Author Archives: Mundabor
Frankie Boy has, once again, made an ass of himself trying to look all modern and worldly.
Homosexuality is not a crime, he says. But it is a sin, he says.
He is wrong on both counts. The ignorance of this man never ceases to amaze.
The crime thing is a straw man argument. I do not know of any Catholic Country (when such Countries still existed; V II saw to that that they don’t anymore) which criminalises homosexuality, that is: which trials and puts someone to jail for the mere fact of being a pervert.
In fact, I am positive that Catholic Countries traditionally only punished the act of sodomy, not the condition (that is: the sexual perversion) of homosexuality. You see: a condition is not an action, it is not something you do, it is something you are. May it well be that, say, the homosexual has sinned many times on his way to festering his perversion into the “born that way” fantasy; still, the law never punished the being, but always the doing, the acting upon the perversion. Similarly, the Church would call a homosexual that does not act upon his perversion still a pervert, but not – in this at least – a sinner.
In fact, I am pretty sure that another fact stays: that in Catholic Countries the act was, generally, only made a criminal offence when scandal was given. This means that the homo who took every care not to advertise his horrible condition would not be liable to criminal prosecution for the mere sinful act. This was so, if memory serves, even in the Papal States!
Francis does not know what he is talking about. But he knows that he wants to look all modern and understanding, even as he thrashes those horrible people, the Catholics.
Mission failed, Frankie boy.
Next time you want to insult Catholics, at least try to inform yourself beforehand.
Where Francis got his fantasy of the “crime”, he should say. If this is something that applies to Islam he should say that, too. He doesn’t.
Francis is clearly using a huge strawman argument here, likely in order to make the social order of our Catholic past past Catholic look bad.
I think he is not just merely, as we say in Italy, “giving air to his teeth”. No. Not him. Rather, Francis is deliberately trying to sabotage Catholic culture. That he fails in that, too, is due to the embarrassing ignorance this man continuously displays.
The same goes for the “sinful” stuff. Here, it seems to me that there is not only crass ignorance at play, but rather the refusal to accept the reality of sexual perversion, because “who is he to judge”.
This must, also, be seen in the light of Francis’ home-baked theology, that there is no sin a priest has no obligation to absolve for, even if there is no contrition and repentance. Therefore, homosexuality is now “downgraded” to something God will automatically forgive; so hey, keep sinning and say to your confessor “I have sinned, father, and I will sin again”. It’s all fine, saith the Francis. You are just a sinner like everybody else. You will be fine, because an eternal punishment is not in the logic of the Gospel. Plus, who are we to judge?
Is the fight against gender madness working? It appears, it says here, that it is. But I am not so optimistic.
First of all, the article points out that several US States even mandate gender indoctrination. These are no micro states, all the West Coast is included. It is clear that some local revolts here and there are not going to change the tide.
More importantly still, the article makes one situation clear: woke young teachers will become more and more the norm; reaction to them will, as is always the case, depend on the engagement of the parents. It is not difficult to see that this fight promises to be partially successful at best.
What is the solution, you will ask?
My solution is to tackle the problem from the root.
You see, the problem is not gender so-called theory. The problem is wrong thinking. Wrong thinking starts way before gender so-called theory. Wrong thinking starts when the parents concede the first defeat. Dealing with truth is a difficult thing. You start to accommodate and make compromises, you will soon have a teacher with blue hair trying to persuade your boy that he is a girl.
The problem starts when people start saying that they don’t care about people’s sexual habits. It gets worse when they start using the word “gay” without meaning “debonair”. It gets worse still when they start voting for the homosexual politician because “he is good”.
No, he is not good. He is a homo. How can he be good?
The normalisation of degeneracy has, as inescapable consequence, the normalisation of more and more degeneracy. It has to be so. These degenerates, addicted to their own filth, will not stop winning just because you hope that they have been given “enough”. It will never be enough.
How many Americans – outside of the rigid Catholic education system, when it is rigid – are “ok” with an openly homosexual teacher in their children’s classroom? Have, then, such parents have any right to be surprised, when the drag queen “visits” the school? Do they not see that they are part of the problem?
Sexual degeneracy is like crack cocaine. You can’t have just a bit of it. You either reject it completely, or it will screw you and your family completely.
It makes sense that it be so. Why would Jesus allow us to start betraying Him and get to decide when the betrayal end? It does not work that way. Iniquity begets iniquity, and the sins of the fathers shall be visited upon the sons. The parents of the girl confronted with the huge dangling prick in the locker room likely profess “inclusion” of “the gays” and would not want to appear “rigid” in the matter. The dangling prick is a problem they have heavily contributed to create. They have, in fact, invited it every step of the way. That they are surprised now shows a remarkable, if diffused, lack of insight.
You can’t be wrong by half, same as you can’t be “neoconservative”. You start being wrong, you will unavoidably slide down and down, towards “preferred pronouns”. Conservatism requires dedication and integrity. If it’s just a way to pay less taxes, it is destined to fail.
Next time you hear a father complaining about gender theory, you can do much worse than to ask:
“What’s your opinion about homosexuality, Sir?”
This article from Big Serge will give more sensible information on what is happening in the Ukraine than weeks of reading the Western Baghdad Bob homo information mafia.
Together with other sound outlets which I have mentioned in the past, this gives you an incontrovertible picture of what is really happening in the Ukraine. Everything available with a browser and a search engine, or from YouTube.
The Western narrative is starting to crumble, but the amount of lies is still staggering. Why is that, will you ask? My answer is: because the modern consumers of news are largely not interested in facts, but in feelings. They will look for the information they want to read, and will discard the information that goes against it. Most news outlets being commercial enterprises, they will simply write what their public wants to read and forget journalistic integrity in the process.
Ideology will do the rest. At the BBC, nobody in his right (if likely perverted) mind will dare to propose a series of in-depth articles as to why 1. Russia is winning big, and 2. There is no way to stop the tide , bar a nuclear war.
It is, in fact, a self-imposed censorship, that kicks in when the emotional investment in a narrative makes it impossible to accept that one has been, very simply, 100% wrong from day one: the massacre of civilians in the Donbas, the history of the region, the health of Putin, the ability of the Russian army, the corruption and dictatorship of the Ukrainian Government, the Nazi infiltration of the Ukrainian society, and so forth.
This makes the Western audience – as already seen with the “vaccines” – extremely easy to manipulate. Once the emotional narrative is shaped, this narrative will remain impervious to facts for a very long time. It’s as if Dr Goebbels had found a way to do without the Gestapo.
The West is full of Jojo Rabbits, circa March 1945.
At some point, as it happened for Jojo, the wall of illusions will crumble; but most people will notice it only when a brick falls straight on their head. The vast ignorance in military matters – extremely common in the new generations, as opposed to the time I grew up in – vastly helps the propaganda machine, and the one I will never forget is the “30 billion dollar a day” the operation was allegedly costing the allegedly terminally ill Putin, whilst the “Ghost of Kiev” was enthralling Western audiences with his courageous feats.
Meanwhile, some Western corners are unable to accept that Soledar has fallen, and that Artemovsk (Bakhmut) seems destined to follow. They still think there is fighting going on Soledar. It must the Ghost of Soledar against everybody else.
Keep your eyes well open. Be critical. Don’t accept information that is not corroborated by many real world signals (as Big Serge does).
Be aware that no institutional outlets has an interest in informing you.
They are merely selling you a product, like margarine or butter, and they will give their client the taste they know will sell.
So, is Pete Butt Igieg married?
Father Georgina seems very proud of the fact that the law allows him to call himself “married”. To claim otherwise would be, he says, to “ignore reality”.
But.. is it so?
If the law allows me to call myself a “Big Furry Bear”, does this make me a big furry bear? Certainly not! I am not a bear, I am not furry, and I am not even big. I have not become any of those things when I received the official United Clowndom certificate that says that.
Granted, I will have (and that is a fact) the legal position that the lawmaker attributes to a person (who is not a bear, not furry, and not big) calling himself a big furry bear (for example, the right to put on my business card “Mundabor, Big Furry Bear”. But this will not create a reality, it will merely create a legal fiction. There will be no bear, ever.
Father Georgina – who should remember, at times, that he is a priest – should very well know that truths are things. Reality cannot be changed by legislative action. Legislative action can only give a legal veneer to absurdity.
