Monthly Archives: July 2015
The Pewsitter informs us that the American Catholic Lawyers Association have thrown down a huge gauntlet against Obergefell vs Hodges.
What I found particularly beautiful are the part about Sodomy (which is called by name! Unheard of in times in which even people who deem themselves conservative keep vomiting that horrible word, “gay”) and the indictment of that little minion of Satan, Justice Kennedy.
If those five apprentice demons thought they could have the matter “settled” with their satanical decision, they will soon have to see the stupidity of their own thinking. This is going to be another battle like the one against abortion, and the only way to put an end to it will be to crush Christianity in a Country having “in God we trust” as the national motto and in which Christianity is, even if in an imperfect form (but I can’t say the Church shines much in these times) still a force to be reckoned with. Eradicate Christianity from the U.S.? Not an easy task, if you ask me. Though I am sure it is being attempted as I write this.
This is not going to go away. This is not going to become settled. This is going to stay with us as long as we live, and be carried on by others after we have died. Going, hopefully, to a different reward than the one Justice Kennedy seems very… bent on getting.
A small “c” catholic magazine – the one who on the day of the infamous Synod mid-term declaration, the relatio post disceptationem, came out with an article explaining to us how much the Church still has to do; which really tells you everything you need to know about the sad business of prostitution – now thinks it can publish a smart article by asking us if we are more Catholic than Francis (no link, of course).
The article is an exercise in Clericalism, and one can only remark here that Clericalism is truly one of the marks of V II; Grima Wormtongue as he thinks and speaks.
The answer to the heresy and blasphemy is very easy, so I will keep it short.
Yes, if you are a good Catholic you must be vastly more Catholic than the Pope, because the Pope spreads heresy and confusion whenever he opens that stupid mouth of his. Yes, you know that you are more Catholic than the Pope because you, in striking difference to people who write for that magazine, actually know the first three things about Catholicism. Yes, you know that you are not making your own religion, or of yourself a God, because you compare your thinking with two thousand years of Catholicism and discover that not you, but Francis is at variance with that, and at variance in such a tragic and massive way as to not leave an excuse to anyone. Yes, you can recognise a traitor and a heretic because the Church teaches you how to do so, and many papal encyclicals (search this blog, or shut up) help you to do it effectively. Yes, you do not give any credit to the novelties of an encyclical letter if they go against what the Church has always taught.
The article is, in fact, so stupid that th every simple concept is not realised, that if the Pope had not made such an ass of himself, even with the extraordinary way of an encyclical, so many Catholics would not criticise him; but if he does, well obviously they do. Being Catholic never meant being stupid, whatever this rag wants you to believe.
It is utterly pathetic that the utterly clericalist claim be made that we should submit to heresy, because the heresy happens to be Pope. Have the people over there never read the words of St Paul?
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
And we should not believe to angels, yet believe a stupid, ignorant, boorish Argentinian of which we can never even know if he is even sober when he opens his mouth?
This is not a light issue. This has a direct bearing on our salvation. Very plainly, you cannot serve Christ and Francis.
I know Whom I will choose. Everyone else can make his choice, and pay the price of his stupidity if he so wishes.
I have a page called “the quotable Catholic”. You see it above this text. The very first quote is also repeated on the right hand column of this blog. It could well make the difference between salvation and damnation for many of us. It states:
What Catholics once were, we are. If we are wrong, then Catholics through the ages have been wrong.
We are what you once were. We believe what you once believed.
We worship as you once worshipped. If we are wrong now, you were wrong then. If you were right then, we are right now.
I will stake my salvation every day on those words. I hope to die with these words in my mind, and “miserere mei, Domine” on my lips. Those who think they must believe not an angel, but an Argentinian heretics are reckless fools.
Don’t be among them. No matter what (you know what I mean), never betray the faith of your Fathers under the disguise of a “restyling”, or an “updating” (ahem, “aggiornamento”).
It’s not an update. It’s heresy, and blasphemy.
I stake my salvation on the words above. I will never give allegiance to evil heretics and their little, little minions.
Let these little Grimas talk as much as they want. God will know what to do with them.
As for me, I will follow the Lord.
I am not an expert in the matter, and I would therefore be grateful for anyone attempting a calculation of the total co2 emissions caused by the latest papal folly: an entire aeroplane of entourage and journalists flying the other side of the ocean, touring several countries and back, in order to spread more nonsense and feel a bit at home for some days. Another six weeks or so, and the exercise will be pretty much repeated…
I am also grateful for any news of the pope ordering to switch off the a/c in the residences that lodged him and his entourage. Mind, I am sure he did so (everything else would be the height of hypocrisy…), but just to be sure…
It appears to me that if it never necessary for a Pope to travel, it should be even less desirable for a pope breaking our … ears with talks of co2 emissions, air conditioners, and the like. A pope's role isn't in being seen around. He isn't an Hollywood actor, or the attraction of an itinerant circus. A pope is called to be a good Pope, and if he is that no travel is necessary; not ever, and particularly not for one who tweets and blabbers with journalists every time he isn't eating, or in the bathroom.
No, it is not necessary for Francis to travel. But he seems to like it a lot, and stuff the emissions…
This is not only a pope unprecedented in his hypocrisy. This is a Pope unprecedented in the arrogance of putting his hypocrisy in front of the whole world and not caring for it one bit. “Hey, I am the Pope”, is the clear implied message, “and I do whatever I want, because I can. ¿Está claro?”
How I miss old Benedict…
The great James V Schall, mentioned on this blog – and only for lack of time – much less than he deserves, has another wonderful contribution about FrancisThink.
The man is obviously gentle with the ass he must deal with, but you can read between the lines that his patience is being tested. The article examines all that is wrong with the way Francis sees the world, beginning from the root of the problem: that Francis does not have a Christian view of the world. I add, though he does not say, that Francis has a Marxist one.
The worthy man goes on examining the utter senselessness of Francis economic views, not saying but certainly implying that the man is at the intellectual level of the thirteen year old school boy terrorised at suddenly being told that resources are about to end, there will be horrible wars, and we will all be doomed if we don't shut down our evil air conditioners at once.
The vision of a quasi-agricultural society (around 1-2% of GDP in Italy) as the medicine for supposed illness is almost as stupid as the assertion the the poor have warned us of the destruction of the planet. So let me rephrase: a thirteen years old boy with Marxist parents at home.
There are many other interesting topics in the article (the continuous opposing the very rich and the very poor is an example; and I note here that the very rich are invariably bad, and the very poor invariably good), which I invite you to read in its entirety. It's longish, but well-reasoned and worth the time, and you might agree with everything, but you will see a robust common sense everywhere.
James V Schall is one of the few voices of sanity remained in a Church that drifts slowly towards utter madness in more and more of her clergymen and religious. But his generation is going to be gone soon, and it will be more and more difficult to find voices like him within the official V II Church. As Francis appoints more Marxists as bishops and Cardinals, the danger will become bigger. And whilst we will probably still avoid catastrophe in October, it seems to me that a long attrition war about the very basis of Christianity is about to begin.
God bless this Jesuit, then.
Some of us (including yours truly) are the kind who relish the battle. We were, basically, born to cross swords. We just love to be part of the minority. We may be tired at times, but we are tired like the professional cyclist is tired: you know after a while he will be on the saddle again.
Alas, not everyone is born with the contrarian attitude, and the character trait of enjoying it.
Let us imagine for a moment that you are one of the latter. Let us imagine that you feel exhausted at the string of bad news, the discussions with friends and relatives, the endless drain this has on your energy. Understandable, that you may be at times tempted to give up: stop the discussions, or the blogging (if you blog), or the commenting (if you comment), or the reading (if you read).
Would this make you feel better? Would this improve your, say, “quality of life”?
I bet it wouldn’t. Apart from the very obvious fact that this is a vale of tears, and quality of life should not be our first concern, the brutal fact is that if you are a sincere Catholic shutting up would just let you suffer more. You would have to endure the careless mentions of the “gay” all tyour friends make as if this was a normal state of affair. You would have to endure the spreading of what you know to be Satan’s poison among those you love most. You would have to know that whilst you are shutting up, others are writing and fighting and quarreling and exchanging adrenaline on the Internet, and you are not part of the battle.
