Princess Diana and the Betrayal of the British Monarchy

When Queen Elizabeth signed the Queer "Marriage" law a few years back when dear, old Britain was losing its mind faster than we all expected, any respect I had for her vanished.  That a supposed Christian Monarch (although weighed down by Masonry) could put her seal of approval on such a monstrous law ended any and all illusions.  She betrayed her country, her Queenship and she betrayed Christ.

Like America, it was the death knell of England, soon followed by an ostensibly Catholic country, Ireland.  It will never recover from this until and unless God somehow intervenes.  These countries will continue their downward slope until all that is left is a rotting corpse.

Peter Hitchens writes an interesting piece on what has become of the British monarchy and he begins his interesting article with some thoughts on tragic Princess Diana.  Though Mr Hitchens allows his Protestantism to somewhat color his views he is nevertheless always worth reading.  His instincts are generally good on many issues.

He begins his article thusly:

Once in my life I stood a few feet from Princess Diana, and, though I was looking for her and knew she was there, and had seen ten thousand pictures of her, and watched her, shimmering, on many a TV screen,  I did not recognise her. Eventually, on that gloomy winter morning in the forecourt of the Brazilian ambassador’s residence in Washington DC, I realised that I was almost within touching distance of the most famous woman in the world.

But she simply did not look like herself. If what I saw on that cold morning had been what the public were used to, her reputation and effect on the world might have been completely different. She looked a good deal more like the formidable natural politician she was, and a good deal less like the breathtakingly pretty but rather lost and lonely young woman most people thought she was. But the camera loved her so much that the world saw the naïve and lovely victim, not the brilliant wielder of public relations skills and tactical genius.

And I have been fascinated by that fact ever since. The woman I stood a few feet from was darker, sharper more serious and more angular than the wholly different princess I had seen many times in photographs or on TV.

Now, I know that the camera lies, or can be made to lie. I am not especially vain of my appearance (it would be futile, and seeing yourself many times on film rather cures you of any illusions) but I am sometimes astonished at the way TV cameras make me appear. When I occasionally catch sight of myself on cheap security CCTV screens, I usually find the image is closer to what I think I look like than the version provided by expensive BBC equipment, which is odd. Though I was amazed, a few years ago, by the difference (about two stone less, several fewer chins, and no view up the nostrils) when I appeared on a programme from the BBC’s Glasgow studios. After I had watched the recording, I actually rang up and asked if they used a different type of camera in Glasgow. Apparently not. Must have been something else.

So I am fascinated by these unquantifiable things. Do cameras see an essence that the eye doesn’t see, or do they miss important truths that the eye *does* see? And what did they see, or not see, about Diana?

As we ramble through the Diana saga yet again, I seem to recall a certain reluctance on my then newspaper to let commentators such as me say very much about it. Given the tendency to blame the whole thing on the media pursuit of the Princess (an accusation I rather resist), I think editors thought that commentators who were defenders of traditional monarchy might be best employed walking up and down the Pennine Way for a couple of weeks, with their phones switched off.  Or something like that.

In retrospect, I am quite glad. One forgets at these times that very famous people are still people, who have families, and children. And when, later, one remembers, the damage is done.  In Diana’s case, the dreadful circumstances of the two boys now seem quite unbearable to me. At the time, I might have thought that was something Diana might have thought of before she went off on Mr Fayed’s yacht. I now realise that makes no difference at all. The two boys transformed everything. They still do. They always will. When the succession comes, as come it must whether we want it to or not, they will transform that too, nobody knows yet exactly how.

Alastair Campbell, another propaganda genius, realised the power of Diana’s sudden death immediately and instinctively.  He can probably sort of explain it now, but the thing about such people is that they just know, at the time, exactly what really matters. I have no doubt that the phrase ‘the People’s Princess’ was his invention, not the Blair creature’s. Alastair is of course a lefty and republican by instinct, but he had far too much strategic sense to make a frontal attack on the Monarchy in 1997.

What he could do and did was to inflict a huge defeat on old-fashioned monarchists who had identified the monarchy with tradition, heredity, Christian marriage and the Protestant settlement. He stole the monarchy from them, and they have no idea how to get it back.

 Read the whole article here:  http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2017/08/some-thoughts-about-the-princess-diana-affair.html

African Chiefs urged to apologize for slave trade

An inconvenient truth is finally discussed.