Say, someone is born a man. Would he become a woman because, at some point, he gets a passport with “Ms” written on it? Most certainly not. What we have there, is a man to whom the legal system of his country has allowed to call himself a woman. But a man he still is, a man he will always be, and a man he will die.
The same applies to marriage. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. God made it so. God made a truth that is unchangeable. The reality of this truth cannot be modified by a legislative body more than the reality of 2+2=4 could. Again: Father Georgina, who is a priest, knows this very well.
Truths are things. What goes against self-evident truth is folly. The legal support for folly does not make the folly sane, it merely makes it legal.
If Father Georgina were to undergo a so-called sex change operation (not unlikely at some point, if you ask me) and be legally allowed to call himself “Ms Georgina Martin”, *reality* would dictate that he would still be a man and still have holy orders (however unworthily, and even if “defrocked”). Both his sex and his orders are unchangeable realities.
So yeah, Father Georgina:
Let us not ignore reality.
I was watching this video on the always excellent Gloria TV. A comment delightfully mocked the deluded, conflict-seeking (wants a female only gym, then he feels “devastated” they tell him that’s for women), arrogant, ugly freak show.
Another comment had the usual “we as Christians should not ridicule people”.
“This is why we lose”, I instantly thought, and I don’t know if the writer is a paid shill of the enemy or just a confused person.
Mockery has always been an extremely effective weapon. When you want to eradicate abominations without having to resort to concentration camps, mockery is certainly an excellent, wonderfully non-violent way of doing it.
Strongly Catholic society have also been, traditionally, very big on mockery. The ones who can’t do mockery are those permanently bleeding hearts for whom feeling good is more important than having a Christian society around them.
Social control is achieved through mockery first. The mockery is not only a beautiful counter to the attack, but it has a powerful deterrent effect, preventing other would-be attackers from behaving in the same way.
Let the fat freak be buried in mockery, then. Stupid man brought it on himself every step of the way. If it helps him to understand the madness of his ways, so much the better. If it doesn’t, well that’s his own problem, not ours.
You are “compassionate” to these people, they will destroy every vestige of Christianity, and your freedoms to booth, in no time.
But no, there must always be the sensitive useful idiots of the enemy around. They confuse being charitable with being nice. It’s like talking to a Presbyterian. In fact, I suspect that a lot of these people have Protestant roots, or are otherwise influenced by a Protestant environment. They have made of niceness a religion.
It is certainly mean to mock a person for something beyond his control, like a big physical deformity he was born with. But mocking someone for his political statements and life choices has always been fair game. And if I can mock Biden for being an ass, why can I not mock this bigoted freak show for being a bigoted freak show?
“But Mundabor, you don’t Un-der-staand! He is mentally ill!”
Oh, I wholeheartedly agree! So many people like that nowadays! But you see, as long as this madman can vote, go around provoking, and threaten your Christian values and your freedoms, I will see his madness as his own, instead of my problem.
Our ancestors have fought Crusades.
We are afraid of mocking a trannie.
I have written about this many times. We are now seeing the “first” signs. It is happening, and it will be extremely ugly.
As “the West”, we really have lost the plot. we have become stupid at a level unheard of, possibly in the entire history of humanity. We have forgotten not only Christianity, but common sense.
Which one, of the past generations of both Christians and heathens, would have allowed perverts to “adopt” children? What had to happen in order for perversion to be considered normal and healthy for children to grow up in? What kind of madness made us forget that, it being extremely well known that most pedophiles are homos, allowing homos to adopt children would lead to a great number of cases of child abuse?
These ones here were so perverted, and so stupid, that they even put their victim at the disposal of their perverted friends! The sheer abomination, the scale of outright satanic power exhibited by these two is mind boggling.
Note that they were found with the usual “love is love” rubbish in the house, and we now fully understand what all these prophets of “tolerance” mean by it. They were also, of course, activists, because even my cat knows that activism gives you a degree of protection, if enough popularity is achieved, and exposure to a lot of prey from the start.
I want to vomit.
But then I reflect that this scum is helped every step of the way by the prophets of inclusions, people who, when they are even not paedos themselves, certainly make the work of the devil day in, and day out.
Again: this is not only forgetfulness and rejection of Christianity. This is utter lunacy. I can’t imagine any other place allowing this in the history of humanity, but Sodom and Gomorrah, and situations very similar to those.
I make a very easy prediction: in the next decades, such cases will become very numerous, and will start a wave of lawsuits against the authorities that have allowed these abominations to happen.
Notice that the mainstream media does not seem interested in deepening the issue. One wonders why. One wonders how many journalists that should actually cover this are homosexuals with inconfessabile fantasies, or worse than fantasies, themselves.
Remember: the Fag Movement was at the forefront of the push for the abolition of the age of consent. They just can’t see pedophilia as bad, so perverted they are (even those who are not actual paedos). It’s Satan’s vomit wherever you look. It is expressed by constant smiling, fashionable words, a lot of hypocrisy, and a big dollop of brimstone.
But Putin is bad, see? He wants to protect children from these people.
We will, then, call him Mad Vlad, as that rag called “The Sun” does.
Remind me to pray my rosary for Vladimir Putin today. The guy who understands what’s going on.
I think he also understands the nature of Hunter Biden, and of the powerful people around him.
I keep reading about this thing with the “joy”. It looks like the church is a joy dispenser. You are Catholic, you have joy.
Here. Have some joy.
It wasn’t so when I was growing up. “Vale of tears” was more frequently mentioned than joy. In fact, people expected a lot of stuff (not only life in general, but parts of it like being in a marriage or having children) as something that, actually, will require sacrifice and cause suffering, possibly suffering extremely difficult to bear like the loss of a child. The downplaying of the sacrifice and suffering of life causes all sorts of issues, like people (and I have heard that more than once) losing the faith because of a horrible bereavement (like the above mentioned loss of a child).
They promised me joy. I got immense grief. Something’s very wrong here.
But let us stay on the joy part and let us charitably assume that all those priests who never mention the vale of tears mean, by joy, the serenity that comes from a robust hope and a solid trust in the proper working of Providence. Let us imagine that this “joy” is what causes a Catholic to walk through life knowing that Christ is in charge and will properly care for His sheep. In that case, I must lament that I have seen nothing of it during the p…p….p….ppppandemic.
Most priests have not only run to give in to the panic. Worse than that, they have amplified it, positively encouraging the sheep to obsess about it, and to keep obsessing when the world had moved on lest they look “uncharitable” or not obsessed enough with the fantasies of their sheep. I remember many months in which only myself and, at most, a couple of others dared to attend without a mask, when the world out there had largely got rid of them. This went together with the invitation to stay out of Dodge if you are single, so the family near you would not think you are intent on killing them because of your silly, selfish desire to do something as trivial as attending Mass, or with the constant parish newsletter reinforcement of how horribly, horribly bad the situation was.
“Please stay safe!!”
Thanks, I prefer to stay sane.
If all these people had had the “joy” that is so often mentioned, they would have taken sensible, reasonable precautions, but they would have gone on with their life, knowing that Providence arranges everything beautifully and going to Mass is more important to them than worrying about germs.
There was, at least in my neck of the wood, nothing like that. Those joyful people proved, when tested, extremely prone to shitting their pants, big time, and Father kept telling them their trousers can never be brown enough.
There isn’t much “joy” in going around with a diaper around one’s mouth, constantly worrying about germs, and thinking that your survival, or the one of those near you depends on a thin piece of cotton that will not stop a fart, but should suddenly stop a virus.
This “joy” stuff, as it is currently practiced, is quite pernicious. It gives people the wrong outlook on life, and does not equip them to deal with difficult times. It is, also, largely emotional and not adequate to cope with the reality of life, in which we need to constantly have in front of our eyes not only the reality of suffering, but the value and purpose of it, and the need to pray so that we get, of it, only the strictly necessary.
Still: it will not be a walk in the park. It was never supposed to be.
A sandwich maker in New York, or San Francisco, makes x number of sandwiches in a month. He lives hand to mouth and is unable to save any significant amount of money.
Another sandwich maker in Samara, or Kazan, makes the exact same amount of sandwiches. His living conditions are, likely, not dissimilar from his US colleague.
Both “make” the same stuff, pay rent, eat, go out a bit, eat a pizza with their friends on a Saturday. Their life is largely the same. Their output is largely the same.
