Saturday, August 19, 2017

Catholic Bishops in a quandary

The Catholic Bishops, that strange group of confused, weak-kneed, incoherent "leaders", are in a real quandary.  According to Christopher Manion perhaps we should have some pity on them.  I don't know about that but Mr Manion has an interesting piece here that might be worth considering:

After the recent violence here in Virginia, Catholic bishops felt they had to do something. So naturally, in 24 hours, they managed to take both sides.
On the day of the Charlottesville conflict, bishops called for unity and prayer and condemned hatred. Almost immediately the flaks from their DC lobbying arm got to them with a strong message: “It sounds like you’re agreeing with Trump. That will get you nowhere.” So the next day they issued a new statement that added a condemnation of “racism, white supremacy and neo-Nazism.”
Of course, these are easy targets. But what about the Left-wing violence perpetrated by Antifa and hundreds of armed, masked anarchists?
Well, in those 24 hours, the usual suspects had directed a barrage of bombast at Trump for blaming both sides.  And while the bishops undoubtedly oppose Antifa’s violence, they also happen to be fighting their own battle with Trump, and they desperately need the support of those very same usual suspects to help them win it.
Wait – the bishops are fighting Trump? But hasn’t Trump reversed Obama policies (all of which the bishops also opposed) regarding religious liberty, the HHS mandate, UN abortion funding, Planned Parenthood funding, the Mexico City policy and “transgender” student regulations?
Yes, and bishops support Trump’s actions, because every one of them addresses a morally objective evil. But there are also political issues on which Catholic can disagree, and Trump has reversed Obama policies on several of them, including health care,   DACAwelfare spending,  Cuba Policy,  Global Warming the death penalty, the environment and sanctuary cities.
And on these policies, the bishops support Obama’s views on every one of them.
But the largest issue by far on the bishops’ anti-Trump agenda is immigration policy.
For years, the bishops’ highest priority has been to legalize amnesty for illegal aliens and welcome more of them. Since 2009, bishops celebrated Obama’s sanctuary cities, his unilateral DACA “Dreamer” declaration, and his virtual suspension of immigration law. The bishops’ welfare agencies – Catholic Charities USA and Catholic Relief Services – received generous federal funding that increased every year under Obama – and today they amount to little more than secular federal NGO’s with a “Catholic” label.
And that isn’t all. Under Obama, additional funding amounting to hundreds of millions of federal taxpayer dollars a year went to the bishops through various channels for services provided to refugees, illegal minors and aliens, and other immigrants (the bishops’ DC office will not reveal just how much federal funding they receive for those operations).
But then came 2016. Like virtually everyone else on the Left, the bishops fully expectedHillary Clinton to win. Undoubtedly that would have assured that their federal funding would continue.
Trump’s unexpected victory delivered a traumatic shock to the system that threatened the bishops’ entire welfare infrastructure. They quickly realized that, while they were quietly grateful for Trump’s pro-life policies, those policies brought the bishops no funding. The big money came in programs that the president was determined to reduce or eliminate.
Ever since Trump’s victory, the bishops waged a frantic campaign to keep the money flowing.

                                  Read the whole article. [h/t LewRockwell.com]

Wednesday, August 16, 2017

Some words from Robert E Lee

“The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.” ― George Orwell



From General Robert E Lee, who was not a slave owner.

[Robert E. Lee letter dated December 27, 1856: ]

"I was much pleased with the President's [Franklin Pierce] message. His views of the systematic and progressive efforts of certain people at the North to interfere with and change the domestic institutions of the South are truthfully and faithfully expressed. The consequences of their plans and purposes are also clearly set forth. These people must be aware that their object is both unlawful and foreign to them and to their duty, and that this institution, for which they are irresponsible and non-accountable, can only be changed by them through the agency of a civil and servile war. There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy. This influence, though slow, is sure. ..."

Monday, August 14, 2017

Pope Francis: Do you tremble ?

What is this man?  Who can explain this?

Pope Francis is, I am saddened to have to say, appearing to be by his silence, apparent indifference, possible ignorance, verifiable actions and words, a supporter of the worldwide movement, directed by Christ's prideful enemies, for the forced acceptance of the mortal sin of sexual perversion.

