Flash Mobs hit Russia

From Lew Rockwell.com:

Francis, when I am troubled I seek a priest, not a psychiatrist

How nice to know that years ago Pope Bergoglio thought it best to work out his problems by going to a psychiatrist.  Had he never heard of priests?  Or Confession?  Most Catholics I know who need serious advice seek a priest.

But not Bergoglio.

This says quite a lot about this seriously troubled man even though the incident occurred forty years ago.  His recent actions suggest an untidy (at least) or disordered (at worst) mind wherein all manner of nonsense and false ideas are lurking.  To prefer the opinions of Freudian frauds to the soothing balm of the Church indicates to this writer that he was comfortable in rejecting Church teaching for a long time.

Alfred Hitchcock was once asked if he went to psychiatrists if there were serious troubles going on in his mind.  "No", he replied, "I go to Confession."  But our future Pope had not even that little Catholic sense in him to talk over his problems with a fellow priest.

It says an awful lot about him.

Here is an article that details the story:

Pope Francis has revealed, for the first time, that he sought help from a psychoanalyst when he was younger.

He is believed to be the first Pope in history to have visited a psychoanalyst – or at least to have admitted to it.

In a new book, he says that at the age of 42 – decades before he was made Pope - he went to a psychiatrist in Buenos Aires in his native Argentina for six months.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio, as the Pope was known then, was at the time the head of the Jesuit order in Argentina.

“At a certain point, I felt the need to consult an analyst. For six months, I went to her house once a week to clarify a few things,” he revealed in the book, Pope Francis: Politics and Society. 

He did not specify exactly what “things” he wanted to clarify or why he felt the need to seek psychiatric help but he did say the treatment was successful.

“In those six months, she really helped me,” he said. “She was a wonderful person,” the 81-year-old pontiff said.

                                                      Read the whole article.

What did slavery have to do with the Civil War?

Nothing.

I will let Paul Craig Roberts explain:

When I read Professor Thomas DiLorenzo’s article the question that lept to mind was, “How come the South is said to have fought for slavery when the North wasn’t fighting against slavery?”

Two days before Lincoln’s inauguration as the 16th President, Congress, consisting only of the Northern states, passed overwhelmingly on March 2, 1861, the Corwin Amendment that gave constitutional protection to slavery. Lincoln endorsed the amendment in his inaugural address, saying “I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”

Quite clearly, the North was not prepared to go to war in order to end slavery when on the very eve of war the US Congress and incoming president were in the process of making it unconstitutional to abolish slavery.

Here we have absolute total proof that the North wanted the South kept in the Union far more than the North wanted to abolish slavery.

If the South’s real concern was maintaining slavery, the South would not have turned down the constitutional protection of slavery offered them on a silver platter by Congress and the President. Clearly, for the South also the issue was not slavery.

The real issue between North and South could not be reconciled on the basis of accommodating slavery. The real issue was economic as DiLorenzo, Charles Beard and other historians have documented. The North offered to preserve slavery irrevocably, but the North did not offer to give up the high tariffs and economic policies that the South saw as inimical to its interests.

Blaming the war on slavery was the way the northern court historians used morality to cover up Lincoln’s naked aggression and the war crimes of his generals. Demonizing the enemy with moral language works for the victor. And it is still ongoing. We see in the destruction of statues the determination to shove remaining symbols of the Confederacy down the Memory Hole.

Today the ignorant morons, thoroughly brainwashed by Identity Politics, are demanding removal of memorials to Robert E. Lee, an alleged racist toward whom they express violent hatred. This presents a massive paradox. Robert E. Lee was the first person offered command of the Union armies. How can it be that a “Southern racist” was offered command of the Union Army if the Union was going to war to free black slaves?

Virginia did not secede until April 17, 1861, two days after Lincoln called up troops for the invasion of the South.

                                                        Read the whole article.

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]