Would that make you happier? I doubt. Certainly: the tepid, the wannabes, the small “c” catholics can live better in that way. But you, my dear reader, you can’t. If you could, you would have found this blog unbearable a long time ago. You can’t, because you care.
Then I say to you: let Catholicism be one of your daily cares. Let the suffering that the continuous reading about bad news gives you make a part of your suffering, and give it to Christ together with all your other cares and sorrows (which, be in no doubt about that, will increase with age anyway). Get up in the morning knowing that there will be bad news, or stupid commenters, of journalists that let your adrenaline go sky high, or priests that send you out of the grace of God (let’s hope not literally; it’s an Italian way of saying…), or a Pope that… OK, I’ll stop here.
Embrace it all as part of your cross. We weren’t born for “quality of life”. We were born to give witness in our small way. It will cost anger and adrenaline. It will cost friendships (but were they good ones?). It will cost the loss of comfort in many small and less small occasions. But there is no better alternative; not only thinking of our own salvation, but even thinking of our own “quality of life”.
Some people were not born to shut up.
Then it is much better for them that they don’t.
Born that way, and all that…
The enemy’s priest (the one who has lost his faith, or gives his allegiance to Satan) is unavoidably led to pervert the sensus catholicus of the sheep. He will try to set the sheep on the wrong path under the disguise of piousness. He will manipulate them into thinking that if they want to be good Christians they must, in fact, do the exact contrary of what they were always told before. He will do all he can to lead the faithful as far as he can from his lack of faith, his mistress, or his sodomy. He will get away with an awful lot, because his sheep are mostly naive or stupid, and most of them very badly instructed, and very many find it simply convenient to pretend the traitor is a “man of God”.
How could such a priest proceed to do that? Let me make some hypotheses.
1) He could start by devaluing piousness. If you pray the rosary, you are bad. Devotional practice is not only downplayed, but criticised. All in the name of true spirituality, of course. Some people count their rosaries, you knew that? No, don’t laugh!
2) He could devalue purity, honesty, integrity. He might, for example, say that it is good to “smell like the sheep”. Suddenly, having dirt on you is something good, and being clean is something sanctimonious. This will, methinks, work particularly well for the homosexual priest, who will not resist the temptation to praise in some way the dirt in which he lives and breathes and to which he is, being a pervert, attracted.
3) He will “enlarge” Christianity into embracing its enemies. For example, he might say in church that a Muslim should “hold on to his Koran”. Suddenly, Christianity has been openly opposed in the name of the fantasy Christianity the enemy’s priest has chosen as his Trojan Horse.
4) He might, if he feels so inclined, proceed to attack the Trinity Itself. This is a bold move, I admit; but he could, for example, Say that Muslims and Christians “believe in the same God”. One small phrase et voilà, the Son and the Holy Ghost are out of the picture in the name of… some strange tutti frutti religion that is not Christianity anymore, but lets people feel so fuzzy inside.
5) This priest would then say homilies at Mass. He would not get the chance pass. The attention of the pewsitter would then be constantly diverted from heaven, and pointed firmly of earthly matters. This would be the ideal starting point for a socialist preaching: injustice, inequality, all the long list of Socialist grievances could be propagated from the pulpit with the thinnest varnish of Gospel quoting; which he can, like every idiot and Satan, do without difficulties.
6) The perversion of the minds entails the destruction of the modern, middle-class, well-ordered society. The preaching in favour of illegal immigration would therefore be tireless. This is another occasion to bash the good middle-class Christians. Besides, the one or other grateful illegal might well be amenable for acts of sodomy.
7) the general leitmotiv would be simple: you who think are good Christians are the bad Christians; those whom you think are the bad Christians (those who stink like sin) are in fact the good Christians. You are bad, because you do not worship the poor.
8) Such a priest would, of course, accompany his lack of faith with tangible, visible signs of his attitude. For example, he could always avoid to genuflect or kneel in front of the blessed Sacrament, but openly kneel in front of jail inmates. He might do this out of simple laziness and disinterest in a God in Whom he does not believe, or he might do it quite on purpose. But my hunch is that he would do it all right.
9) A man like that would also influence the faithful in more subtle ways: perhaps the Blessed Virgin thought she had been deceived? Perhaps Jesus Himself deceived the Apostles? Perhaps the miracle of the multiplication of bread and fish was a purely symbolic one, a “miracle of generosity” because people suddenly share what they have? Purity, Sanctity, Faith are, in this way, continuously undermined.
10) Nor would the Sacraments be spared; why oh why must public concubines be “refused” they “hunger” for Holy Communion? Why, oh why, are we so “judgmental”? And should we not find “ways” to “accept” sodomites in our beautiful community?
11) Of course, the fear of the Lord would have to go. God may scold, but he never slaps. Crap like that. Soon the sheep will believe salvation was achieved just for the feat of being conceived.
Such a priest could find many other ways to spread his impiousness and divert from his own faithlessness, or even sexual perversion. But I think I have given you an idea.
God forbid, such a priest should become Pope!
But the Cardinals would never do such a mistake.
Would they now… ?
“Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.
Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly”.
The “Catholic Herald” informs us that Francis has sent a “personal gift” of some consistence (“one million”) to the persecuted people in Iraq. Article not online yet, but the headlines on this morning’s CH were very big so this was the message.
One wonders what has happened of…
View original post 283 more words
There a very smart bear around, though I have become aware of it only very recently. St Corbinian’s Bear truly is one of those bear who deserve all the salmon he can get.
This particular bear has the following observation:
…. but the Bear senses that God wants you to feed a hungry person more than he wants a hungry person to be fed. God wants us to act for the glory of His Name, and in charity for our neighbor. He doesn’t want us to come up with grand bureaucratic schemes to eliminate poverty or save the planet. Like all of us, The Poor will soon be called to judgment and be spending eternity in either Heaven or Hell. The planet is slated for destruction according to God’s hidden and unchangeable will. .
This is, as I have said, a smart bear. A bear, I mean, who gets the difference between Charity and Socialism.
The rich help the poor because they love the neighbour out of their love for God. The poor accept their help in gratitude and in charity, because they love the neighbour out of their love for God. Brotherhood is not about rights, and charity is never about rights. Charity demands that love moves the ones to help out of generosity, and the others to be helped in gratitude.
All this is absent from the Socialist thinking now so very pervasive in the West, even among people who would react with indignation at being called “Socialists”. Socialists think that the poor is entitled to an economic transfer decided by people who do not own the rich’s wealth, and that the rich has no right to what is his own insofar as the poor can make a claim on it.
How destructive this is, is apparent even to Al Gore. This mentality is the contrary of brotherhood. It creates envy and entitlement. The poor considers it unjust in itself that he is poor and the rich is rich. The Socialist helps him in this evil thinking and tells him that he is a victim, and that he is entitled to at least a part of what the rich has. To the Socialist, the very existence of the poor is a man-made defect of society, which he is called to destroy.
The socialist wants to “make poverty history” (thus forgetting, or insulting, Our Lord), because for him poverty is the fruit of an injustice. In so doing, he makes Charity history. In vast parts of the world he will, soon enough, make Christianity itself history. But poverty will, of course, remain; together with the social envy, the social conflicts, the untold economic damage, and the general selfishness that this entails. As always, God will not be mocked.
God wants a world in which charity, not envy, is the engine of social thinking. A world in which the “social engineering” is made not by evil Socialists, but by good hearts. In His Goodness, he has always cared that in Christian societies, for an abundance of poor there was also an abundance of rich with a generous heart. This is why Christian Europe was always spared from the atrocious need, and the atrocious way of dealing with the poor, that you saw and still see among the heathens, for example the heartless Hindu.
Of course, the expropriation of the goods of the rich (or of the “haves”) has brought to the modern “poor” an unprecedented level of unearned prosperity. But are they happy with it? Are they one tad happier than their poor forefathers? No, they aren’t. On the contrary, where their forefathers lived a life in charity and humble serenity, they live a life in resentment. Wanting more, and more, and more, of that which they have not earned, of that which others have earned. And thinking that this more, and more, is theirs by right. And thinking it is an injustice that they do not have more of what is not theirs. But they still feel poor! They still are resentful! They still see rich people among them, and call this inequality, and declare it bad, and an evil to be destroyed!