That is an awful thing to have to write.  Or even think.  But I am at a loss to know what other conclusion one can come to.  That Catholics should live in a time when the Pope of Rome by all evidence is abandoning his flock to wolves is something I never really thought I would ever see.

Worse, I am far from the only one who is alarmed.  What is this man?  Is he stupid, is he cunning, is he just indifferent?  Is it something even worse than those three?  Who can explain him?  How are Catholics supposed to deal with this?  Is there something other than the fervent prayers we are all now offering that we must do?

Every day the signs of a disintegrating Church (and world) grow clearer, so much so that anyone who denies this has simply stopped being rational.  While the auto-demolition goes merrily along our Holy Father speaks of trivialities for the most part and rarely speaks about the evils oppressing the world.  Yes, he has spoken about them; we must be honest about that.  And yes, they receive little media attention (the media much prefers his incomprehensible ramblings about their pet causes).  Charity as well as honesty demands that we admit this.

But fairness also demands that we tell Francis to his face that he is abetting some of the greatest evils the world has ever known, evils that will destroy the Catholic Church.  Big Buggery, heavily supported by worldwide corporate and government interests, has only had the spectacular success it has had because the last six or seven pontificates have done little or nothing to stop it, and in the case of Bergoglio, has not only done nothing to stop it but is actively encouraging it by his words, horrible appointments (like Cupich, et al) and outright indifference.

We address His Holiness, Pope Francis:

Holy Father, you are aiding and abetting whether you would admit this or not the buggering of adolescent boys.

Please read that again, Your Holiness.  I am talking about sodomizing boys.  You are encouraging that, wittingly or unwittingly, by your words, actions and inactions.

Your Holiness is also encouraging (I hope unknowingly):

the destruction of the family,

the spreading of mortal sin,

the spreading of filth and disease,

the exaltation of heretics and apostates and cowards and moral wretches like Walter Kasper, Donald Wuerl, Reinhard Marx, Bonney, Dolan, Cupich, Ackermann, Danneels, etc., etc., etc.  For your efforts to promote and encourage such disreputable men you will, I am afraid, have to wear the shame of those decisions for the rest of your life, and answer to God for it.  As I grow older I tremble often about my upcoming meeting with God, a meeting that every day grows closer and closer, filling me with awful foreboding.  Here we are, "shameless criminals", as St Augustine calls sinners such as myself.  I hope for God's mercy but even so I will face God's justice.

But won't exalted Churchmen also face what I and every other human being will face when death comes?

Our words and actions have consequences.  Little innocent children will very soon have to face a world of unimaginable evil due to the action and inactions of Popes like yourself.

I respectfully ask Your Holiness to think about this.  Surely you are not so cold to Christ's little ones that you would throw them into the arms of sex perverts?  If so why do you let these Cardinals run around, shooting off their mouths about the "positive" aspects of unnatural unions?  Indeed why is Your Holiness, along with many Bishops and priests, so reluctant to call sodomy the mortal sin that it is?

Mortal.  Sin.  Words quite conspicuous by their absence in all these discussions about the problems in the world.  I cannot remember hearing those words very much in the past forty-odd years.  Why does Your Holiness not use them?  Either you and many Churchmen no longer believe that sodomy is a mortal sin, or you are too frightened to say so.

I will ask Your Holiness the question directly: is sodomy a mortal sin, one in fact that cries to Heaven for vengeance, or isn't it?

I will also ask this: does a Muslim or a pagan or a Jew have to be baptized into the Catholic Faith in order to be saved, yes or no? (This is not, as one might think at first glance, an unrelated question.)

These are not questions that can tolerate an ambiguous answer.

Your Holiness recently graced the shores of America with a visit, and the hoopla and huzzahs was broadcast day and night.  The insufferable puppet of the Elite [Obama] threw in your face a collection of sex perverts and apostate Catholics.  What did you do?  Did you kiss them and hug them, or tell them that they need to go to Confession and amend their lives? What did you say to Obama, murderer of the innocent and fomenter of unjust wars?  Did you emulate your predecessor John Paul II, who spoke courageously against abortion while standing next to abortion's presidential enablers, Bill and Hillary Clinton?  Alas all evidence points to the fact that you did not.