But the US guy counts, in the GDP calculation, likely 4 or 5 times more, perhaps even a bigger multiple than that. Still, the output is the same.
It goes further than this. Two New Yorker/ San Francisco consultants get paid insane amounts of money for their work, and then spend insane amounts of money for rent and going out. They don’t have many counterparts in Russia. Their Russian counterpart is likely to make stuff instead of being a provider of services, because the Russian economy is way more geared towards making stuff than towards providing services. The difference in GDP between the San Francisco consultant and the factory supervisors in Togliatti is likely to be even bigger. In this case, however, the first two guys don’t produce anything that can be used in a war, the second two very well do, or can very rapidly do.
Some “sectors” of the economy just don’t compare. If health care is 6% of GDP in Russia, and 16% of GDP in the US, a tenth of the US GDP has just, for military purposes, evaporated.
This is, simply explained, why Russia is a superpower, but the Western media keep telling you that this is a Country with “the GDP of Florida”. The GDP of Florida is, if in your Country a sandwich costs 1/10 than in Florida, already the GDP of… ten Floridas if this GDP is measured not in dollar, but in stuff produced. Already this changes things significantly.
But it gets (for the West) much, much worse than that. The “diversity consultant” at $1000/hour in San Francisco produces nothing that the US can throw into a war, the factory supervisor in Togliatti will be organising the production of guns in four weeks’ time.
It gets, however, worse than that (for the West). The cannons produced in Togliatti will be extremely cheap. The energy and the ore will come from a state-owned mine. The factory that makes the guns will be state-owned or working at the direction and under the control of the Government, at barely-over-cost prices. The specialised personnel (from the workers to the tool specialists to the supervisors to the engineers) will be available in great quality and great quantity.
In the US, there will be no state-owned mines but, more crucially, no specialised workers, no tools, not even the factory culture. There will be, however, a huge quantity of service workers, professionals, consultants, code writers, and millions of mainly dark skinned people who are basically unfit or unwilling, or just not accustomed, to even work. The weapon systems the US have bought will have cost improbable amount of money due to the stunning research cost (again: services!) to make them. The very specialised workforce to produce more of them will be very difficult to find and very time-consuming to train. The weapon lobby will resist any attempt to be ordered what to produce, and at what cost, unless official war breaks out. They will, rather, sell more of the over-engineered, over-priced stuff there are no factories and workers to produce in the first place.
But… It gets worse than this.
Russia is even more self-sufficient that the USA. Russia simply has to cut the export of uranium, rare earth, platinum, and another couple of materials to plunge the entire West into chaos, with the USA likely bullying Western Europe into submission, taking all they need and plunging those countries into a crisis that will devastate them and seriously wound the US economy.
Don’t get me started on the food. So, let us leave food aside.
Russia produces more, and better, engineers than the US. Around the same steel with 40% of the population. Five times the aluminium. The last two are the most important materials in time of war. The first metrics indicate the ability to convert this production to war use by minimising the disruption for the domestic economy.
Put all this together, and you will realise the stupidity of the “GDP of Spain” narrative. Russia is a proper, bona fide superpower. The Western rulers are just too dumb to recognise it, and this huge mistake is exactly why they launched in that suicidal enterprise, “the sanctions”.
It gets, however, worse than this.
The US cannot easily recruit. Their youth are too fat, too ignorant, and increasingly dismissive of their trannie army. The Russian mobilise 300,000 former soldiers, and get 100,000 volunteers assaulting their recruitment offices. These are all highly motivated people, not minorities from Philadelphia barely knowing where left and right are.
It gets, however, worse than this.
Both countries have safe boundaries, but the US keep hundreds of thousands of soldiers in hundreds of military bases abroad. These soldiers are, very often, there to prop the local US puppets in power. They can’t be taken away without causing “regime change” (of the undesired type) in several more or less tin-pot vassal Countries. Russia can throw a vast amount of soldiers in any fight, because Mongolia and China aren’t a real threat. The US have to choose which tin-pot governments can be allowed to go down.
It gets worse.
Decades of PC culture have caused the US to lose military technological supremacy. The Russians are now far in front in what really counts: missiles that destroy ships, and anti aerial weapons that minimise enemy damage. They also literally dwarf the Collective West in, well, stuff: main battle tanks, howitzers, armoured vehicles, ammo production, etc.
It gets worse.
Russia is fighting against the US with an extremely frightful weapon: the replacement of the US Dollar as world currency. Let that happen, and the age of huge deficits without inflation will grind to a halt. The consequences will be felt by most Americans very clearly.
Don’t get me wrong. The US are, and will remain, an extremely powerful Country. But they are not anywhere towering over Russia. They are likely even, all things considered, well inferior to Russia as military power.
In exchange, they have 72 genders, and trannies in government.
Of all people Catholics try to make themselves beautiful glorifying, Martin Luther King seems one of the most improbable.
Even my cat knows the guy was a serious, extremely dedicated philanderer. I am now informed he was, on occasion, violent, too. Let us leave aside for a moment the explosive detail of the Black guy beating White prostitutes, and let us focus on the matter at hand: nobody can even begin of boast of any (even for protestant standards) saintly behaviour, who behaved in that way.
On the contrary, it seems to me that King’s serious sins (of which, I am sure, he was fully aware, because he was an intelligent man) were the very reason that propelled his social activism; because, as I have explained many times, religious professionals (Catholic or otherwise), when they know they are utterly deficient in what is expected of them in their role, start finding for themselves other roles that help them feel that they are good guys. Thus, the social justice preacher, or the enviro-priest, and all the rest.
I might, of course, be wrong, and it can that MLK’s serial philandering started after a vast notoriety was achieved, whilst he was quite the chaste preacher beforehand. But I doubt it, because I have seen too many examples to the contrary.
But let us come back to the saintly behaviour, and let us reflect on this: that the idea of a Protestant going straight to heaven at death is totally extraneous to Catholic thinking. Yes, certainly many Protestants are saved and land, at some point, in heaven, and even Mr Feeney agreed with this, renouncing his heresy, before he died. But this does not mean that you have two ways of becoming a saint at death, one of which is the Protestant one.
I wish MLK salvation with all my heart. I even think he was well-intentioned, before sinking in that marsh of proto-communist, bleeding heart activism that was already his mark when he died (I see here another sign of a strong and easily misled ego at work: when a mission is accomplished, you have to find another one that gives you fame and women). But I cannot avoid a strong sense of discomfort when I see Catholics talking of their “good Protestants” and completely forgetting the main fact: that they were Protestant.
Many Protestants are, of course, saved. But they are not saved because they were Protestant. They are saved notwithstanding the fact that they were Protestant. By God’s grace, they enter the Church just before death, even if they were – let me emphasise this – out of her their entire life. If you are cut off from the Church, how can you develop those qualities that make a living saint? You will be, at best, an excellent candidate for purgatory; which, honestly speaking, is not more than what I realistically hope for myself.
We need to stop our wishy-washy mingling of “good guys” irrespective of their religious affiliation, and start the process of recovery of the difference between a Catholic and a Protestant as the main trait that differentiate the one from the other.
I wonder how many priests would want to base a homily on this.
I am, today, proud to say to my readers that I have made a very important discovery. I will be praised for centuries to come. My name will never die.
You are welcome.
The discovery is that the human DNA has fundamentally changed in the last 50 to 60 years.
We are, basically, different humans now from what we were just half a century ago.
I can prove it, of course.
Up to just a few years ago, a person was born either a man or a woman. It was very easy to recognise this, because men and women had different physical characteristics, even different reproductive organs. But this is not so anymore.
Now, human nature has changed. One can look like a man, and be a woman, or look like a woman, and be a man! In fact, the genetic modification of human beings has become so strong, that the same person could be a man today, and a woman tomorrow! I know that, because the BBC and the Democrat Party have told me so. It’s easy, then, to come to the revolutionary conclusion that all is rooted in our evolving DNA.
Of course, some people will try to prove to you that I am wrong. They might say, for example, that humans can never change, because if humans changed we would need a new religion. But you see, this shows exactly that their premise is wrong.
Humans have changed. Therefore, we need a new religion that takes account of the changes! We cannot, in 2023, use the same religion that we used in 1953, when we were physically, genetically different from today. It would be like asking a light bulb to burn oil!