That by this thinking charity goes out of the window is quite apparent. That envy and hatred take its place is just as obvious.
Francis is the Socialist through and through. He does not even begin to understand why there are poor and rich people. His thinking is entirely secular; his attitude is entirely resentful; he is a Chavez made Pope. He thinks that poverty is the rich people’s fault. he even think that poverty can be defeated. He is as resentful, stupid, blasphemous as every other Socialist out there.
When sanity comes back (and I am fully aware that I will not live to see that day), one of its fruits will be the dismantling of the modern “social state”; a fruit of the godlessness of our times, that has substituted faith in the Lord with the allegiance to the pagan god of equality.
The media are full of a very recent Gallup survey showing a marked decline in papal approval in the U.S., a drop of 25% based on the entire population. Basically, Francis is now where he was when he was elected.
It is, obviously, stupid enough to measure the popularity of a Pope: of the man, that is, who should be the one on the entire planet most obliged to seek unpopularity. However, we do have a very stupid papacy completely bent on just that: popularity. Therefore, the news that 25% of Americans have discovered the man is a Castroite rascal does not bode well for the continuation of this disgraceful experiment in evildoing.
I also notice that some other chicken, beside the Castroite ones, are now coming home to roost. Francis' popularity appears to suffer also – if in smaller measure – among liberals. Not rainbow enough, you see. And this even after the man is so much out of the window he could fall any moment.
The fact is, to adore liberalism is to adore an insatiable Moloch. He will want more and more from his worshippers, and will turn against them when they refuse to become their slaves. Francis has prostituted himself to the liberal public opinion to an extent inconceivable before his election, but he will soon notice that even that is not enough and, in fact, nothing will ever be enough. Serves him right, anyway. The wall of reality isn't less hard because a Castroite soft head smashes against it.
Nor can the Evil Clown tell us that hey, he is the Pope, he is supposed to be unpopular. The man manages to be despised from orthodox Catholics as well as from Liberals! This is not the mark of a courageous pope. This is the man of a small, ignorant, boorish, Mini Me Peron showing his evil incompetence for all the world to see.
I sometime wonder: if Hugo Chavez had been elected Pope, what would he have done differently? Not much, is the answer. Possibly nothing, is a better answer.
A Chavez as Pope. This is the papacy God is inflicting us, and which we have richly merited. Perhaps next time we wil learn the lesson, and expect that a Pope be a Catholic, instead of a clown.
Of all the fluffy cretinous talk, the blasphemous one is the worst. Particularly when it tries to disguise itself as pious.
A prominent Italian politician expressed his disgust at the notorious “hammer and sickle” crucifix blasphemously given to Frankie The Evil Clown and by him not only blasphemously accepted, but blasphemously defended in that oily, Jesuitical way of his.
Following that, the usual cretin went on record saying that you are never disgusted from a crucifix.
These people are so blinded by their own fluffy stupidity that they do not realise (or perhaps they do) the degree of irreligiousness and impiety they exhibit.
Shall we, then, accept a Trannie Jesus from a Trannie? A “Rainbow Jesus” from a faggot? Are these people so thick that they do not understand the meaning of “sacrilege”, and “blasphemy”?
Oh, but I forgot. If for you nothing is sacred (but your own sanctimoniousness) you will never have a problem with a hammer and sickle crucifix. Feeling good is all that counts. Christ is just nowhere to be seen.
Something tells me the man speaks for Francis. Actually, he thinks like him, too.
One of the people I have put in my list of personae non gratae is an old nincompoop who – after a life that I assume, after careful consideration, very badly spent – has nothing better to do than to try to post here. The man is undoubtedly a Proddie, deluding himself that he is a priest; which, in itself, says a lot.
A “priest”, would you believe it, trying to post here without pause like a six-years old boy seeking some sort of validation, or hoping to get the audience he does not get in real life. A “priest”, by the way, insulting me in a rather gross manner, having eventually noticed (after, perhaps, twenty attempts?) that his comments are binned without a second thought. It all happens, in fact, automatically, courtesy of the WordPress software.
I doubt those who know the man – if he is a man…
View original post 303 more words
And it came to pass that a priest – and very successful blogger – was transferred from his thriving parish to another, actually in the same diocese but still – if seen in regards to London – in a galaxy far, far away. One notices – yours truly certainly noticed – that the posts of said blogger have become noticeably thinner since then, or thereabouts; and a number of these posts have to do with the natural beauties of his new parish or other themes unrelated with the Great Battle the man certainly bravely fights every day in his, no doubt, sterling work as a priest.
One also seems to remember that another Bishop, with a name like an asparagus soup, had very openly silenced another blogger, who happened to be a deacon of his, with the very revealing accusation of being “divisive” (what the Bishop with the name like an asparagus soup would have done to Christ I do not even dare to think; but hey, this is V II…).
Yours truly had started to make 2+2 a while ago, wondering whether the blogger priest had not been, more or less openly, but certainly effectively, ordered to decrease his blogging but without shutting it down altogether, because his bishop is a bit smarter than to do like Asparagus Soup did.
I do not think it is so unthinkable that a bishop should order one of his priests to greatly reduce his blogging activity, but without making him shut down the blog altogether, which would give him (the bishop) a bad press worldwide. The more so, as said priest had published a beautiful blog post, which I still remember, pointing out to all that is wrong in the decision to shut down the blog of the deacon. One imagines a bishop (or his office) calling another bishop (or his office), and you imagine the rest.
I also think that, if it were so, the priest might well comply out of obedience to his bishop; and that he might well, if asked, feel obliged not to reveal the real causes of his decreased blogging activity; be it because he finds it indelicate or disloyal, or because he has simply been ordered to do so.
You see, one cannot avoid thinking. The former priest of Blackfen was – is – very popular, and in the Church of Bankruptcy everyone who stands out for the wrong reasons – say: being an engaged Catholic priest – is automatically suspected. He will, also, be a thorn in the side of a number of people, of the divorced and remarried, or contracepting kind. These people will complain to the bishop and play the old broken record: divisive, uncharitable, & Co. The bishop without a spine will, at this point, do what all bishops without a spine do: kow-tow to the noisy “c”atholics, silence the blog as well as he can with minimum risk of scandal and inconvenience for himself, quietly remove the “divisive” priest, and hope for the best. Away from the keyboard, away from the hearts. Away from the successful thriving parish he built, away from the loss of face this causes for the Bishop himself. In the land of incompetent bishops successful priests must be seen as subversive. They truly are a danger for the Official Uniform Decline, who makes no bishop stand out as particularly bad because they pretty much all are.
Please visit the blog (you know the name). A handful of blog posts in March. One in April. Nothing in May. One in June. Nothing since. Actually, only one posts in more than three months; the decrease in posts has been very noticeable since last year, but it has become extreme in this one. It’s like a hibernation in instalments. But no, the blog will not shut down. No uproar this time, thank you very much.
I have thought for a while (many months now) of writing this blog post. But today I read about the very prompt way in which the bishop sanctioned the abolition of the Tridentine Mass in the parish in question, and I make not only 2+2 = 4, but 4:2 = 2, too.
It seems to me that something very foul is at work here, and the bishop may well be de facto silencing his blogger priest and ordering him to keep schtum, under obedience, about his being de facto silenced. And I might be wrong here, but I reflect on this: this is a bishop who sends away an extremely beloved and successful priest and sends in his place an homosexual who immediately proceeds to reintroduce the sale of the “Tablet” and shortly thereafter announces the end of the TLM.
Call it stupidity, call it incompetence, call it outright evil spirit. But however you call it, you know by such a man this is perfectly in the realm of the feasible.
So no, I think it far more probable that I am not wrong here. And yes, I might receive assurances that all is fine.
And no, I would still not be persuaded.
The sad news of what has happened in Blackfen is the source of sadness on one side, and questions on the other. Let us look at what has happened.
There is an excellent priest there. The man celebrates the Mass and of the Ages and has a thriving parish. He is also a world-reputed blogger, and his example even spurns several others from his parish – and who knows how many from outside his parish – to do the same.