From Mike Rozeff at LewRockwell.com:

The Guardian published an article on Nov. 18, 2009 with the above title. It raises the subject of Africans themselves who furthered the slave trade. Here is a sample quotation:

“The shameful history of some traditional leaders remains an awkward subject on which many politicians prefer to maintain silence. One exception was in 1998 when Yoweri Museveni, the president of Uganda, told an audience including Bill Clinton: ‘African chiefs were the ones waging war on each other and capturing their own people and selling them. If anyone should apologise it should be the African chiefs. We still have those traitors here even today.'”

In History of Slavery, we read “Slavery was known in the very first civilizations such as Sumer in Mesopotamia which dates back as far as 3500 BC, as well as in almost every other civilization.”

If you had a relative who fought for the Confederacy 8 generations ago, does that make you guilty of something? I don’t think so. You cannot be held responsible for what someone else has done, and especially so long ago. If you had a relative who was a slave 8 generations ago, does that entitle you to take something today from someone? I don’t think so. How can you make a just claim unless you can show a harm that today’s person is doing to you? This will prove impossible because causation is vastly diluted by the passage of time and the interposition of so many persons and events.

                                                    Read the whole article.

Jesus and Mary are offensive..to a Catholic school

This one takes the cake in this era of the New Iconoclasm, where statues have to be smashed or removed:

Officials at the San Domenico School in California decided recently to remove the Catholic statues and icons in a move to be seen as more inclusive.

The school is celebrating its 167th year.

Officials feared the statues of Jesus and Mary were alienating.
MarinIJ reported:

                              Read the whole article.

Democrat and Republican Vampires

We know that Dracula, indeed all vampires, need a constant inflow of fresh blood to keep them alive. That being the case, we can only conclude that our politicians (and their "angels"), from Killary Clinton to Scott Walker, from Jeb (& and his brother) Bush to Barry Obama, from John McCain to Max Boot, from Ms Lindsey Graham to William Kristol, from Sheldon Adelson to Haim Saban, form the miserable generals surrounding Trump to the media which prmotes more violence against the innocent, etc. are in fact vampires, since they can only keep alive if the blood of American soldiers is being spilled every day in some part of the world.  And they've now convinced Mr Trump to break yet another campaign promises by extending the fruitless was on Afghanistan.

The Crucifix repelled vampires, so say the legends.

New Tourist Attraction: Learn How to Kill Women and Children

We report.  You decide.

“Come visit Israel, where you can stop by the Western Wall, tour the Holocaust Museum, view the Dead Sea Scrolls, and shoot live bullets at cardboard cutouts of Palestinian terrorists!”

Israel is becoming a destination for a whole new experience: it’s called military tourism, and there are half a dozen companies that run these popular fantasy camps—some on settlements in the occupied West Bank, others in Israel. They are also running these camps in the U.S. (see details below).

An excellent introduction to this latest recreational activity can be found in a heart-stopping two-minute roller coaster of a video (see below). Here is a transcript, with a few comments, to get things started.

The video opens with Sharon Gat, founder and CEO of one fantasy camp, Caliber 3. He is dressed in fatigues and sports dark glasses. Gat is speaking to a group of tourists—at the moment, a group from Hong Kong.

“The first demo,” he bellows in drill sergeant fashion, “is the reaction to a terror attack. But before we go into the demo, let me ask you a question: what is terror?”

The answer to his rhetorical question is visible: various posters hang in the makeshift target practice room. Some are menacing-looking men in ski masks or red-and-white kuffiyehs; others are innocent-looking men in clothes roughly the same color as Gat’s. Soldiers run out from between the tourists and shoot live bullets point blank at the men in kuffiyehs and ski masks.

Next we see an attack dog hanging onto the padded arm of a man in an orange jumpsuit and ski mask. Then the tour group, including a little girl in a ponytail, is seen walking through what looks like a weapon display, and wall covered with posters like the ones used in the target practice demo. Some are of “good guys” (Israeli-looking) and “bad guys,” (kuffiyeh-wearing) some are just outlines. These designate the middle of the target’s chest and forehead as A, neck as B, and outer areas of chest as C and D.

One of the instructors, Yoav Flayshman, speaks: “This place was founded, and still stands, for the purpose of training Jews and friends of Israel all over the world how to defend themselves and their families.”

What does that statement mean? Do all Jews need military training to defend themselves and their families? Are Jews worldwide at risk of terror attacks? What dangerous world do they live in? Or is the unspoken message, “This place exists for the purpose of rationalizing Israeli violence to the world by inventing a narrative of how Jews in Israel are innocent victims who must always be on the defensive”?

                                                           Read the whole article.

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,   DACA, welfare 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]

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. ..."

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.]

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