Nor should anyone be allowed to tell you that the DNA, qua DNA, can never change, because any change would necessitate the creation of DNA components which are not there, therefore creating something from nothing. This is obviously false. Once we accept the truthfulness of evolution (which does not need to be explained, as I have heard it on the BBC) then all the rest inevitably follows from it. Therefore, DNA does evolve, and this explain the men/women we have today!
This, my dear readers, is The Explanation Of Everything.
It explains why Father Georgina looks like a man, but speaks and behaves like a woman! It explains why Pope Francis The Swearing receives every week in the Vatican the avant- garde of the human evolution, the t-t-t-transgender! It explains the necessity to rethink absolutely everything, from rigid pronouns to rigid toilet separation, to every aspect of the language! Life on earth will never be the same, and we need to be ready!
There. I have now provided the long-awaited Explanation Of Everything.
We are not getting collectively mad.
It’s simply the way our DNA is evolving!
In this respect, if you can’t find my blog with a web search tomorrow, try searching for Mundaborina.
You never know how my dna could change tomorrow.
Every now and then, hatred backfires.
This time, it happened to a chap called Eric Geller, a cybersecurity journalist at Politico.
Mr Geller writes about cybersecurity, not about religion. As a Politico journalist, he had to be well aware of their policy about tweets. You would think that, this having to do with his job, he pays attention to it.
Well, er, no.
The corpse of Pope Benedict was not yet cold when this guy, blinded by hatred and virtue-signalling leftist zeal, wrote an extremely vile, libellous tweet about him. The tweet profile has (actually: had) his name and Politico affiliation all right.
Politico is not a conservative outlet, at all, and I suspect that virtue-signalling Mr Geller thought he could violate company policy with impunity because hey, shooting at a Pope is an activity nobody will question. Sadly for him, Politico’s standards are, for now, still higher than that.
It is, of course, not the first time these things happen. However, it seems to me that they normally happen to people who either are not educated enough to understand what they are doing (say: the rapper sending out the libellous tweet or YouTube video), or are so immersed in their world of political hate (because they work in it) that they don’t reflect that they are crossing a red line. This was was, however, a journalist for cybersecurity. You would think he can let Benedict rest in peace. Alas, he couldn’t.
This tells us the hate that pervades the mind of your average leftist in 2023. It’s not the writing of the tweet in itself that is shocking (a lot of people have such poison in their minds). It is the fact that, in this case, the hatred was such, that all inhibitions linked with doing something that you know could cost you the job failed to materialise!
Nor is this guy the fearless “freedom of speech activist”. Not at all. He deleted the tweet and admitted it was wrong. This clearly indicates that what was his undoing was, in fact, the boundless desire to look good showing his venom.
The end of the story: Mr Geller is now “freelancer”, meaning he is unemployed; nobody will remember, tomorrow, what his slander even was about; he got rid of a certainly very remunerative job, and Benedict does not care about the stuff that venomous cybersecurity journalists write of him.
A last consideration I would like to make before leaving you: what hides behind the man’s hatred? It is merely cheap vanity and desire to look good with your atheist friends? Or is Mr Geller – just thinking – a member of another, shall we say, tribe? Or is he, perhaps – just perhaps – afflicted by a horrible perversion that, once upon a time, was not even mentioned in polite society? Why would, otherwise, a cybersecurity journalists who knows his company has a Twitter/social media policy behave that way?
One has to pose himself the question, because the hatred that is on show here is quite remarkable. It’s either totally blinding vanity, or the devil at work in a more sinister way.
Enjoy your free time, Mr Geller.
Hopefully you’ll stay away from Twitter.
Soledar has fallen. Whilst this is not yet officially official, the town is surrounded, there are around 500 Ukrainians soldiers that could not be evacuated, 120-130 of them have already surrendered and negotiations are ongoing in some pockets of resistance, whilst a small number seems intentioned to keep fighting (not for long, of course). When many of my readers read this, the situation will have progressed already.
Make no mistake: the loss of Soledar spells the end for Bakhmut, now surrounded to 70% and clearly not defendable. The loss of Bakhmut, which is sure to come in the next weeks (how many weeks, it will depend from Ukrainian masochism) will, in turn, be fatal to Seversk, which is clearly untenable once the front has pulverised in the south. This is a dagger firmly planted in the back of the entire Ukrainian defensive line.
The disaster is clearly visible to anyone who is not blind. One who loves to pretend to be such is, as usual, Mr Arestovich, now intent at minimising and downplaying the loss. It’s like being stabbed in the abdomen and saying “it’s a scratch”.
It is Baghdad Bob at work. But I suspect Mr Arestovich is embezzling way more than Baghdad Bob ever could. Therefore, all is fine in his world, at least for now.
Some, in the West, are beginning to say what should not be said. Condoleezza Rice has already understood, as has Robert Gates. In polite word, they describe how screwed the Ukraine is. They are biased, of course, but they get the gist.
Putin will not lose. There will be a Russian victory or a nuclear war, Watson.
Many, I think, understand by now where this is going. Few, for now, dare to speak, as the Ukraine is never slow in blasting everyone who dares to doubt the Luminous Victorious Destiny of the Brave People Of Ukraine. But the few will become more and more as the months pass, and at some point the realisation will set in that this massive virtue signalling operation was doomed from the start, and had zero point zero chances of achieving the openly stated aim (= subversion of Russia from the outside, as already done with the Ukraine from the inside).
Soledar’s fall shows that the Emperor has no clothes, no plan, no weapon’s, no ammo, no brain, and no way out. It will take time, but we’ll get there in the end. Putin is patient, and General Surovikin seems a real Battlefield Buddha.
Many, as of today, still choose to live in fantasy land. The next months will care to wake them up.
I expect you to remember that this little effort told you things as they are from the start.
When people refuse to see reality, other people die on the battlefield. The sooner the people in the West understand the nature of what is happening, the sooner this useless carnage will end.
Pray for the soldiers, even the Ukrainian ones, and their families.
May we all, one day, rejoice in heaven together.
Cardinal Pell has just died, apparently after a hip operation (it seems reasonable to be, full anaesthesia at 81 is no walk in the park). May he rest in peace, and his martyrdom bring him great joy, one day, in heaven.
The man spent 13 months of detention, and the related worldwide humiliation, because of accusations that, once the details emerged, appeared patently absurd. Imagine what it must be, as an aged Cardinal, to face detention. I am not the only one, I am sure, to suspect that either the accusation or the prosecution were heavily influenced, or I should say motivated, by the fact that the Cardinal was one of the few who, actually, spoke like a Catholic.
But I am not writing about this. I am writing about something else.
A short internet stroll will persuade you or the venomous hate existing against Catholicism.
Get some Twitter comments about the Cardinals, and realise that all those bitter, venomous people insulting and slandering the Cardinal in life and in death would likely unconditionally support the presumption of innocence and the respect for court decisions, when the decisions regard people they like.
Not with Pell, of course. Venom as much as you want. Blank hatred.
Make no mistake: this is hate against the Church, exercised towards a target who, being Catholic clergy, is acceptable to the liberal crowd.
Of course, these are the people blathering about hate all the time.
They will have their reward, and I suspect that, for very many of them, it will be a different one than the reward of this courageous Cardinal.
Rest in peace, Cardinal Pell.
I am confident that, where you are now, there are no haters.
Horrible details are now emerging about the controversial December meeting of Francis with the seminarians, about which I have already reported.
We have now detailed news about:
1. The language he used, and
2. The “duty” of forgiveness.
It seems that, on that day, Francis might have had a couple too many fernet.
’The priest, the seminarian, the minister must be ‘close’. Close to whom? To the girls of the parish? And some of them are, they are close, then they get married, that’s fine”.
What a vulgar joke about a priest’s mistress, more vulgar because from a priest, most vulgar b3cause from the pope.
Just as gravely, several occurrences of “f” word really show the guy is a first-class boor. Try this:
“fucking careerists who fuck up the lives of others”
I have left the entire words, because I want this man’s vulgarity to be known in its entirety. No, don’t tell me “we don’t know”, or “it’s all rumours”. It is now confirmed that several, basically identical reports of the meeting exist. The guy was either at his boorish best, which is extremely grave, or he was drunk. Frankly, I don’t know what is worse.
The forgiveness part is, also, now confirmed verbatim.