In short will Catholics clinging desperately to Peter's barque be shoved into the raging seas to drown, again, after being knifed in the back by their own father, again?  Is that what we must expect from your American visit?

And your tragic Synod?  I say "your" Synod because it was your idea, your creation, to have this circus.  It is your responsibility for what has followed.  Just as that woebegone, unnecessary Council, Vatican 2, the council that tempted God, was an unmitigated disaster, the Popes who thought about starting it, began starting it, moved it along as it was in session, and incessantly promoted it afterwards all bear the responsibility for the disaster that followed, that disaster being a stifling of the Catholic Faith throughout the world.  To that raging fire of indifference, immorality and apostasy you now apparently wished to throw gasoline at it with your infamous Synod and your revolting exhortation that followed it, which we here are pleased to call Amoris Dementia.

Sexual perverts of all stripes, a veritable Rainbow Reich, are in a state of glee and high expectation over what the time bombs of the Synod will gift to them, and are already gifting them. The news media laps it all up with relish and plays its part with skill, while water-carriers for the Modernists do their best to feed these expectations.

Do you tremble over this ?

If you don't perhaps you should ?

[Editor's note:  This draft was originally composed in the aftermath of the Synod of Despair, aka the "Synod on the Family" and while the floppy-eared Marxist was still our president.  But it seemed right to go ahead and publish it now with a few timely and necessary revisions.  After all the scandal of the sympathy for sex deviates is still very much in play in Rome under this terrible pontificate.]

Saturday, August 12, 2017

Give 'em Hell, Harry !

[I guess he did.]


[Excerpted from “Harry S. Truman: Advancing the Revolution,” in Reassessing the Presidency: The Rise of the Executive State and the Decline of Freedom, John Denson, ed.]
The most spectacular episode of Harry Truman’s presidency will never be forgotten but will be forever linked to his name: the atomic bombings of Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, and of Nagasaki three days later. Probably around two hundred thousand persons were killed in the attacks and through radiation poisoning; the vast majority were civilians, including several thousand Korean workers. Twelve US Navy fliers incarcerated in a Hiroshima jail were also among the dead.1
Great controversy has always surrounded the bombings. One thing Truman insisted on from the start was that the decision to use the bombs, and the responsibility it entailed, was his. Over the years, he gave different, and contradictory, grounds for his decision. Sometimes he implied that he had acted simply out of revenge. To a clergyman who criticized him, Truman responded testily,
Nobody is more disturbed over the use of Atomic bombs than I am but I was greatly disturbed over the unwarranted attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor and their murder of our prisoners of war. The only language they seem to understand is the one we have been using to bombard them.2
Such reasoning will not impress anyone who fails to see how the brutality of the Japanese military could justify deadly retaliation against innocent men, women, and children. Truman doubtless was aware of this, so from time to time he advanced other pretexts. On August 9, 1945, he stated, “The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians.”3