Suddenly the priest is moved to the certainly more remote – if certainly rather idyllic – Ramsgate, at the boundary of the diocese, far away from the (broadly) Londoner audience of the old parish.
Why did the Bishop do such a thing? What need was there? I know, priests are routinely moved every now and then, but do they have to? Really?
The new man is, to say the least, strange.
Yours truly, who often tries to be charitable but never tries to be stupid, wrote a message to the parishioners of Blackfen, inviting them to lose the chap tout de suite and attend somewhere else. Very simply, nothing good can come from priests who want you to read the “Tablet”.
It has transpired in the last days that, as so often, when a priest wants you to read the Tablet there are other issues at play. Which confirms once again an old leitmotiv of this blog: they are “progressive” because they are perverts, or have some other huge skeleton in the cellar.
Father Fisher is, as it is now clear, very officially just another faggot priest who shames the Church with his very existence; and who, instead of praying more (and more; and much more still!) and get on with the Catholic program refusing even to THINK of his diabolical perversion decides instead to “embrace” it and, as it is said today, “come out’ as a faggot surrounded by repulsive perverts, and is clearly “proud” of it. (Warning: disgusting fag!).
At this point, the man is toasted as a Catholic priest. Bar some extraordinary work of the Holy Ghost, this one is also toasted in eternity, because the smell of Reprobation is strong in him. More on this later, though.
The question arises now rather obvious: what did the Bishop know? Why did he remove Fr Finigan? If Fr Finigan had to be moved, why so far away? Why send at his place a man like that? Did the bishop not know? Really? Not even rumours, whispers, hints from smart people? Is it truly so, that nowadays unless one is a first-class ass or a wilful promoter of sexual perversion he cannot become a Bishop?
We should pray for the poor faggot. He is an infinitely worthy soul, more worth than the entire Universe. His eternal soul was made by the Lord to be happy with Him forever in the next world, and the fact that God may (probably will) allow Satan to snatch this one does not mean that God (antecedently) wants it so. We do not give up on anyone. His guardian angel will try to the last, and we do not want Satan to get easy preys.
This one is a particularly disgusting, and particularly disturbing, faggot. Which is why we must pray for him and for the good of his immortal soul. If the man sends himself to eternal torment (don’t be an idiot now: that’s what the odds are, or being a good Christian is useless), at least it won’t be for our want of trying.
But we should also pray for Bishop Smith, who seems intent in doing what so many colleagues of him do day in and day out: take a golden parish, cover it with excrements, call all this being “pastoral”, and proceed to ruin the next parish.
Boy, this one has the stuff of the Cardinal in himself.
The diocese of Southwark was one of the healthier, or less ailing, ones.
I wonder how long this will last.
A man is required to make choices, and live with it. If one signed for the Army, he obliged himself to be bound for that particular life, the life of the soldier. No one was interested in knowing whether his choice had made him “happy”. The bed you've made, and all that.
To be able to make choices and live with them is an elementary mark of the adult and, for what interests us today, the man. The man who chose wife and family cannot – if he is a man – go back on his commitment because he is not happy, or does not like his wife after all, or married life isn't what it was supposed to be. You have made your choice. Live with it like a man.
The more strongly this applies to priests. The one who has received the Sacrament of Holy Orders has said to the world that he wants to die a priest. This is what a grown man has decided to do with his life. After the fact, whether this priest is happy or unhappy is neither here nor there. He is now a priest for life, and that's that. A man has made a choice.
More and more often you notice that men who want to renege their commitment taken as adults will find excuses to do so. They are leaving the habit because the Church is this or that; their bishop is this or that; their situation is this or that. What they are saying, is that they are whining children unworthy of be considered manly, much less pious.
They will tell you that they have changed; that their circumstances have changed; that their bishops, their pope, the planet have changed. Guess what? We change all the time; our circumstances never remain the same; bishops and popes come and go (let's hope this one goes fast…). What always remains the same is a promise, a solemn vow, made forever.
They will tell you that they have lost the faith; that they never had it; or that it has evolved. Little capricious children throwing a tantrum and declaring they will now go away with the ball, because the game is tough.
Men stick to their commitment. Accept a nagging wife like you accept hail. Make their lives work according to the choices they have made, like men.
“I would not have taken the habit if I had known Margie” is no argument. You have taken the habit, which entails the solemn decision that there will ever be any Margie. “My bishop is a pedophile” does not count, because a pedophile bishop does not authorise one to renege on his vow. “I have lost the faith” does not count, because the priest who loses the faith must keep schtum and pray all the time that he may, with God's grace, find it again.
But truly, behind these claim is often a very simple claim: “I am a small child. I do not want to be held to the standard of a man. I will throw a tantrum, seek excuses, and invent all sort of grievances to justify with you that I am a selfish boy bound for hell”.
Society does not teach anymore a man to be a man. It does not expect anymore that observance be given to a solemn promise, just because it was made. The husband will leave his wife with the extremely childish claim of a “right to happiness” that firstly was never there in the first place, and secondly will prove, as always in life before that moment, a rather elusive goal after the euphoria of the first times.
We live in a society plagued by men-boys. They will tell you that they want to eat their own solemn vow, and will expect, even demand, your approval. There goes a wife. There goes a clerical habit. There goes, alas, at times even a child.
Men, and boys. From the way they live with their commitments you will recognise them.
A couple of Protestant blogs run by sincere (if wrong) Christians do me the honour of quoting me regularly, and linking to my site. When this happens, generally a “ping” appears on my message box. These pings appears to land in the message box whether one wants it or not, that is, whether the author of the message has said “send a ping about this” (which might be automatic) or not. I receive an awful lot of pings about my own messages, and I haven’t the faintest idea now where I would have to go to disallow the ping, or whether this would be a smart thing to do in the first place. What I mean to say by this is that the authors of those posts might not want to attract my attention, but WordPress cares for that anyway.
I rather systematically ignore Proddie blog posts. If I don’t, it is because there are very fitting and pressing reasons to do so. In general, I am of the opinion that no matter how good the good faith of the blog writer is, what is wrong is wrong and I will not – in general – post links to Proddie sites.
Still, every time that some Protestant blog links to me others will unavoidably follow the link, and land in what must seem to them, at least at first sight, a carpet bombing of Papist propaganda (and thanks, by the way).
I can only invite every one of those souls (and most dearly those eager souls writing their Protestant blogs) to not die in their Protestant error; to browse around the site and try to look at the One Church as what it is: the Only Shop, the one founded by Christ on Peter; to reflect whether what has up to now kept them outside of the only Church of Christ was not an inherited set of beliefs accepted as you do rain and wind, but never critically examined.
There have been no regularly established Protestant sects for fifteen centuries. What we have had is what everyone, including Protestants, calls heretical sects. The logical thinking of this very simple fact to the end should be enough to get one thinking. Never, for fifteen centuries, has anyone believed that he could be saved by faith alone, or that only scripture could be the basis of his Christian doctrine, without being considered heretic, and worthy of execution if needs be.
On the contrary, there has always been only One Church, and that Church the one Christ found on Peter. Nothing else could be called, ever, a church. Not with big C, not with little one. Read the inscription above again, and understand the very profound meaning; a meaning so obvious to every Christian for so many centuries.
I implore all those souls landing here from Protestant blogs – and most dearly those of the well-intentioned souls writing those blogs – to stop and give these lines a serious thought for five minutes.
Founded AD 33. And considered, for fifteen centuries, the only possible One Church by every Christian. By.every.Christian.
That’s it. That’s all you need to know.
Fetal Liver CD133+ Stem/Progenitor Cells (FL-CD133) are positively selected from homogenized liver tissue. First, fetal liver tissue is enzymatically digested and further processed to generate a leukocyte-rich suspension. CD133+ cells are then positively selected from the leukocyte-rich suspension using immunomagnetic anti-CD133 microbeads, leaving highly purified fetal liver CD133+ cells.
The Nazification of Western societies is now at a very advanced stage, and it perfectly fits the degradation and degeneration of pretty much everything, from sexual mores to sexual thinking to elementary things like the ability to think, write, read.
You couldn’t make this up. But it’s not a creepy fantasy of wannabe Nazi scientists, it is the reality of our days.