From the linked article:
“if we see that there is no intention to repent, we must forgive all. We can never deny absolution, because we become a vehicle for an evil, unjust, and moralistic judgement”.
If you listen to Francis’ newly minter religion, a priest always has to give absolution, irrespective of even repentance and sincere proposit of not sinning anymore in future. If he doesn’t, he is judgmental and moralistic. The dirt that must reside in the mind of this man does not bear thinking
The gravity of this is immediately apparent. It makes one wonder what Francis thinks that Christianity is in the first place. This seems like the kind of thing that makes absolutely everything about religion useless, because if a Catholic has a right to absolution even without repentance, then it seems difficult to see why anybody else should be refused heaven. Plus, if the sacraments are a mockery, then the entire fabric of religion is a mockery, too. This is the kind of stuff a Pope who has long lost the faith – if he ever had it – would say.
Mind, Francis had already given hints of his attitude, and I remember him one mentioning that a faithful might say in the confessional “I will sin again” and still get absolution. But this is more explicit still.
Honestly, I think he might well have been drunk, or at least more than tipsy. I think it because I think that Francis was the same boor every day of his pontificate, but it is now the first time that he uses such language in an official occasion.
That the scandal was great is shown from the fact that, one month later, the story is still around. With right, people are now demanding from the Vatican an official explanation and an official reiteration of Catholic doctrine.
I also allow myself to say that this, once again, confirms a pattern of vulgarity I have already highlighted several times. Remember the Italian “c” word in St Peter’s square? As I often stated, this kind of word does not “escape” a person unless this person is accustomed to use it. A person, and he the Pope, who is able to repeatedly use very vulgar words in front of his own seminarians is, exactly, a person for whom the use of heavy profanities has become so normal, that he will use these utterances – either because propelled by alcohol, or by arrogance – as a matter of course.
If it wasn’t, at least in part, alcohol, then it was 100% arrogance. It was the sober, coldly evil – and childish at the same time – attitude of thinking “I will do this just to show you I can”. This is, again, vintage Francis.
May the Lord free us from this scourge soon, and inspire the Cardinals to give us a successor who at least tries to remedy as much of the damage as he can.
Woke madness has finally reached the UK. Actually, perhaps it was there already, but I wasn’t aware the issue was so virulent.
The message of this short video is quite astonishing:
- Obsess about every word.
- If you don’t, your “mental health” will suffer,
- Therefore, kindly be a bitch to everybody.
- If you think it might just be you being too fussy, you are part of the problem.
- Don’t make compliments to members of minorities, or to people with disabilities.
- Also, never tell anybody he will have to do some work.
As a wider observation, I can tell you that, wherever I have worked in the UK, I have found a very matter-of-fact, down-to-earth atmosphere, totally devoid of racial tensions. In fact, I would say that, as a whole, the Brit have a rather solid attitude to “diversity”. They are also blessedly devoid of excuse-making for criminals, whose skin colour interests exactly nobody.
This should, of course, all change now. The woke troops are on the march. They will teach millions of adolescents that they are *supposed to have grievances*.
Blessedly, the above video does not count the matter of perversion; but you and I understand that this is merely because this kind of indoctrination always happens by degree and, at least in an environment like the British one, you have to proceed cautiously.
Ask Meghan Markle how the Brit reacted to her racial grievances and you will start having an idea of what I am talking about.
More in general, it seems to me that all this desire to be offended is the fruit of the Marxist culture trying to conquer the UK exactly as it is slowly managing to conquer America. Marxism is based on the fundamental struggle between the “oppressor” and the “oppressed”. This is another way to say that, if you are a Marxist, you need to coagulate around you all those who can be recruited as made to feel “alternative” to the “dominant” block. This is the reason why rabid leftist try to coalesce around around them both Muslims and homos, two groups which, once in power, would not get along so well.
Of course, the “dominant” block does not care a straw about your ethnicity, skin colour etc, as they are merely interested in what makes them richer. It is the Marxists who uses all these grievances as Trojan Horses to attack all the institutions of the West, starting with the Church, going through the Family, and ending with Capitalism.
And in fact, a decent Christian (and perhaps even a decent Muslim, of whom I have known more than a couple) would react, in such situation as those described in the video, in the opposite way as the one that is wished.
Perhaps we should all start behaving as the maker of the video suggests: “I was tempted to congratulate for your intelligence but you’re black, therefore it is not appropriate”, or “why do you expect a compliment from me? It’s because you’re blind?”
The first victims of this, though, are the very people who operate in such an environment.
Constant walking on eggshells. Constant apologising. Constant having to agree with the more and more outlandish definitions of “aggression”. Their life must be hell.
Meanwhile, normal people keep behaving normally.
Let us hope that normality carries the day in the end.
The Bishops you have appointed eagerly embrace the heresies of the day. The Cardinals you have appointed shut up when confronted with open, manifest heresy.
Your successor does exactly the same of what you wanted to do, but he has all the energy you never had. You thought he would listen to you, but he certainly doesn’t. In fact, he is at pain to always make clear how different he is from you.
The wave of conversions and vocations that your actions have spurned is gone. Your greatest “achievement”, which you never had the guts to properly enforce, is openly fought against, and you have to see with your own eyes as the attempt at total demolition become public.
Perhaps you thought, in some more honest hour, about how much you could have done, had you decided to die at your place. Perhaps you thought, when your conscience assailed you during sleepless nights, that an 85 years old should not be worried about what he can do for his health as much as what he can do for Christ.
Perhaps you bitterly regretted your step. Perhaps you begged God for forgiveness, for fleeing for fear of the wolfes. Perhaps you understood that those long years watching the demolition of even that little that you did right were a punishment, the amply deserved punishment for the sin of cowardice, for abandoning the post in the hour of the enemy’s assault. Perhaps your tears were bitter, and your sorrow sincere.
But then, why did you praise to the skies the work of your successor? Why did you give not only one, but at least two interviews in which you openly approved of the work of your successor; a circumstance the more humiliating, as your successor never made a mystery of what he thought of your work?
I understand that an open criticism of your successor would have caused a major uproar; but many other ways were open to you – from books to theological articles to interviews – to reiterate the true teaching without openly, undiplomatically pointing the finger to the one who betrayed them.
You did not do any of this. You swam with the flow.
It is easy to say “Jesus, I love you” on the deathbed.
It is far more difficult to show this love in deed, when it hurts.
May you be, one day, in the company of the angels. May the Lord have given you the strength to sincerely repent of both your desertion and your complicity with the work of your successor. May we all, one day, rejoice together in the company of Christ.
But if the 10 years-long punishment hasn’t opened your eyes, I frankly don’t know what would, and what would allow you to die a very eloquent, highly intelligent, very prayerful deserter.
I had the opportunity to watch a short fraction of the funeral of the Pontiff Emeritus. Two things, of this event, struck me the most.
The First: Francis’ girth.
It seems to me that the man keeps getting larger. The camera footage from the side, as he theatrically held his head near the coffin of a man he certainly never liked, and very probably never esteemed, showed a man shockingly different from his 2013 version. It was also fairly clear that that stick/crutch he held is now indispensable if he wants to move on his own, and that the sciatica-induces limp is now quite pronounced. I can’t say he looks healthy. Of course, fasting would, as widely reported, be of great help in treating his fatness-induced issues of sciatica and general mobility. But it looks like oh so spiritual Francis prefers to feast instead.
2022 Francis compared to 2013 Francis: double the fat, same heresy content.
What shall I say: “soon, soon!” ?
The second: the sermon.
I have not listened to the homily/sermon, but reports indicates that Benedict was, as a whole, ignored, apart from some obligatory, very short references. I would call this a last slap in the face of the German Shepherd from his successor, the Argentinian Bouncer.
You would expect a sermon to focus on the dearly departed, extolling his theological stature, gentle mind, towering intellect, shepherd’s zeal etc. If the sermon is, however, completely about other issues, you can safely interpret this as Francis’ desire to show you, on the last worldwide televised occasion, how high (or low) his consideration for Benedict is. This is, I am afraid, classic FrancisBoor, and will go down in history together with the empty seat at the concert and the mocking of those praying the rosary for him.
So, not much news from this funeral.
Here’s hoping I will, soon, be able to write about another one; one which, hopefully, will lead to an improvement from the dismal situation we have today.