This, however, is absurd. Pearl Harbor was a military base. Hiroshima was a city, inhabited by some three hundred thousand people, which contained military elements. In any case, since the harbor was mined and the US Navy and Air Force were in control of the waters around Japan, whatever troops were stationed in Hiroshima had been effectively neutralized.
On other occasions, Truman claimed that Hiroshima was bombed because it was an industrial center. But, as noted in the US Strategic Bombing Survey, “all major factories in Hiroshima were on the periphery of the city — and escaped serious damage.”4 The target was the center of the city. That Truman realized the kind of victims the bombs consumed is evident from his comment to his cabinet on August 10, explaining his reluctance to drop a third bomb: “The thought of wiping out another 100,000 people was too horrible,” he said; he didn’t like the idea of killing “all those kids.”5 Wiping out another one hundred thousand people … all those kids.
Moreover, the notion that Hiroshima was a major military or industrial center is implausible on the face of it. The city had remained untouched through years of devastating air attacks on the Japanese home islands, and never figured in Bomber Command’s list of the 33 primary targets.6
Thus, the rationale for the atomic bombings has come to rest on a single colossal fabrication, which has gained surprising currency — that they were necessary in order to save a half-million or more American lives. These, supposedly, are the lives that would have been lost in the planned invasion of Kyushu in December, then in the all-out invasion of Honshu the next year, if that had been needed. But the worst-case scenario for a full-scale invasion of the Japanese home islands was forty-six thousand American lives lost.7 The ridiculously inflated figure of a half-million for the potential death toll — nearly twice the total of US dead in all theaters in the Second World War — is now routinely repeated in high-school and college textbooks and bandied about by ignorant commentators. Unsurprisingly the prize for sheer fatuousness on this score goes to President George H.W. Bush, who claimed in 1991 that dropping the bomb “spared millions of American lives.”8
“The rationale for the atomic bombings has come to rest on a single colossal fabrication — that they were necessary in order to save a half-million or more American lives.”
Still, Truman’s multiple deceptions and self-deceptions are understandable, considering the horror he unleashed. It is equally understandable that the US occupation authorities censored reports from the shattered cities and did not permit films and photographs of the thousands of corpses and the frightfully mutilated survivors to reach the public.9 Otherwise, Americans — and the rest of the world — might have drawn disturbing comparisons to scenes then coming to light from the Nazi concentration camps.
The bombings were condemned as barbaric and unnecessary by high American military officers, including Eisenhower and MacArthur.10 The view of Admiral William D. Leahy, Truman’s own chief of staff, was typical:
the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. … My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make wars in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.11


                                                               Read the whole article.

A related article from Saint Benedict Center:
http://catholicism.org/testimony-of-us-leaders-and-military-opposed-to-a-bombing-japan.html

Friday, August 11, 2017

Pulling the helmet off "The White Helmets"

Editor:  We have been writing about this spectacularly fake "humanitarian" organization for some time here at The Eye-Witness due to our great interest in the events in Syria, but the following article is the absolute last word on the subject.  These frauds, who are perpetuating deadly myths, and are supreme hypocrites (and war criminals) to boot, need to be exposed for the rank criminals they are.  And the following article does just that and does it brilliantly:

It begins thusly:



Over the past two years, enlightening information has been revealed that thoroughly and unequivocally debunks the “humanitarianism” of the White Helmets in Syria, sometimes referred to as the Syrian Civil Defense.
Since they were founded in 2013, much of Western media has sought to elevate the White Helmets as the “bravest” and most heroic of Syrians. They have been the subject of a Netflix documentary, which won an Oscar, and has consistently been plastered across TV screens in surprisingly well-produced videos showing them removing children from rubble in war-torn areas claimed by Syria’s “rebels.”
However, missing from this unambiguously positive coverage has been the group’s ties to terrorist groups like al-Qaeda, their doctoring of footage, their role in executing civilians and their use of children – both dead and alive – as props for producing pro-intervention propaganda. Also absent is how the White Helmets have received over $123 million from 2013 to 2016 from the U.S. and UK governments, as well as Western NGOs and Gulf state monarchies.
British ex-mercenary, and founder of the White Helmets, James Le Mesurier, pictured in Istanbul, Turkey. (Photo: Twitter/James Le Mesurier)
While numerous articles have been devoted to dispelling the propaganda that surrounds the group and detailing their shady ties to known terrorist organizations like Syria’s al-Qaeda branch Al-Nusra Front, significantly less attention has been focused on how the group was created, particularly on the man who founded them – James Le Mesurier, a British private security specialist, and former British military intelligence officer.
Le Mesurier’s role in founding the White Helmets and propagating its mythology to a Western audience was exposed in 2015 thanks to the work of independent journalist Vanessa Beeley.
Beeley, who spoke to MintPress News at length for this report, notes that it was Le Mesurier’s “‘realization that humanitarian aid was more effective at maintaining war than an army” that spurred his creation of the organization in order “to maintain public support for another costly war in a country that is, in reality, posing little to no threat to mainland America” or its allies.
James Le Mesurier: from mercenary to “humanitarian”
Though mainstream narratives have suggested that the White Helmets were trained by the Red Cross, the White Helmets were actually founded in March 2013 by Le Mesurier. He, like many officers in the British military, attended the Royal Military Academy, where he graduated at the top of his class, receiving the Queen’s Medal.
He later served in the British Army and operated in a variety of theaters. Most notably, Le Mesurier served as intelligence coordinator for Pristina City in Kosovo soon after the NATO intervention that led to NATO being accused of war crimes for its targeting of thousands of civilians and media.
By 2000, Le Mesurier left the army and went to work for the United Nations as he had “realized humanitarian aid was more effective” than an army in theaters of war during his time with the British military. He, again, served in a variety of locations, focusing on “delivering stabilization activities through security sector and democratization programs.” According to Le Mesurier, “stabilization activities” refers to the “framework for engagement in ‘fragile’ states” or, in other words, destabilized nations.
Prior to his founding of the White Helmets, Le Mesurier served as Vice President for Special Projects at the Olive Group, a private mercenary organization that has since merged with Blackwater-Academi into what is now known as Constellis Holdings. Then, in 2008, Le Mesurier left the Olive Group after he was appointed to the position of Principal at Good Harbor Consulting, chaired by Richard A. Clarke – a veteran of the U.S. national security establishment and the counter-terrorism “czar” under the Bush and Clinton administrations.
After joining Good Harbor, Le Mesurier became based in Abu Dhabi, where he specialized in risk management, emergency planning, and critical infrastructure protection. He trained a UAE gas field protection force and “ensured the safety” of the 2010 Gulf Cup in Yemen, a regional soccer tournament. But following this work, Le Mesurier claims to have become dissatisfied, wanting to have a more direct impact on the communities he worked in.
He told Men’s Journal in 2014 that it was the idea of using his military training to benefit civilians that truly enthused him: “the idea of being a civilian carrying a weapon and guiding a convoy in a conflict zone — that leaves me cold.”
White Helmets: founded through Western funding
When it came to time to found the White Helmets in March 2013, Le Mesurier seemed to have simply been in the right place at the right time. According to his own account, he founded the group in Turkey after being “compelled” by Syrians’ wartime stories.
Despite founding the White Helmets in Turkey, he raised $300,000 in seed funding provided by the UK, the U.S. and Japan, which Le Mesurier apparently had no trouble scrounging up. The $123 million dollars that was funneled soon after to the organization by the U.S. and UK governments, along with Western NGOs and Qatar, dispels all notion of the organization’s alleged “impartiality” and “non-partisan” stance on the Syrian conflict stated on their website.
He then used it to train 25 “vetted” Syrians “to deal with the chaos erupting around them.” By September of that year, more than 700 “vetted” individuals were believed to have undergone training under Le Mesurier’s supervision.
However, Le Mesurier’s ties to British military intelligence, mercenary groups and involvement in “stabilization activities” and “democratization programs” suggest that his convenient appearance in Istanbul, Turkey is perhaps not too coincidental. As Beeley noted in an interview with MintPress: “there are very few coincidences in the multi-spectrum, hybrid war that has been waged against Syria by the U.S. coalition since 2011.”

                                                            Read the whole article.

Tuesday, August 8, 2017

By your fruits we know you, Father

And I should probably add that by the fruits you are keeping company with we also know you, Father James Martin, SJ.  I have to be blunt with you, Father, because the days of being nice are over now. Those days passed when enemies of Catholicism got hold of the reins of the Church and have been dragging it through the mud ever since this malignancy achieved a virtual stranglehold on the levers of power.  Even great Popes like Pius IX and St Pius X with all their inherent holiness and determination could not stop them.  So, no:  the "mister nice guy" days are done.

Your face and most especially your eyes scream homosexuality.  Even if your Roman collar somehow keeps you from actual sodomite acts (which, let's face it, is rather doubtful) your words and actions tell us very clearly what is going through your mind.  And what you are promoting.  So perhaps it is time for you to put away the coy act and come out (as it were) with the truth of yourself.  You can possibly fool a lot of poorly-catechized Catholics but you can't fool everyone. Especially God.

