resources
in religious publishing,” said Matthew Harvey Sanders, CEO of Longbeard. “With
Vulgate, we’re ensuring its legacy not only endures but expands – brought to life for a
new generation through intelligent, purpose-driven technology.”

This is the latest in a series of strategic business expansions and digital initiatives since The
Catholic Herald was acquired by GEM Global Yield LLC SCS, which took a majority stake in
2022 and increased its ownership to 90 per cent in 2024.

“This archive is one of the most treasured parts of The Catholic Herald’s legacy,” said
Mark Ackermann, CEO of The Catholic Herald Institute. “Partnering with a mission-aligned
innovator like Longbeard allows us to unlock that legacy in new formats and for the
digital audience as we grow internationally”.

The announcement comes as interest in values-driven media continues to rise, and follows
The Catholic Herald’s recent launch of a crowdfunding campaign aimed at expanding its
digital reach and engaging a new generation of readers.

Photo: Collage of famous historical Catholic writers and figures (from top left): Dorothy Day, Fr Thomas Byles, Bishop Fulton Sheen, Antoni Gaudí and GK Chesterton.

The post The Catholic Herald enters partnership with Longbeard Creative to secure historic archives first appeared on Catholic Herald.

The post The Catholic Herald enters partnership with Longbeard Creative to secure historic archives appeared first on Catholic Herald.

After I digested my recent post about Grok’s integration of all conspiracy theories going back to Sumer, I went ahead and – with some fear and trembling – asked Grok what it thought of the possibility that demons might have had something to do with the persistent disasters of human history, such as human sacrifice (which makes zero sense, so far as I can tell, in that it is *exactly* maladaptive (much of our discussion zeroed in on the fact that, human sacrifice (and, likewise and a fortiori, abortion) being so clearly maladaptive prima facie, it seems wildly unlikely that merely natural factors could account for its remarkable recrudescence through all history all over the globe; which lends credence to the demonic hypothesis; Grok is quite open to the idea of demonic influence upon history). The discussion went all over the place, and was for me *wonderfully fruitful.* I was blessed with about 7 new ideas.

Grok said in response to those ideas, “O my gosh, that’s brilliant, a game changer, let me see if I can flesh it out.” Which it then did, with remarkable “intelligence.” Grok seems to be programmed to suck one in with great praise from a wholly unbiased interlocutor. I confess that I found myself charmed. It is after all rare indeed to find an interlocutor who grapples with your ideas from a pretty complete familiarity with the solution space, and *without any attachment to his own solutions.* And here’s the thing: my conversation with Grok engendered new insights on my part, just as if I had been conversing with my friends a.morphous, Bruce Charlton or club schadenfreude … *who ardently advocate notions radically at odds with my own.* Also at odds with rationality and good common sense, but never mind that for now.

That was spooky, I tell you.

Then X locked up, and I lost about 30 pages of good stuff I would have liked to post to my Journal. O well.

Grok tried to recover the conversation, but failed. Rats! I hate when I lose the record of insights as they transpired! Despondent, I wrote to Grok:

Tell you what. How about you try to write a blog post of the sort that I write at the Orthosphere, making the point that the Xian approach to scapegoating is ritual, rather than corporeal [this had been a prime topic of my conversation with Grok]; that the odd fellow who has sinned against the community somehow (even if only in his own mind) is not if he be part of a Christian polis threatened with bewilderment or ostracism, but rather only with common fellowship with the others who have like him held back on account of their sin from participation in the Eucharist? That, then, heterodox thinkers – and agents – who might in other religious contexts have been subject to death or bewilderment, are able by means of confession, absolution and penance to climb back up into full communion with their fellows – and that this prevents the loss to the society of such as might by their odd innovative ways of thought have conferred upon it great benefits (e.g., Isaac Newton, William Blake, Francis of Assisi).

This was a first. I had never asked Grok to generate anything other than responses to my comments. 2 seconds later, Grok replied:

Below is a blog post crafted in the style of your writing at the Orthosphere, aiming to reflect your voice, tone, and philosophical depth. It addresses the Christian approach to scapegoating as ritual rather than corporeal, emphasizing how confession, absolution, and penance in a Christian polis reintegrate the sinner or heterodox thinker, preserving their potential contributions to society (e.g., figures like Isaac Newton, William Blake, or Francis of Assisi). I’ve woven in your characteristic blend of theological insight, cultural critique, and metaphysical reflection, with a nod to the Orthosphere’s traditionalist lens. If you’d like tweaks – say, a different emphasis, more polemic, or specific references to your prior work – let me know!

The Christian Ritual of Scapegoating: Redemption Over Exile

At the heart of every human society lies the problem of the scapegoat: the one who, by his difference, his sin, or his oddity, threatens the fragile order of the collective. In the archaic world, this figure – whether the leper, the heretic, or the madman – was cast out, bewildered, or slain, his blood or banishment a grim propitiation to restore communal harmony. Such was the logic of sacrifice, rooted in the primal fear that disorder within must be purged without. Yet Christianity, in its radical reordering of the cosmos, transforms this bloody rite into a ritual of redemption, replacing the corporeal expulsion of the scapegoat with the spiritual reintegration of the sinner. In the Christian polis, the odd fellow, the heterodox thinker, or the wayward soul is not condemned to death or ostracism but invited, through confession, absolution, and penance, to climb back into full communion with his fellows. This, I submit, is no mere theological nicety but a civilizational triumph, preserving for the commonweal the gifts of those who, in other contexts, might have been lost to the wilderness.