Elon Musk has just clobbered Paul Ehrlich, the infamous inventor of the “population bomb” hoax, which stated that, in the Seventies, hundreds of millions of people would starve to death. Fifty years after this theory proved hot air, Ehrlich, now 90, keeps going around and selling bogus science. I imagine he lived a very comfortable existence thanks to it.
The ones I am more angry with, however, are the common people who, in their worship of “science”, believe every hoax that is sold to them under the pretence of being a fact; and I am the most angry at them if they also claim that they are Christians.
The idea that it be bad for Creation that creatures are born is an obvious negation of every concept about Divinity. Not only a Christian, but every heathen who stops and thinks should immediately realise that it just can’t be that your omnipotent creator makes a planet and forgets to leave instructions about its maximum capacity.
The same applies, of course, to the climate stuff: we are asked to believe that God made his world so imperfect, so delicate, in such an uncertain equilibrium, that mere stuff like eating meat (is in the Bible), travelling (is in the Bible) or living in comfort (is in the Bible) destroys the planet, because God obviously is not smart enough to “do stuff” properly, and thank God we have the “scientists” to inform us about the fact.
Paul Ehrlich, if he were serious (serious, in German, is “ehrlich”), would immediately preface his theory with the caveat that no Christian could ever believe it, because it run exactly contrary to the existence of God. Similarly, Al Gore should have informed us of the very inconvenient truth that nothing of what he claims is compatible with the Christian faith.
None of them, to my knowledge, do it. The sheep, always looking for a new fad, a new wave of signalling virtue, or a new apocalypse, absorb the rubbish like sponges and do not even stop one moment to reflect that, if they believe such theories, they have certainly taken leave from the concept of a good, wise, omnipotent God.
Both hoaxes (the population and the climate one) advocate for population control and restrictions of freedoms. Certainly the latter (and possibly the former) also pushes for a new “world order” that clearly shows the desire to remake humanity in their own resemblance. The cynicism, the cruelty, and the oppression built-in in such ideology show the real aim of their proponents: earth as a religion-free space where “sage technocrats” make all the important decisions for the sake of the dumb sheep, whose task is to contribute to the immense riches of the billionaires and their stooges, work, shut up, make children in the approved number and die. But no worries, they will get all possible pine, sex toy, sexual amusements and sexual perversion, so they can happily slide towards death (and hell) thinking they are having “fun”.
No Christian with a brain can accept this. This kind of bogus “science”must be rejected as being entirely impious, I would say factually blasphemous. All these doomsday scenarios can be refuted in the simplest of ways:
by pointing to a crucifix.
If Francis wants to do something good for the Church, once in his lifetime, he could do worse than to issue detailed instructions as to what happens when a Pope resigns. Of course, I understand that the Pope who wants to resign could change the rules anyway; but I think that such an established procedure would bring clarity to the event.
Naturally, best is that a Pope does not abdicate. However, in cases of diseases like Alzheimer’s it would, I think, still be preferable that the pope abdicates, rather than having the Church run by the most aggressive. bullying homo mafias among the several likely infesting the Vatican. There is, after all, a reason why a Pope has always been allowed to abdicate.
If Francis were to ask me how this should be done, I would suggest the following:
A. The Pope who resigns should join a monastery of his choice, with the proviso that the choice can be changed at any time by his successor(s).
B. The Pope who resigns should renounce every title, every pomp, and every privilege. He should live a life of poverty in some isolated monastery. He should be forbidden from giving interviews. If he writes books or memoirs, these should not be published during his lifetime. His successor would be able to, at any time, order him to become a proper, cloistered monk.
Fra’ Benedetto. Boy, it sounds nice.
C. Upon his death, the abdicated Pope should receive the rank and the protocol ceremonies of a Cardinal.
In my opinion, such rules would, as far as reasonable, engender the following:
- Prevent the birth of pathetic excuses, like “he did not made the right gestures/ he had a bad stomach / he did not pronounce the words correctly, so his abdication isn’t valid”. Of course, those who want to reject reality will always reject reality, but an established procedure and the unequivocal demotion would make it far more difficult to deceive oneself in this respect.
- Put an end to the clearly confusing and damaging show of two men in white, merely because the former guy really wants to keep, in a modified form, his accustomed title. Not anymore. If you want to go, you’re gone. You don’t get to keep the white habit after skirting the responsibilities that come with it.
- Give the deceased former Pope a farewell that, whilst reflecting the old rank in a reasonable way, leaves no doubt as to who is Pope (hint: the new guy).
It really should be a no-brainer: a Pope who abdicates would, methinks, do so because he is not fit for the office anymore, and wants to spend the rest of the time allotted to him in prayer. A formal procedure and set of rules minimises the disruption and creates an established pattern of having only one guy in white. If a Pope changes the procedure because, say, he wants to be Pontiff Emeritus, his successor will be well able to change it again, and have the guy lock himself in a cloister with the title of “Father XY”.
We will see whether Francis deals with the issue or prefers to just ignore it once the pesky, very near presence of Benedict has gone.
I have written many times about something that is, I think, more relevant every month that passes: the dumb-ification of knowledge and the utter ignorance of people who think of themselves as “educated”.
You see: once upon a time, every peasant knew he was merely a peasant. He could be smart, even very smart; but, with the wisdom given by hard work and by having to live strictly attached to the hard realities of life, he knew that his realm of knowledge was very limited, and deferred to those who knew more than him (in primis, to the traditional wisdom of the Church) for the rest. Most of those peasants, at least in Europe, did not have the right to vote anyway until the XIX Century, and very many also during the XIX Century. You did not run any danger that your foreign policy be influenced by people demanding silly action (“we need a no-fly zone over the Ukraine, now!!”) on stuff they did nothing about.
Fast forward to the XXI Century. Here in the UK where I live, and – as I understand – in all the other Countries of the Anglosphere, an absurd situation has been created. A horde of people barely able to count and write, and in possession of an astonishing wealth of ignorance about pretty much everything, heavily and directly influence the political action through their collective social media activity.
This would be half the headache if, on the other side of the election divide, there was a high-quality political personnel, able to impose their intelligent leadership to the mutinous, loud pack of social media wolves. However, in the long term, and bar individual circumstances, this can never be, as the elected will, in a representative democracy, irresistibly tend to represent the dumbness of their voters. Liz Truss is the most evident recent example of this, but you only need to look at the childish mistakes made by von der Leyen & Co. to realise how far the rot has gone. Nor is there any improvement in sight: after von der Leyen, who has been Defence Minister for years in her native Country, showed she still does not know the difference between an officer and a soldier (nor do those who edit, or write, her speeches), there was nobody in the mainstream press pointing out the obvious, blindingly evident, tragic incompetence of the woman. We elect, accept, and follow cretins with connections. As a result, we decline socially, militarily and economically.
A nasty virus unchains a dystopian, global dictatorship-of-the-cretins that, whilst extremely embarrassing in dictatorships or “protected” democracies, it is absolutely damning for those who have made of freedom their hymn. Elections are stolen in front of an entire nation, and there is simply no failsafe against the betrayal of a handful of key people (in this case: the Supreme Court and the Vice President). The disease had been spreading for a while, though: already in the first decades of the Century, the idea that popular votes that result in the “wrong” decision need to be repeated until the “right” decision is reached (at which point no discussion will be allowed anymore) were seen as normal over all the EU “democracies”. The rot has been spreading for a while, but now it really is everywhere.
Why do I say this? Because it seems to me that this dumbocracy has caused a disconnect between wishful thinking and reality, the like of which I have never seen in my life. It’s like seeing Baghdad Bob on the MSM, seven days a week, talking about Iraq’s impending victory. Goebbels was, at least, half-honest in admitting the difficulties as they accumulated. The British Ministry of Defence doesn’t manage to do even that.
You see: the illiterate degree-holders absolutely want to read, to know, and to (extremely important for dumb, effeminate people) feel that the Ukraine is winning. They have the little flag on their social media profile. All their friends know how wonderfully engaged they are. All their friends are, by the way, just as dumb as they are, reinforcing the circle of dumbness daily. They also think themselves extremely smart (though they can barely count, or cannot count at all; yes, that’s how bad it is here in the UK…), which makes the self-restraint of the XVII Century’s peasant inconceivable. They will not countenance any opinion, or any public policy, in contrast with their own Great Virtuous Posturing.