After the scandal with the Planned Parenthood video, Planned Genocide were quick in pointing out that they don’t sell organs. I smell a huge fish here, and a very smelly one at that.
These cells are, methinks, “harvested” from aborted babies, then one very much doubts the liver of deceased, non-aborted (lucky them!) people would manage to make it out of mortuaries, this even imagining they would be fit for purpose (I am not a doctor, nazi or otherwise, so don’t ask me). That the partial amputation of livers from living humans for the scope of re-selling would be allowed is also beyond imagination (yet).
I have not vomited looking at the site, which means the times have made me rather retch-resistant.
I wonder, though, what kind of human beings are around, walking on the same earth as we do, sipping their coffee near us, reading the newspaper on the bus.
Satan is having a home run. Pope Francis is so worried about our A/C.
It is extremely difficult to find even orthodox catholics not willing to use to word “gay” to say “sodomite”, or “homosexual” for the inclination.
We appease the enemy. This is the result.
The wrong side does not miss an occasion to unleash hell for their own purposes. Remember the young woman who died in Ireland and prompted calls to introduce abortion? What about the wave of laws restricting individual freedoms after Sandy Hook? Or the present crusade against the Confederate Flag?
Atheists and liberals never let an occasion go to waste. In comparison, we are far too kind.
The recent wave of emotion concerning the beastly behaviour of Planned Parenthood (oh, they say now they were not selling body parts. I am waiting for the details. Can't imagine they did not expect some sort of advantage anyway; this, without considering the satanical behaviour in itself) should be used not only to attack Planned Parenthood, but to demand loud and clear the end of abortion, call Nazi butchers those who practice it, and invent all kind of neologisms like “baby-hater”, “babyphobe”, Nazi Butchers, and the like. Every time, all the time.
What happens of this? Not much. Planned Parenthood will be in some trouble for a while, but the occasion for a big wave of emotions will be lost. Imagine if a row of prominent U.S. senators had profited of this to openly ask the end of abortion. It would not happen overnight, of course; but it would put us on the offensive, and with the emotional wave on our side. Little by little, people would begin to sway.
People don't think much nowadays. Many of them mainly emote, and do so with a view of feeling good with themselves.
We should profit from the enemy's own goals much more than we are doing. We should use them to aim directly at the beast's heart, rather than merely aim at give the enemy a thrashing.
As the enemy invents a new vocabulary to insult us, we cannot go beyond polite remonstrations.
Call them names. Rouse emotions. Attack abortion directly and frontally.
We lose because we are too nice.
Steve Skojec has both the video and the quotes, and he does such a good job of it that there isn't much that I can add to it, besides trying to put a couple of concepts in my own words.
It seems to me that the disgraceful Dr Nucatola, who is, very fittingly, a somewhat senior figure at Planned Genocide, is simply more coherent than many others seemingly a tad more “humane” abortionists.
There is nothing humane in deciding that an unborn child has to die because we prefer it so. Every trace of humanity has already gone from such thinking. Similarly, the baby thus butchered is obviously not considered a human being; not only by Dr Nucatola, but by everyone who shares with her the in humane idea that an innocent baby can be killed in his mother's womb.
The happily eating woman simply thinks the matter to its logical, Nazi end: the dehumanisation of the baby that is the logical premise of abortion logically leads to the selling of his parts; exactly as you do with lambs, pigs and cows.
The butcher, just like the doctors working under Dr Nucatola's instruction, pays attention that the carcass is as economically viable as possible. He will cut the animal's parts just so, and according to a complicated technique, so that the value that can be extracted by the animal is maximised, and its parts can fetch the higher utility for him. The Planned Parenthood doctors described in the video work exactly in the same way, butchering the poor baby in a skilled way that tries to keep his most valuable parts intact.
Let me repeat the point once again: the terrifying lack of humanity of such behaviour is in nothing worse than the principle that stays behind abortion: the utterly and completely Nazified thinking that a human life is not worthy of being considered human, and can be slaughtered like a lamb.
The Nazis are among us not because we have people like Dr Nucatola walking free, but because we have legal abortion in the first place.
To express horror at the woman whilst maintaining that abortion that can be a “necessity” is exactly the same as to express horror at the Nazis selling the golden teeth of their gas chamber victims without condemning the use of the gas chambers in the first place.
The abortionist (I mean by that not only the doctor who practices the abortion, but every person in favour of abortion) is the quintessential Nazi. Yes, I am talking of your (and my) neighbour, your (and my) relative, your (and mine) loved one.
Let us hammer the concept in their heads, with the necessary prudence but also with the indispensable forcefulness.
People like Dr Nucatola think like them; they merely think things to the end.
As the former Christian Superpower sinks in a sea of depravation and outright atrocity (I will write about the Nazi Doctor explaining how Planned Nazihood is selling body parts of aborted babies when time allows), the Chinese Government has announced today the “moderate” growth of the Chinese economy at around 7%.
I do not think the Chinese statisticians are less disinhibited than their Greek counterparts. But that the Chinese economy is growing, and growing rather fast, I do not doubt in the least. I am not discussing here the ethical standards of such growth. I am merely pointing out that it is taking place.
And it seems to me that we must slowly get accustomed to the fact that the United States might soon become a worldwide force for Satan, as the Christian element is slowly but surely reduced to a persecuted minority of “human rights felons”. In parallel, one can see an opposite movement in China.
As the once possibly most Christian Country on Earth slowly sees Christianity decline and a very evil form of aggressive atheism advance, the once possibly most Communist Country on Earth sees Communism decline as an army of Christians is slowly being raised in the villages and cities, fully undeterred by the open and covert hostility of the powers that be.
In 30 or 50 years, as the U.S. might well have completed their transformation into a true Great Satan a new Superpower might, by God's grace, emerge as its Christian counterpart, able to effectively deter or altogether defeat the aggressive anti-Christian policy of a Country once so proud if its Christian heritage. Christians in the U.S. are far fewer than the official figures say (many are clearly rose water Christian barely worthy of the name), and they are much more numerous in China than the Chinese government wants you to believe. One can see a trend in the last thirty years or so, in both Countries, that seems destined to continue, unless something big happens. To add additional irony today's Russia is also, in its official policies, far more Christian than most Western Countries.
The future of Chtistianity might well lie in the Countries (Russia today, China tomorrow) that so brutally fought against it. I seem to see Providence at work here, and just another demonstration of the Lord's wonderful ways.
Imagine the irony: a Country that willfully abandons its clear – if faulty, because largely Protestant – Christian roots and is pushed into second spot (or worse) by one of its former archenemy, who has in the meantime become Christian, would show once again that God has a wonderful sense of humour.
In the meantime Christianity in China grows massively, as it declines with the same degree of obviousness all over the West, but nowhere as brutally as in the once do proudly Christian U S of A.
Funny indeed. Or perhaps a warning.
Time will tell. Let us pray for a new Christian superpower. The old one is rapidly turning against God, and it is so… proud of it.
Read of the usual Rorate the very detailed description of how the Evil Clown has explained, in great detail, how a blasphemous crucifix does not offend him.
My hunch here is that one of these has happened:
1) Evil Clown has it said by third parties that he was “bewildered” at the “gift” when the scandal erupted. Then he realised people aren’t so stupid as he thought, and most of them – those who aren’t stupid – didn’t buy the one with the “surprise gift”. Not bewildered anymore, then.
2) Evil Clown has photo-op with blasphemous crucifix, thinking he will gain brownie points by the atheists and homos he sides with. Vatican officials try to limit the damage and suggest the Evil Clown was “bewildered”. Evil Clown will not have it, because he insists on ramming his impiousness down the faithful’s throats. Not bewildered anymore, then.
3) Francis is evil even when he isn’t drunk, and he might be drunk more often than we think. He says what the mood, or the grappa, suggests to him to say in the moment. What he has said yesterday has no relevance today. Logic and coherence are good for rosary counters. Superior beings like him do not need them, because they stink like the sheep.
Note that, in the same context, the man proceeds to ram more Marxism down your throat, whether you like it or not.
Just for you to know whose side he is on.
In the disgrace, there is one small consolation. This man is so obvious in his impiousness, that no one who keeps believing in his rubbish can claim any excuse. He is so blatantly anti-Catholic, that anyone who insists on taking his side shows his follows the cult of a person, not the Catholic faith.