I dovetail from your obnoxious articles and trite defenses of the indefensible to a couple of popular Catholic websites (who definitely have your number) who have been conspicuous in their promotion of that strange kind of hybrid Catholic, the one that calls himself Catholic even though he is a homosexual and laughingly describes himself as being "born that way".  These websites apparently think articles about such people are somehow inspirational.  If so, the editors are deluding themselves and their readers.  No one, I repeat, no one is born a sodomite.  It is an acquired manner of living.  It does not matter how they came to embrace such horrors - terrible parenting, abusive relatives, no father in the house, etc. - it still remains their personal choice, their personal mortal sin.

I would hope that such people who call themselves both Catholic and queer at the same time would reflect upon these words from the Confetior at Holy Mass:

       "I confess to Almighty God, to blessed Mary ever Virgin, to blessed Michael the 
       Archangel....and to you, Father, that I have sinned exceedingly in thought, word and deed,     through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault..." 

How can someone who describes himself as both practicing Catholic and homosexual get around that ?  The text is very clear about this: sinning can be done in thought, word and deed. Yes I recognize the difference in culpability with regard to thought, word and/or deed which is something the priest will sort out with the penitent.  But in all three cases we are still talking about sinning and it is inconceivable that those who parade themselves as " devout, 'gay' " Catholics live without falling into one of those three sins, those of thought, word or deed.  If one lives a queer lifestyle, how does one avoid sinning in thought (at least), if not both word and deed ? What happens in the Confessional ?  What do you say to the priest ?  Do you tell him about your thoughts, words and deeds ?  In other words, if you are confused on this point and want to conform your life in the practice of your Faith you will need to find a Confessor who does not tell you that you have some weird, esoteric "orientation", or that you were born an active sodomite, but one who will help you out of this terribly confused state of mind, one that leads not to Heaven.

My humble advice to those websites who feature the stories of these hybrid Catholics who live in mortal sin and yet say their beads and go to Communion is to not give them this undeserved publicity. If you think these stories are helpful and inspiring you are very much and very sadly mistaken.  They add immeasurably to the confusion that reigns supreme nowadays in Holy Church.  You certainly are not helping these people; you are making them comfortable with their manner of living, making them believe in such chimerical concepts as "sexual orientation" and being "born that way".  Don't feed them (and us) hogwash.

Let me add a friendly warning, if I may.  If you well-intentioned but illogical editors of these websites continue with such promotional pieces you are doing terrible harm which will come back to haunt you and most certainly the Church one day.  You do the homosexuals no favors by featuring their contradictions in a positive light. You make their struggle to get out of this mess they are in all but impossible.  Even if the Vatican uses such stupidities as "sexual orientation" as statements of so-called fact does not mean that you have to follow them.  Indeed, have they not demonstrated by now that Rome is riddled with queers ? Do I need to rattle off the names of those miserable clerics high and low who are sympathetic to this unnatural vice ?

I haven't named the website(s) that do these kinds of things because I do not think it necessary. Most readers here are capable of reading between the lines.  My little blog is not a major player in the blogosphere in any case.  I add my own comments in the comments section of these blogs and websites when I see these all-too-frequent articles.  It's the only thing I can do other than writing here an occasional piece like this and hoping some of these folks will read it and re-think their editorial decisions on these matters.

So I recommend to those Dear Editors: don't feed the Beast.

And as for you, Father Martin, whose pro-sodomy ramblings inspired this post: perhaps it is time to shape up or ship out.  The damage you have done and are doing will be brought before you on your day of Judgement.  Of late I've been forced to think about my own day of Judgement which is coming perhaps faster than I had anticipated.  Let us both continue to think about these Last Things....

....before we feel that inevitable tap on the shoulder.

Monday, August 7, 2017

Our Congressional Idiots



It must be fun for world leaders to watch and listen to the dumb bells who inhabit our government.  It is even fun for US citizens too, who must roll their eyes and shake their heads at what emerges from the mouths of our representatives from time to time.

Here's a good one, from the ever reliable Maxine Waters (again):

http://theduran.com/maxine-waters-is-ready-to-impeach-us-vice-president-putin-video/

We will feature more idiotic remarks here on this blog in the future....if we can keep up with them !