In the (broadly functioning) democracies we have in the European West, this selects (in many cases, of course not in all of them) decision-makers who are just as dumb as those who, directly or indirectly, puts them in power. The Dumbocracy is the unavoidable bastard son of the Mass Degree Illiteracy, coupled with the Social Media Feelings Factory.
Why I say this? I am, after all, not on the terrace of the Baghdad hotel, watching the Abrams advance whilst Baghdad Bob swears that the Americans are retreating. I am not there, and neither are you. I say it because I apply rules of basic logic to the information I receive, and these rules allow for only one possible outcome. Let us see them.
It is admitted by both sides that this one here is an old-style, conventional, industrial warfare. Forget the A-10 launching a precision strike on the hideout of some goat-rapists in sandals. This is a brutal, massive mutual shelling. Again, this is an undisputed fact.
It is similarly not disputed that, in this brutal shelling affair, the Russians have an advantage ranging from 8 to 1 to 10 to 1. There is absolutely no reason to believe that the Ukraine has better gunners. In fact, there is every reason to believe the Russians have the better ones. The Ukrainians may have a limited advantage, in some situations, from the use of the more sophisticated (for now) Western satellites, but this proved an advantage only in rare circumstances. As a whole, it’s 8 to 1, and I am been extremely generous. This means that, on an average, boring combat day, at least eight Ukrainians die for every Russian.
The numbers on the ground also speak volumes: Zaluzhny himself admitted that of his 700,000 soldiers, “200,000 are combat-ready”. The others are, frankly speaking, cannon fodder, for whom Ukraine is awaiting some equipment, training and logistics miracle that will clearly not happen.
Then there are the distances to consider: the Ukrainians themselves admit that their own logistics lines, and the distances to the next hospital, repair shop and ammo depot are way longer than for the Russians. What does this spell for the destiny of the wounded, and for the general ability to sustain the fight, I don’t need to tell you, because I have intelligent readers.
But let us forget all this, and let us talk macroeconomics instead. The Russians have an intact military-industrial complex, which is currently being ramped up like there is no tomorrow; they have all the energy and raw materials they can dream of, and then some; they have around 5 times the population when you consider all the people who have disappeared from the Ukraine; they are swimming in money from all the expensive energy they sell the world over, in no small measure thanks to the idiocy of the sanctions; they have had a teeny-weeny micro recession of 2.5% of GDP, and are now recovering very fast. They have such support at home that together with the 300,000 who were mobilised there were another 100,000 on a purely voluntary basis. Go here or here or here to see how normal, how utterly ordinary daily life in the time of the Special Military Operation is in Moscow. Then compare to what Baghdad Bob tells you about how things are going there.
Let us compare and contrast with the Ukraine: destroyed defence industry, lack of everything starting from energy and extending to weaponry and ammo, 200,000 combat ready against at least 500,000 (and counting) from the other side, a half-disappeared population, a (more than) half-destroyed economy, debts piling up like it’s the Last Day On Earth, dependency from the western sugar daddy even to pay the wages of their civil servants, and a cocaine addict at the helm. Yes, it is that bad.
How does Baghdad Bob counter the blindingly obvious facts on the ground? By lying and relying on the fact that his illiterate audience just does not want to see, or think, or – if they only could – count. I keep reading generic stuff like “the Ukraine will win because they are so courageous” (fun fact: the Ukrainians are, largely, Russians and, therefore, as tough as nails just like the latter), “the Ukraine will win because the Russians are demotivated” (how massacring your enemy 8 to 1 can ever be demotivating is never explained; I’d rather think the Russian soldiers must be euphoric), “the Ukrainian Army is awaiting for Western weapons before launching the next offensive” (only, less and less is coming in). It’s the kind of emotional baloney people want to read, which is why the BBC and Co. eagerly feed it to them.
Therefore, the Dumbocracy keeps throwing money at the Ukraine, the Ukraine keeps committing a slow suicide, and the followers of the cult of the blue and yellow flag keep indulging in their delusions of victory.
The awakening will come. But don’t wake them up now.
They would not understand what you are talking about, would call you some name, and would go back to sleep.
The death of Pope Benedict puts an end to the strange – and, if you ask me, vanity-driven – situation of a real Pope – the one in office – being, er, the Pope, whilst an ex-Pope – the one not in office – clings to the prestige of the position, in no small measure because he was terrified of being called what everybody will call him anyway: a Celestino (a common way, among well-educated Italians, to indicate a person in power who cowers and betrays the duties of his office).
Amazingly, there were people until this morning who, whilst calling themselves Catholic, thought that they could decide who is Pope. They took the Vatican Menu and found there two plates: the Pope and the Emeritus, both coming in white. So they decided that the Emeritus would be Pope, and the Pope would be, I don’t know, the wrong guy.
Then they wrote messages everywhere, saying: “if you watch the 40 hours video marathon I have linked to here, it will show very clearly that two and two is five, pigs fly, Francis is an usurper, and Benedict is the real, as in “the guy in charge”-Pope.
The very guy who was supposed to be in charge always said that Francis, not him, was in charge, and even praised his work (may the Lord forgive him for this). Therefore, this was hard case of wishful thinking or, rather, wishful not thinking. It was a strange situation. It reminds me of the Decembrist revolt, with a bunch of dreamers (the moderate dreamers; there were much worse people among them) who wanted Konstantin as Tsar, when Konstantin himself wanted Nicholas to be the Tsar. I don’t know what the Decembrists were thinking: perhaps that Konstantin was kept prisoner in some obscure cell, and forced to renounce under duress?
Anyway, all this theatre is at an end now.
There is only one Pope around. He is a thoroughly horrible person. We hope that he dies soon and somewhat resembling normality comes back. We also reflect on what horrible punishments the Church and the faithful have called on themselves, by indulging in the subversive or outright revolutionary fantasies of both the V II years and the even worse years that followed it.
I seriously hope that nobody will come out now with some outlandish new theory, like that Benedict has not died, but is hidden in a dark cell somewhere in the Tierra del Fuego together with Jim Morrison, or that he is Pope from heaven, or from purgatory, or from wherever he is now.
Sad as this death is, at least there is one problem less now.
Of course, this is not the end of wishful non thinking, because wishful non thinking seems to be a necessity for some. They will enlarge the ranks of the Sedevacantists, those quite funny people who believe that the Church has been kidding with two billions Catholics for 60 years now.
You know what? Reality can harsh to look at in the face. But it is still preferable to creating an artificial one we have dreamed about because we don’t want to suffer.
Let us suffer instead, and pray more, and do more penance.
We were never told the Earthly Jerusalem would always be immaculate.
News announced this morning here in Europe.
Death occurred at 9:34 Rome time.
In your charity, pray for the poor guy.
The earthly journey of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI is now coming to an end. The latest I have heard is that he can still assist to mass, but if his condition is called “serious” we all know how this is, most likely, going to end in the next few days.
The legacy that the man will leave is, if you allow me to be so blunt, a total failure (in execution, but most likely not in intention) with the addition of Summorum Pontificum; a measure, the last one, in which Benedict also managed to fail as he was spectacularly AWOL when the most difficult part (the enforcement) came.
The report on the homosexuality in the Church, which he himself commissioned, and on which he, once again, refused to act, is the other, tragic, pole of his Papacy. I consider the latter the most grave failing of his Pontificate, even worse than his very weak defence of Summorum Pontificum. But there are other issues about which I prefer to speak now, when he is still alive.
Benedict was, if you ask me, the controlled opposition to the dominant V II HomoChurch. Having flirted with heresy himself in his youth (as always in his life, as a moderate heretic, a position of sub-zero risk in the Church of those years), he progressively recovered – in a journey that went on for decades and completed, if it really completed, only when he was Pope – a more orthodox understanding of his place in the great scheme of things. But he never was the guy who would do anything forceful.
Those Cardinals who made him Pope (yes, my dear readers: it’s the Cardinals, not the Holy Ghost, who elect the Pope) evidently knew very well that the man depicted in the secular press as a (ahem) German Pastor eager to defend the Church was, in reality, an already old, already frail man, with less desire for battles than he had ever had in his life, and with an extraordinary propensity for being manipulated, ignored, or openly disobeyed without any consequence. They knew very well that the guy was, again, controlled opposition, giving a facade of austerity and seriousness whilst the Homo Party went on undisturbed. The result was the extraordinary admission of being afraid of fleeing for fear of the wolves. Something which, as it is abundantly clear now, the man actually did.