I am thankful that as God punishes us with such a scourge, he at least gives everyone of us the possibility of seeing this man for the Evil Clown he is, and to choose Him, our Lord instead. He makes the choice easy for us. Therefore, we are not allowed to avoid choosing.
Dear Lord, please let this punishment pass, in Your good time. But as long as this punishment endures, please continue to give our sinful souls the ability to recognise so easily what a fraud this man is.
As they do every now and then, the sugar-Nazis have called for more taxation of sugary drinks. Because, they say, they make people fat.
I only drink whole milk, and sugared cola. I insist on whole milk yogurt. I reject every food that is the imitation of the original food. I am perfectly fine, because I eat in moderation. Like countless people before me, who lived and died for millennia and never knew there is something like, say, skimmed milk, or skimmed yogurt.
Nowadays, it seems that obesity just happens. Or pregnancy. Or abortion. The idea that one does not become obese (or pregnant, or the killer of his baby) without knowing what he is doing is just not there in the public consciousness. Obesity is just there. Why, no one asks. Nor seem people to ever ask why the obscenely obese colleague always seem to drink diet coke, and still has problems going through the doors at the venerable age of, say, 36.
I see two main causes for this: the loss of the sense of sin and his obligatory byproduct, the loss of the public shaming.
Christian society knew what is sin, and knew how to keep it in check. Both the sense of sin and the sense of shame were – would still be – extremely powerful deterrents against sins like gluttony , fornication, even abortion.
God has made everything in a wonderfully coherent way. Forget His way, and you will start to walk on a path of not only moral, but even physical self-destruction. Perverts don’t say this to you, but the list of their ailments – both physical and psychological, besides the obvious moral bankruptcy – is very long.
The atheist crowd does not get this simple truth. To them, sin does not exist. People weight 300 pounds because of “poor choices”, or “uninformed choices”, but mainly because of… sugary drinks, and it will be everyone’s fault but theirs. The same principle is applied everywhere else, because the enemy of Christ wants to destroy Christian morality in everything.
When the very concept of sluttishness is gone, it becomes far more difficult to create a barrier to pregnancy. When the pregnancy is there, but “just happened”, it seems “uncharitable” to “punish with a baby” the pregnant girl. A girl to whom it will be said that she has “reproductive rights”. Look! It has happened!
Then the excuse factory begins to work full time. The army of obscenely obese people in their twenties have some genetic factor no generation before them had, but has now suddenly exploded. The girl got pregnant because she was not given a condom; the abortion was then unpleasant, but necessary.
I insist often on this blog on the matter of obesity because I see a clear parallel between the deterioration of Christian feeling and the physical self-destruction of the West, as showed by the obvious “visual” change in my surrounding (the UK are now a Country not only extremely different from Italy, but from England a mere 20 or 30 years ago). In addition, I belong to the last generation who saw people accused of “gluttony”, because they ate too much. I actually still remember such reproaches, made by people who, in their Christian piety, sincerely believed them; and who will be now rolling in their grave at seeing how the West is eating itself to death, and can’t even begin to consider it sinful; but then debates about taxes on sugary drinks, as it a person with a such obvious lack of discipline would then suddenly start to see the like when the can or cola costs 13p more. The problem stares at us all the time, and we refuse to see it.
The concept of sin helps to create good habits. The practice of shaming helps to enforce them. Destroy the first part, and the second will never work. Destroy the second part, and the first will never be effective.
A world that has forgotten Christ has started to adore man. When you adore man, no one can ever be shamed, not even for his own good. The Brotherhood Of Reprobates is the new religion. Words like “glutton” get out, words like “fat phobic” get in. A change in religion causes a change in vocabulary: “fat phobic”, “homophobic”, “gender reassignment”, “byproduct of conception”, “marriage equality”. The list is long.
The Country where I live will very probably live a true Holocaust in the next ten to twenty years, due exclusively to… gluttony, and the religion of man. No one seems to care, or has the desire to say things as they are instead of thinking that sugar, not gluttony, makes people obese. Millions will die prematurely, in this country alone.
Oh well. We do not want to offend anyone.
The Lake Garda Statement, published on Rorate together with ancillary documents, is an extremely positive development for more than one reason.
1) It exposes the dangerous lie of the “dialogue”
2) It reaffirms the Sovereignty of Christ The Christ.
3) It clearly condemns the entire spirit and attitude of this Papacy, blabbering of the environment whilst Rome burns.
4) It clearly indicates that the Pope himself encourages the Kasperites heretics, and promotes sexual perversion.
This is, still, a vox clamans in deserto. But it is good that more people apart from a couple of seriously angry bloggers start to publicly utter open opposition to all that this disgraceful papacy seeks to promote (no, it isn't Catholicism).
October is approaching. Whilst one cannot write about it every day, it is emergency every day. Which is, by the by, why I keep my blog post on the matter on top of my blog, and will make it stay there until at least October irrespective of how tedious it may become to see it there day in, and day out.
It is sad to say so, but the first enemy of the Church is now the Pope. No communist dictator could inflict the damage he is inflicting. The inside job is always the most dangerous.
Let us hope that many other voices rise to denounce the scandal of this Papacy. Let us, I implore you, not destroy such occasions to discuss whether they are 100% orthodox themselves.
Every enemy of Kasper is our ally.
Novak Djokovic wins again at Wimbledon, after a truly beautiful match against a wonderful, if aging opponent.
After the match point he emits some “warrior cries” of joy, and lets the adrenaline out.
Then he moves his gaze up to the sky, and he is obviously praying. After that, he kneels to the ground and does something which, to me, must have something religious to it. Finally, he gets up and makes a very obvious sign of the cross, concluded with a kiss to heaven.
All this time, the BBC commenters are stunned. Mute. There is a kind of half uttering from one of them, but it becomes nothing.
The Buggers Broadcasting Communism are too embarrassed to make a comment whatsoever that would have enraged the PC crowd; even something banal like “here is Dojokovic exulting… now he prays…”. Not even his praying was acknowledged. Just embarrassed silence.
It may be that the commenters were indifferent to all this. But most probably they were terrified of saying absolutely anything, lest something very bad happens to them and then farewell, Wimbledon 2016 (or whatever it may be). I can easily imagine that the ignoring of any manifestation of Christian piety (from a Proddie, a Schismatic, obviously a Catholic) is now official or unofficial BBC guideline.
As to Djokovic himself, I can see the time coming where every demonstration of Christian piety on the playing field will be forbidden because insulting those believing in other religions, or none.
Those two commenters had not shut up one moment during the entire game. Until the man started to thank heaven, that is.
He must think you’re stupid.
It is completely obvious even to my (admittedly: very smart) cat that gifts by diplomatic meetings do not just “happen”, nor are they “surprises”. It’s not Christmas’ Eve.
On the contrary, gifts (which have an obvious public, PR, or symbolic relevance) are always agreed in advance. It must be so, otherwise you would risk diplomatic incidents every time.
Therefore, I do not believe in the least that Francis – who wasn’t born yesterday, and can be the cunning scoundrel whenever he wants to – just did not know that he would receive such a gift, or did not care to enquire what gift he would receive, or did not ask his diplomatic personnel to go absolutely on the safe side and check with him first. He knows very well there will be photos that will go around the world. Of all people, he should know best.
Such meetings are carefully prepared. Damn Morales is a head of state. It’s not that you leave it to your guest’s taste what you will be photographed with.
Then there is the obvious, obvious consideration that, whatever the reason for the blunder, Christ must come before diplomacy and it behooves the Pope to very publicly refuse the gift (yes, in front of the cameras, and all that) if he has been – because of some machination I cannot even imagine – surprised by it.
A Crucifix with a hammer and sickle is absolutely sickening, and if Francis is not sickened by it it is not surprising at all he can live in the midst of perverts; or better said, from one who lives in the midst of perverts it is not surprising at all that he would not be sickened by such a blasphemous “gift”.
To my knowledge, the “gift” has not been refused. No diplomatic incident has followed, and the Vatican has not accused the other side of surprising them with a non-agreed gift. If this were the case, the incident should be very public, and should lead to the refusal of the gift and the demand for public apology from the Bolivian government.