Friday, August 4, 2017

Rod Pead: The Algebra pf Apostasy

From the April 2017 issue of Christian Order:



Small errors of principle have catastrophic consequences.
— Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, OP
Vatican II, inspired by Pope Paul VI and John, decided to look to the future with a modern spirit and to be open to modern culture ... The most serious of the evils that afflict the world these days are youth unemployment and the loneliness of the old. ... Proselytism is solemn nonsense, it makes no sense. ... I believe in God, not in a Catholic God, there is no Catholic God... Everyone has his own idea of good and evil and must choose to follow the good and fight evil as he conceives them. ... Who am I to judge?
— Francis, Pontifex Maximus

As the centenary countdown to the greatest public miracle in history begins, what should we expect in the coming months by way of supernatural signs, wonders and meltdowns?
(Endtime Spoiler Alert!)
In sum: not much.

This isn't to say that the signs of the times do not portend a Noah-like response from on High. On the contrary, the wickedness of Noah's day seems fairly tame compared to ours. Though overused, "apocalyptic" precisely describes a world all but daring — goading — Almighty God to smite it. In this year of all years, therefore, it is not unreasonable to expect Divine intervention. And yet, as we know from the decisions of multiple pontiffs — firstly to defy Heaven's simple request to consecrate "Russia" to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, then to bury the original one-page text of the Third Secret — where Fatima is concerned, great expectations invariably give way to great frustrations.

Apocalyptic formula



Hierarchical disobedience/negligence/cowardice/lethargy/call-it-what-you-like, continues to amaze and appall. Even conservative prelates rarely promote the Five First Saturday Reparatory Devotions with any urgency. At best, all talk and no positive action sums up the hierarchical history. At worst — and overwhelmingly — it has been silence and negativity in the Modernistic process of marginalising, ecumenising and secularising Fatima by a thousand condescending cuts.

In effect, Our Lady's personal instruction of Lucia, Francisco and Jacinta between May and October 1917 triggered 100 years of devotion and struggle — in roughly equal proportion: fifty years of signature Catholic devotion to Mary, followed by fifty post-conciliar years of ecumenical embarrassment apropos Marian devotion in general, and the Fatima message in particular.

Sister Lucia famously put this down to the "diabolic disorientation" that views doctrinal, moral and canonical chaos as a gift of the Holy Spirit, and the ensuing "mess" as a work of mercy.

This malign malaise appears to have reached its zenith in the person of the current pontiff. Yet we must pause to consider the plain truth of the matter: that Francis is just the latest link in the ever lengthening Modernist chain.

This struck me once again while reading an article of impending doom by a Catholic expert on Freemasonry. Therein, he laid out his case by way of lengthy arithmetic and geometric calculations based on the occult symbolism of the Lodge. Tying it all to an allegedly demonic manifestation recently photographed in a region of Italy historically rooted in occult prophecy, this blizzard of hieroglyphics finally led the author to reveal the precise "Day of God's Wrath" as 3 July 2017. (Beware 2017 travel insurance policies that don't cover "acts of God"!)

Seriously, who needs complex and incomprehensible calculations to understand the current proximity of Divine Justice! (Or further photographic verification thereof. Those lightning bolts that struck the dome of St Peter's in the immediate aftermath of Benedict's resignation put us all on notice — big time!) No, the explanation of how we fulfilled the Third Secret and consequently tremble at the prospect of God's wrath can be reduced to a simple algebraic equation:
J23 + P6 + JP2 + B16 = F1

Hegelian thread



A reproach to the wishful-thinking of Benedict XVI's "hermeneutic of continuity", that elementary formula expresses the continuing — devastating — hermeneutic of discontinuity. Hardly rocket science, it encapsulates at a glance the theological and philosophical Liberalism that has brought the Church low since the Council — to include above all the insidious 'moderate' variety peddled by John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

John XXIII and Paul VI are easy targets on the spectrum.

The former imprudently called and then corrupted the Council: firstly, by insisting it be "pastoral"and avoid solemn definitions and condemnations of error; secondly, by inviting notorious arch-Modernist theologians to participate.

The latter just as imprudently allowed the already alarming Council to continue on after John's death, then progressively signed off/set off the time-bombs strewn throughout the Council documents (in the form of "compromise formulas" deliberately "designed" for "a selective reception" so as to cause "huge potential for conflict," as Cardinal Kasper has proudly confessed).