And a man of the power apparatus Benedict, as expected, was. His appointments of bishops and cardinals were atrocious. The German Shepherd was the obedient lapdog of the dominant groups within the Vatican. The problems we have now are also caused by almost eight years of such appointments.
The weakness of character (which should have advised him to simply ask the Cardinals to pick someone else) was his greatest weakness. Vanity was the second.
It was, if you ask me, vanity – however he might have called it – that led a Pope fleeing from the wolves, and likely obsessed by his fear of being remembered as such, to stress that he was not actually fleeing by – and this is not casual – clinging to the title and the pomp. How much better for him would have been to request to be sent, with the title his successor would deem fit, in some monastery in the extremely beautiful corner of the planet where he was born, and to live there a life in prayer. But no: the failure of his Pontificate, the actual absence of the balls required to simply do his job, had to be hidden behind a veil of gravitas, keeping the title (in a way common, in Italy, to Professors, and which Benedict knew perfectly well) as he was relinquishing the job. A Professor who retires is called Emeritus to allow him to get the honour of the position when he does not have the job anymore. Benedict invented for himself a way of doing exactly the same himself. The issues that this engendered are well-known and, whilst they are totally unfounded, it cannot be said that Benedict made things easier.
Now, let me come to the main event: the fleeing.
If you look at my blog posts of those times, you will see that I had given the man the benefit of the doubt, thinking – very rationally, if you ask me, and avoiding the sin of detraction – that he had decided to resign because he knew that he did not have the physical strength to keep doing the job, something also influenced by the sad spectacle offered by the last years of John Paul II. I stay behind everything that I have written at the time, and consider it, to this day, the most logical reading of the events.
I changed my mind about it – and persuaded myself that the man was, actually, fleeing all the time, and a water carrier of the “progressive guys” all his life – when I saw the unconditional approval Benedict gave to the obviously heretical pontificate of Francis. This, my friends, is not the behaviour of a man who is strong in spirit, but decides to leave the office so that others may continue his work with the necessary energy. This is the behaviour of a yes-man who will do whatever it takes, even with approaching judgment, in order to be seen as an obedient wheel of the apparatus. This is the guy who will never, ever rock the boat.
Ratzinger was never a leader. In typical German fashion, he was born a follower. The job offered to him in 2005 was the possibly most unsuited to his character and inclinations. He could not have changed his character, but he could, and should, have recognised that he was absolutely not cut for the job. Whatever excuse he gave to himself (“the will of the Lord” and such like), let me tell you that, is you ask me, vanity, again, was in play.
A career as a theologian based on heresy-light. Then a pontificate as a fake hard guy. Then a post-pontificate (in itself a problem) marked by complicity with evil.
This is the legacy of Joseph Ratzinger; the man who always managed to do it safely, comfortably wrong.
He is, now, very near to that terrible moment, the moment that awaits all of us. I will pray with all my heart that he may die at peace with the Lord, as I wish for myself and, my dear readers, for all of you.
“Good God!” – exclaimed the good, pious woman upon seeing the cat threatening the freshly baked apple cake.
“Jesus!” – was the utterance of the pious Neapolitan man when hearing Naples had lost the game 4-0 again.
“Jesusandmary!” (one word: Gesummaria!”) was the usual expression of the southern Italian gentleman upon being told of something very bad that had happened.
“Maledetto….!” “Damn….!” (add to the word the usual suspects: cats, dog, communists, whomever or whatever wasn’t OK!). This one was everywhere.
A pleasantly unruly child would be described as “a little devil”, often without the slightest hint of disapprobation. Similarly, “you are diabolical” would be the compliment reserved for, say, someone who had made something really cool playing soccer.
“Dio Bonino!” (Good Lordy…) was, meanwhile, the cry of disapprobation of the Tuscan Italian man, because they love terms of endearment.
“Dannazione” (“Damnation”), would the poor guy cry, who had just hammered his finger instead of the nail. Mind, though, that I can prove to you, scientifically, that said man had no intention whatsoever of either sending to, or wishing, hell to absolutely anybody known or unknown to him. The expression simply meant to evoke something very unpleasant. Nowadays, a more vulgar and unfaithful world would simply says ” f-cking sh-t”; which, apparently, nobody considers a blasphemy and must, therefore, be somewhat ok.
Last, we have the one to rule them all: “Dio Mio”, same as the Spanish Dios Mio!
What do all these phrases have in common?
Likely that, for all of them, you would find Protestants willing to call them assorted blasphemies, or curses, or generally being a sin against the Second Commandment.
This makes the 60 million Italians I grew up amongst a bunch of blasphemers, too. At least if you are a Protestant or, in case of a tragic lack of understanding, if you are a Catholic who has uncritically absorbed all the Protestant rubbish about the Second Commandment (and I am afraid there is more than some, of those, in the US).
Alas, in authentically Catholic Countries people have, traditionally, not thought that way; and as they are the cultural cradle of Catholicism, I think you should take very good note of this.
Blessedly free from Protestants playing the well-known game called “holier than thou”, Catholics developed a culture in which a constant reference to God in one’s daily life translates in often mentioning God, as the One around Whom the entire life of a person revolves.
Therefore, sadness, disapprobation, surprise, but also joy and hope, were constantly linked to the Divine. If you often have God in your mind, you will often have Him in your mouth.
The evidence: the de-Christianisation of Italy has brought to the rapid disappearance of all of the expressions above. Including the one to rule them all.
Why do I say this? In order to achieve 2 aims:
1. point out to the Protestantisation of Catholicism in Countries with vast contacts to the “holier than thou” sects, and
2. give my own take on the potential cultural background of Father Pavone.
As to 1
You really need to relax. A priests known for being a good priest will simply not blaspheme. If he uses a word that he (perhaps) shouldn’t be using as a priest, you need to let it rest. If he says to you that he even went to confession (that’s an interesting one btw: as he did not intended to blaspheme there should be no sin at all, same as if I hammer my finger and the expression escapes me I don’t need to go to confession, and it is not even a venial sin), you really need to shut up.
As to 2.
I don’t know if Father Pavone (no name can be more Italian than this: Pavone means… Peacock in Italian.) grew up in a specifically Italian cultural environment. If he did, he will have heard his (likely very pious) aunts and grand aunts call the cat, dog, hamster, & Co. “damn” a great number of times. Note here that in Italian, there is no proper Italian translation for “Goddamn”. Better said, there is, and it is, simply, “damn”, “maledetto”. But, clearly, only God damns. Therefore, every “damned” means “damned by God”.
“Maledetto cane”, “maledetto vento”, “maledetto gatto”, “maledetta pioggia” and the evergreen, extremely well-known song, “maledetta primavera”, in which said primavera (Spring) is damnable exactly because, as the song explains, it makes you fall in love in one hour.
This expression, “maledetto”, was so omnipresent when Italy was Catholic, that movies meant for a children audience (John Wayne comes to mind) had it. I saw such movies at the parish cinema. Nobody ever said a word. Not a priest, not a parent. Nobody. And there you have it: John Wayne saying a word, that you may easily translate as “Goddamn”, in front of the children, in the presence of the priest, without this causing the slightest embarrassment in anybody.
Now, though I don’t live in the US, I understand that the cultural environment over there is (likely because of the nefarious influence of the above mentioned Protestant sects) different. Father Pavone, Italian Aunt or no Italian Aunt, must have been aware of that. However, our culture, our upbringing, our own cultural sensitivities will always emerge when we get emotional. This is why people tend to swear in their own mother tongue, confident that their interlocutor will get the message anyway.
Why do I say all this? Because to me, Father Pavone saying, say, “Goddamn Commies” (no, it does not mean that he is God; that has has cursed them; that he wishes them hell, or any of that nonsense; it means that he really doesn’t like those people) does not make it less Catholic, but more. In fact, it brings this courageous priest nearer to me, exactly as we feel that an angry Don Camillo is really on our side, even if he loses his temper for it.
I wonder if Don Camillo would, today, be defrocked.
Enjoy the video, and pray for Father Pavone.
I wish one twentieth of our Bishops were as Catholic as he obviously is.