What we have, is the world photo-op of the friggin’ Communist head of state, Francis giving him a stage, and then trying to react to the obvious scandal by letting it be known that hey, he would have preferred a puppy.
But you see, this is what happens when you elect a Pope that blabbers about the poor all the time, and does not care a straw for Christ.
The enemies of Christ will sniff it all right, and will behave accordingly.
And it came to pass the football match wanted by Francis to end the atrocities in the Middle East took place. It must have worked, because when I woke up this morning the birds were chirping with unusual energy, and, clearly, Love Was In The Air. Or not, as the case may be.
The Match To End All Wars took, then, place, and the stadium was half-empty.
How can this be, when Francis The Humble Black Shod Peacemaker was behind the initiative?
Where were all the non-judgmental Catholics so inspired by the “fresh, new approach” of the Unholy Father? The lovers of peace? The Sons Of The Age Of Mercy?
They were, apparently…. everywhere else.
The brutal truth is that the world does not care a straw for Francis, and never was disinterest more deserved. To them, Francis is light entertainment: a short headline on the morning paper, a momentary…
View original post 242 more words
What follows is another, ahem, Captain Obvious effort. But as we clearly live in times where obvious facts are either ignored or considered offensive, it is fitting to write a line or three about it. With this also ends my mini-holiday from the antics of Francis. Starting from tomorrow, it is business as usual.
Let me introduce you to two Countries, which we will call A and B.
Country A and Country B compete in the same markets for, say, cars. Country A is efficient, well-ordered, and largely free from corruption. Country B is inefficient, chaotic, corrupted, and populist. Their currencies are exchanged at parity, because, say, Country B has just made a currency reform to adjust the nominal value of its currency.
Soon, the cars of Country B will find it very difficult to compete with the cars of Country A. The inefficiency and corruption at all levels of Country B will take care that it is so. In order to remedy to this, Country B will find it very convenient to devalue its currency against the currency of A; or, in a system of free currency markets, the market itself will, on the whole, care for it and progressively demand that for every Schnaps (the currency of Country A) not more 1 but 1.1, then 1.2, then 1.3, then at some point 1.8 or 2 Ouzos (the currency of Country B) is paid. The devaluation cares that the equilibrium in competitiveness is, on the whole, re-established. More clients of Country A will consider buying the now cheaper – but same, perhaps better value-for-money proposition – car from Country B, whose devalued Ouzos make it cheaper in Schnaps; whilst many clients from Country B will find the car from Country A now too expensive, because its price in Ouzos has increased following devaluation or, which is the same, the Schnaps becoming stronger against it. The same will happen in many other sectors of the economy: more tourists from Country A will decide to visit Country B (“look: only 399 Schnaps including hotel and return flight!”) less will make the opposite journey, etc.
It is commonly said that Country B has “become poorer”. This is true, but only in a sense. Country B has become poorer compared to Country A, but it has safeguarded its jobs. The factory worker of B couldn't care less that his holiday will have to be in his own country, if in exchange he can avoid losing his job. His Ouzos are Worth less Schnaps; but, crucially, he still has a job.
This is how it has always worked. The less efficient economies protected themselves by the effect of their lack of competitiveness by devaluing their currency, or allowing it to adjust automatically to the different paces of two different economies. Unpleasant as it was, it worked on the whole. Not everyone can be best in class.
Unfortunately, more corrupted and populist countries – like B – tended to be… populist and corrupted. The result was careless spending, which resulted in state deficit, which in turn caused big debt, or big inflation – because of all the “money printing” to finance the populist expenses – or, more likely, a mixture of both. This caused higher inflation, higher interest rates, more social conflicts, a growing debt, and more devaluation compared to Country A. The social conflicts then caused strikes, which caused loss of competitiveness, which made the problem worse, and caused more loss of jobs, and more government careless spending to appease the mob, and more inflation, and more deficit, and more debts, now more expensive to service because of the higher interest rate…
“How beautiful would it be” – Country B started to think – “if I could also benefit from the advantages of a strong, low-inflation, low-interest, stable currency! How beneficial this would be to my economy!”
Stop and pause here.
Country B wants a strong currency it has never deserved, because it was never serious enough to get one. But it wanted it anyway, thinking it would be all good, and with no downsides. Thinking, that is, only of the advantages it brings.
Country A listened to Country B and said: “I am very fine with that, dear neighbour. It would be advantageous for me too if you stopped being a chaotic, riotous, populist Country. Your increase in wealth would benefit me greatly! More cars to sell! More tourists to visit my country! Less inflation imported because of your incompetence (that's more complicated: take it from me…). Wunderbar! I am, therefore, all in favour of the two of us having the same currency! However, in order for this to work we will have to have ze same rules, Ja? This means that you, as a Country, will have to become as good as I am, because the low interest rates and low inflation and strong, stable currency do not fall from the sky, but are the result of sensible economic policies!”
” ' Course! – said Country B – “all fine! Everything you want! Give me the 1% inflation and 4.9% interest rate for my new car, please!”
And so it came to pass that Country A and Country B had the same currency, the same rules, and the same great expectations. There were, here and there, some isolated warning voices (one was yours truly's) who said to family and friends “this can only work if people, nay: entire countries change; and the odds of this happening are extremely small”. But they weren't heeded. “When people get to experience the advantages of a strong currency, they will change!” most people said.
However, Country B continued to have double the civil servants it needed; to pay stupid “pensions” to people who had never worked, and to hire 13 people for every ten needed, who then kept looking at YouTube in the office; to make a point of hiring the mistress of the boss, the stupid son of the manager, and the daughter of the local politician who could do them favours by the next public contract. You know the drill.
Result? The deficit was still there. The boost to the economy given by the low interest rates (money for a new car in instalments, a new gadget, and so on) were soon gone. Why? Because the economy was still inefficient. Soon, Country A's cars were gaining ground in all markets, again, whilst Country B had not even brought the deficit under control.
Could Country B now devalue its currency? No, it couldn't! Could it print money to cover the deficit? No, it couldn't! Could it, at least, borrow it? Yes, until there are creditors ready to lend it!
Country B should by now begin to realise that strong currencies really do not fall from heaven. They must be deserved every day with fiscal responsibility, work ethic, and efficient capitalism. If this is not the case, the strong currency will not help Country B in the least. In actual fact, it will strangle it. It must be so, because a strong currency will expose all the weaknesses of a weak economic system even as it deprives it of the traditional way to get away with it: currency creation, vulgo: “the money press”.
Mind, though, that for the unavoidable crush will not be the currency that is to blame: the currency merely does what it is designed to do, and what Country B wanted: low inflation, low interest rates, strong and stable foreign exchange. Nor can those be “blamed” (beside of stupidity, or naïveté) who in good faith – or because they're stupid – have lent the money to an inefficient Country to help it to become efficient. Yes, there can be a political interest to help the “less fortunate” brother. But in the end, the blame is entirely on those who wanted the strong currency, and thought they could get away with not paying the price that came attached to it.
Greece has made everything wrong. But this is not Germany's fault. It is Greece's fault. How rotten the mentality over there is was made entirely obvious not only by the continued lies and frauds, but – more tragically – but the astonishingly blind behaviour showed both with the last elections and with Sunday's strange “referendum”. The latter is, in itself, the best demonstration of Greek suicidal stupidity, in that it asked the Country if it thought the Germans should do as the Greek please, or not. After which, we were told by the Greek Prime Minister that this was a democratic decision, and we must listen to it.
The Euro is a very strong currency. The Germans, the Dutch, the Austrians want it so, and they are perfectly right to want it so. The low inflation and low interest were a gift they made to us (us Italians, French, Spaniards, Portuguese… Greek!), and we woke up one fine day in a low-inflation, low-interest environment we had done not much, or not for a long time, to deserve. But a strong currency costs a lot to maintain: it is like an elite gym, where you can survive only if you are fully determined to be as fit as the elite gymnasts who practice there.
Some countries did it brilliantly (say: the Dutch, obviously). Some others managed to stay afloat and made great strides of improvements and modernisation; but the now very harsh, direct competition with the very best without the possibility to devalue the currency was paid by them at the expense of economic growth, so that whilst Germany, on the whole, prospered they, on the whole, stagnated (Italy is an extremely obvious point in case). Others still, who thought they could feast and have the bill paid by the rich neighbour, are drowning all right, and chief among them are the Greek.