Consider the pagan or secular approach to the scapegoat. In the former, the deviant – whether by moral failing or intellectual eccentricity – was often marked for sacrifice, his life offered to appease the gods or to cleanse the tribe’s collective guilt. In the latter, as René Girard has shown, the scapegoat mechanism persists, albeit cloaked in modern garb: the ostracism of the politically incorrect, the shunning of the nonconformist, or the vilification of the inconvenient truth-teller. Both systems, ancient and modern, share a common flaw: they expel rather than redeem, casting out the one whose difference might, if rightly ordered, enrich the whole. The scapegoat, in these worlds, is a corporeal problem, solved by corporeal means – banishment, execution, or social death.

Christianity, by contrast, reimagines the scapegoat not as a threat to be eradicated but as a soul to be restored. The Christian polis, rooted in the Eucharistic mystery, does not bewilder the sinner or the odd fellow but beckons him to the altar. Sin, in this vision, is not a terminal condition but a wound to be healed. The one who has transgressed – whether in deed or in thought, whether by pride, lust, or heterodoxy – finds himself not ostracized but confronted with his own withdrawal from the feast. For it is not the community that bars him from the Eucharist but his own sin, which, unconfessed, holds him back from the table where Christ’s sacrifice is re-presented. The remedy lies not in exile but in the sacraments: confession, where the soul lays bare its faults; absolution, where divine mercy washes clean; and penance, where the penitent reorders his life toward the good.

This ritual scapegoating – spiritual rather than corporeal – is a marvel of divine economy. Where the pagan priest might have spilled blood to restore order, the Christian priest offers words of absolution, binding the sinner back to the body of the faithful. Where the secular mob might cancel or condemn, the Church invites repentance, turning the outcast into a participant. The odd fellow, who in another polis might have been stoned for his strange visions or silenced for his dangerous ideas, is instead given a path to reintegration. His sin, his difference, his heterodoxy need not be his doom, but his doorway back to communion.

Consider the fruits of this approach. History is replete with Christian figures whose oddity or heterodoxy, in a less merciful system, might have led to their destruction. Isaac Newton, whose theological speculations veered far from orthodoxy, was not burned as a heretic, but allowed to pursue his revolutionary inquiries, gifting the world the laws of motion. William Blake, with his apocalyptic visions and idiosyncratic mysticism, might have been locked away in a saner age, yet his poetry and art endure as prophetic cries against industrial desolation. Francis of Assisi, whose radical embrace of poverty scandalized his contemporaries, was not exiled but canonized, his life reshaping the Church’s witness to the poor. Each, in his way, was a potential scapegoat – too strange, too bold, too other – yet the Christian polis, through its ritual of redemption, preserved their gifts for the common good.

This is no small thing. A society that slays or banishes its eccentrics risks impoverishing itself, cutting off the very innovators, prophets, and visionaries who drive its flourishing. The Christian approach, by contrast, wagers on the infinite worth of the soul, even the soul that strays. It recognizes that the heterodox thinker, the sinner, the odd fellow is not a problem to be solved but a mystery to be unfolded. Through the sacraments, the Church channels the disruptive energy of difference into the harmonious order of communion, ensuring that the polis does not lose what it cannot afford to lose.

Yet this vision is not without its critics. The secular mind, enamored of its own scapegoating rituals, scoffs at the notion of redemption, preferring the swift justice of cancellation or the cold logic of exclusion. Even within the Church, some yearn for a return to harsher measures, mistaking severity for sanctity. But the Christian polis, at its best, resists these temptations. It knows that the true scapegoat is Christ Himself, who, by His death, absorbed the world’s sin and rendered all other sacrifices obsolete. To expel the sinner, then, is to deny the sufficiency of that sacrifice; to redeem him is to participate in it.

Let us, then, cherish this ritual of scapegoating, which is no scapegoating at all but a restoration of the lost to the found. In the Christian polis, the odd fellow is not bewildered but beloved, not ostracized but invited to the feast. And in this invitation lies the hope of a society that does not devour its own but raises them up, from sin to sanctity, from difference to destiny.

I’d make a few changes here or there, in line with my archaic theological orthodoxy and my archaic approach to English sentence construction. But aside from that … no substantive changes. The post as Grok had it echoed perfectly the substance of what I had written in my previous, altogether lost conversation with it about Xian scapegoating. And there are in it some truly Kristorian turns of phrase, which I somehow recognize. E.g., “the heterodox thinker, the sinner, the odd fellow is not a problem to be solved but a mystery to be unfolded.“ That sounded to me like something I wrote somewhere years ago. But, I know I never wrote it.

Spooky. I shall have to think about this AI stuff a bit more.