The 'progressive' papal bridgeheads that followed were more dangerous, however. Variously mixing and masking continuity and discontinuity in their wildly uneven pontificates (e.g., Assisi abominations vs. Ecclesia Dei adflicta/Summorum Pontificum), John Paul and Benedict easily won over papolators, who turned a blind eye to their myriad scandals and deeply problematic theology and attitudes (CO passim) — out of false-obedience, false-charity, and cowardly fear of having to denounce them. But this Hegelian ebb and flow of traditional sensibilities ("thesis") and liberal leanings ("antithesis") was simply Modernist continuity in the 'moderate' guise unmasked by St. Pius X in Pascendi.

Whenever the thought and writings of Karol Wojtyla came up in our private conversations, Father Paul Crane would often mutter disapprovingly: "Too much Hegel." The liberal thread binding all the post-conciliar pontiffs, I once explained Hegelianism by way of John Paul II's dire appointments:

Preening apostates like Cardinals Lehman, Kasper, Mahoney et. al.  have been introduced to the sacred college to keep the runaway post-conciliar train careering on. The papal rationalisation seems to be that they act as a political stabiliser: helping maintain a desirable “balance” and “tension” between opposing viewpoints. Through this Hegelian dialectic, the conservative likes of Sydney’s new Cardinal George Pell (thesis) are supposed to be offset by the liberal likes of Scotland's Cardinal Keith O’Brien (antithesis) giving rise to a purer form of Catholicism (synthesis).

That was in 2003, by way of pointing out our no-win predicament — viz., "slow ‘liberal-conservative’ decay, or rapid ‘liberal-liberal’ dissolution" — since, I argued,

the Conciliar milieu of liberalism and quasi-liberalism-masquerading-as-conservatism that has corrupted Keith O’Brien and contaminated George Pell, has already fashioned the next Hegelian pontiff. Thesis + antithesis = John Paul III.

Catastrophic consequences



In the event we got Benedict, who immediately aped John Paul II's failed and passive stratagem ("let error destroy itself") by inviting heretical Hans Kung to Castel Gandolfo: not to dispense his marching orders, but for several hours of futile "dialogue."

He then embraced the syncretic Assisi franchise he had once questioned. His brave offering, if not enforcement, of Summorum Pontificum only highlighted the Hegelian "tensions" at play during his 8-year pontificate of ongoing liberal-conservative decay that eventually ground him down, wore him out, and saw him off.

Inexorably, Jorge Bergoglio followed: spectacular living proof that far from destroying itself, Kung-like errors left unhindered grow like topsy, levelling every Godly thing, including the papacy



                                                        Read the whole article.

Tuesday, August 1, 2017

Tell me again why we are supposed to hate this man



The illogical, mendacious and hysterical haters of Vladimir Putin, who control the world's microphones and news media, give us their "two-minute Hate" against him every thirty minutes or so.  It is so over done, so bereft of facts, so filled with unthinking emotion that I'm beginning to doubt the sanity of those who believe the perpetrators of this hoax.

Sadly, even some Catholic blogs have signed on to the news media's Hate Putin and Russia campaign in a way that I am sure is unthinking rather than reflective.  Be that as it may those who strive to keep their heads during this relentless assault on common sense are the ones whose words we should be reading.  This blog presents links to some of these more thoughtful internet sites and blogs.

Here is an interesting story which I believe will help us to understand the admittedly complex mind of Mr Putin and possibly serve as an antidote to the nonsense being pedaled by Washington and their media:

Here’s something you don’t see every day. Especially from a heinous “dictator” who “kills journalists.”
Russian president Vladimir Putin paid a visit to one of Russia’s best known human rights campaigners, Lyudmila Alekseyeva. The occasion was her 90th birthday.
Alekseyeva started exposing human rights violations in the USSR in 1968. To this day, she remains an active critic of the Kremlin.
Putin paid a surprise visit to Alekseyeva in her Moscow flat. The president was very gracious to the nonagenarian, thanking her for her work and presenting her with gifts including a framed picture of her hometown of Yevpatoria in Crimea.

                                                                    Read the whole article.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...