What too many people don't get is that the Euro is a “swim or drown” currency. You either learn to swim with the best or you will go down all right. Strong currencies come to those who swim hard, not to those who sit at the board of the swimming pool complaining about how cold the water is whilst looking at the girls, and insult the swimming trainer who tells them they must seriously move their ass or leave already.
I have lived and worked in three European Countries. I have seen so many examples of efficiency and inefficiency, seriousness and populism, best candidate hired or the mistress of the manager, that I could write a book. And I have dealt with Greek companies, too. And could not believe my eyes.
You drink all the kool-aid you want.
I will keep my brains switched on.
You either know things, or you don't. You either accept reality, or you live in a fantasy world in which reality is so cruel to you, and there must be a conspiracy of bad Jews, avid bankers and cruel Freemasons against your good, innocent self.
Undoubtedly, the Greek belong to the latter group. They just do not accept reality. They actually never did, seen how they could get away with it for so long. This time the game is (more or less) up.
If you know things, you know as a fact (something, therefore, with which I will not waste my time) that the Greek governments – of every colour – have swindled both their entrance in the euro – faking a compliance with Maastricht criteria that was never there in the first place – and their continued adherence to the same criteria for a long, long time.
The swindle continued – had to continue – in the following years, because if a swindle brought you certain advantages you won't suddenly become honest because you got away with the swindle; and if the new situation forces you to behave differently you will prefer to do what you already did: cheat. The Greek Governments – of all colours – kept beautifying for years the statistical data in order to reduce the scale of their deficit in absolute numbers, and to inflate the growth of the economy in order to let the deficit/GDP ratio appear compliant, more or less, with the EU criteria.
As for every account swindler, reality sooner or later had to catch up with them. For Greece, the moment of truth came in 2009, when Brussels officials decided to get to Athens en masse and conduct a thorough review of how much Ouzo went in the official accounts of the Greek government.
The Greek Government, always faithful to themselves, prevented the scandal as much as possible with The Big Fat Greek Surprise: the announcement that (cough) there was, in fact, some (cough) slight mistake and the Greek deficit did not amount to 3.7% of the GDP, but rather to (cough) 12.5%. Read these figures again. And again. And again. This 2009 announcement was nothing less than the open admission (as much as a Greek would make it) of the biggest public accounts fraud ever perpetrated by a sovereign state against other states, and allowing it to swindle their entry into an exclusive club giving right to, inter alia, extremely low interest rates due to the fiscal responsibity of… other people. A swindle that went on for many years, certainly a decade.
What the Greek government did for many, many years is worthy of a tin-pot African Country, and yours truly does not doubt in the least it would have gone on forever if they had been allowed to do so. Never was one so-called civilised country so determined to have their cake, eat it, cheating as they do so, and blame everyone else for their lack of basic integrity. And no, don't blame government officials. An entire country, collectively considered, is obviously playing this game.
Don't insult your intelligence pretending that there was only one Greek voter who, in 2009, did not know what had happened and why. Do you think they chose to finally enter the path of financial virtue and fiscal seriousness that was required of them, now, very urgently? Do you think they would accept the fact that if you want to be in the Strong Currency Club you have to follow the Hard Membership Rules? If you do, you don't know the Greek (I do, out of both business and private dealings. They just take your breath away. No, I don't care if you're offended, either. I choose reality).
The game of blaming others for their frauds, and of accusing others of being “cruel” because they urged them to stick to the rules, now began in earnest. As the word “Grexit” became to be pronounced worldwide, starting from 2010 the Greek began the usual game of stalling, lying, crying, deceiving, and threatening bankruptcy. The game of every debtor who can't cope with the simple, brutal fact that he is spending too much and he must reduce spending. But then again, this kind of debtor can never reduce spending. It is indispensable to spend too much. It's your fault, not his, because you insist in being repaid.
“I can't do what you ask of me. I am poor, you see, and so little. But you, Germany, and your friends, you are so big, and so rich. I will be able to live out of you and your friends indefinitely, surely? Yes, I will do what I am absolutely forced to do. But it will be too little and too late, because I still expect you, rich Germany and friends, to pay for my swindles, my corruption, my populism, my lack of responsibility, and my fight against reality”.
Unfortunately, the like of Merkel made everything they could to help the swindlers. In part, they certainly thought they could bend them to their will. In part, they feared the loss of credibility for themselves if the EU project (remember: the Euro is part of a far bigger machine) had been exposed as a dream, or rather a nightmare.
But mind, it would be the height of folly to blame them for the sin of the Greeks, now bearing – again – more threats and more vague, useless promises. Realistically, immediate kick out was not in the cards. An epochal change like that would have never been countenanced by the mainstream voters; least of all, by those who say, now, that the Greek should not have been helped then. I am, actually, glad we only needed five years to come to this point, and I give the merit not to the German representatives, but to the German people: the honest workers and taxpayers who have had enough of this scandal, and won't (hopefully) allow this sort of collective scrounging anymore.
Again: it was utterly unrealistic to expect Greece to be kicked out in 2010. The same hypocrites who now say that Greece should not have been helped for so long are the same ones who said in 2010 that Greece could not be so cruelly abandoned. You know the drill: it's either too soon to act, or too late. With people who live above their means it is always so: you are cruel if you don't help them, and when you help them it is your fault that you did. That they need to repay their debt, will never be admitted.
Unfortunately for the Greek, their basic strategy (I will get away with an awful lot, because the other Euro Governments will not risk the end of the project and the financial earthquake for little me; so they will just pay for the wayward little brother as he reforms himself as little as strictly necessary) did not pay out. Years of extremely painful financial discipline (Italy brought down its deficit from around 10% to around 3% of GDP in just a few years, and has been on the whole fiscally virtuous since; at the cost of great sacrifice) have now trained even traditionally undisciplined Countries to think that if they (the Italians) can other (the Greek) can, too; and if they cannot or want not, they should say it and be done with it; and let's see if the world outside of the club is kinder to them.
Greece could have been helped if the Greek voters had been willing to help themselves; but this would have involved a measure of re-adjusting themselves to reality that they were never ready to accept because hey, I am so little, and you are so German.
This mentality was demonstrated (motus in fine velocior) in 2015, when things finally came to a head. First, this bunch of deluded children sent to power a bunch of deluded leftists, thinking in best Greek tradition that if you deny reality, reality will certainly change to accommodate you. Then, they even voted for the “no” to the EU plan, showing a huge finger to those who have been footing their bills for fifteen years and are doing – and have been doing – far more than they should to help them. Only scarcely 40% of the Greek seem to look at reality straight in the eyes and recognise that the time of swindling, crying, accusing and even insulting has gone. For the others, it is denial to the end. Germany is so rich, it's unjust they should not profit of this.
Will the Greek get away with it again? Unfortunately, I fear that they will get out of this (their) mess infinitely more than they deserve. The fact is, if Greece is kicked out of the Euro and (very possibly) of the EU, the nightmare of One Europe will be gone for good. To the extent that the electorate in countries like Germany allow their representatives to get away with it, some kind of make believe that the Greek are truly doing their homework and have learnt their lesson might well suffice; after, of course, the drama necessary for the Greek Government to force his own voting children to accept the strictly unavoidable, and for the Kanzlerin & Co to show they really, really mean it, when they actually don't.
It'll never work, of course. The Euro will continue to brutally grind inefficient, corrupt economies poisoned with populism like the Greek one. Expect more pain down the way. Expect more pain even if the Greek should have their gift of – absurdly – 30% of a debt contracted by lying and swindling simply forgotten. They are in this mess because they are inefficient, populist, corrupted and at war with reality. The more gifts you make them, the more they will feel justified in keep behaving as they did.
Long term, Greece only has two alternatives: shut up and do what they are told, and try to become a better Country; of go back to the Drachma and sink in an ocean of South American inflation, overspending, Bergoglian rhetoric, and more corruption.
Forty percent of them seem to have got the message. The vast majority continue to dream.
Good luck, Greece.
And (hopefully) good riddance.