Category Archives: Catholicism
Let me say something very obvious first: if you have an infectious disease (say: the flu), or if you are convalescing and too weak to reasonably go out, you don’t go to Mass. This has always been this way, and will always be this way. It takes a very stupid, Protestant sort of arrogance to think that God will allow you not to be infected if you expose yourself to infection at Mass, or that He will not allow you to infect others, whilst you do everything you can to do it, because you are friends with Jesus, or the like. Prudence, and reasonable behaviour, should always be kept in mind.
I agree with the measures of social distancing, and think that it is right that social distancing should happen in Church, too. It is really senseless to say that God will decree churches as contagion spread-free zones, just because you want to show what a zealous ass you are. It does not work that way. Do not put the Lord your God to the test.
Having said that, the way our Bishops (led by the Evil Clown) have acted in the present circumstances goes from too subservient to the civil authorities to beyond despicable. Sadly, it showed this: that our Bishops (led by the Evil Clown) largely see Mass as a pure community-driven event, a social gathering where people meet, feel good and receive a feel-good sacrament; a social gathering which is now necessary to give up for a while, like chocolate. I make here a partial exception for Britain, where to my knowledge Mass continues to be celebrated in the usual way, albeit without public. This shows at least a correct understanding of the Mass, because the Mass does not depend on the presence of the public. Some kudos, therefore, for the UK authorities.
But let us come to the main point: attending Mass. How come that I am allowed to go to the supermarket during a lockdown, but I am not allowed to go to Church? Mind well: it is not that civil authorities have decided that buying groceries endangers your health, but it has to be done, therefore it is allowed. No. Civil authorities in many Countries have decided that buying groceries can be done in a safe way, and should be therefore be done in that safe way alone. It follows that Bishops all over Catholicism should have made a huge mess, demanding that churches are left open, and Mass be allowed to be celebrated, pretty much in the same way as the relevant Government allows the purchase of food. Have they done this? Largely, no. Why not? Because to them – irrespective of what they may say – the Mass is a social gathering, and nothing more. Our “hagan lio” Pope was, as befits his atheist mindset, the first to lead the charge, even going beyond what the Italian government had ordered. Boy, Satan is strong with this one.
So, what should have been done? What could, and should, the Pope and the Bishops have done? To me, the answer is so obvious that it should not even need a blog post to explain: every Bishop should have ordered every one of his priests to celebrate at least six masses a day, mobilise volunteers to protect the Blessed Sacrament for one Holy Hour a day, leave the time that remains free for last rites of people who are really dying, and do nothing else. This, obviously, with the respect of the usual distancing rules as far as practicable (and if it is not, as in the case of the Last Rites, tough luck: the cashier at the supermarket will in many cases still get your cash, will she not?)
In addition to this, some further measures could have been taken. It is certainly in the remit of the bishops to make clear to their sheep that there is no mass obligation for people who fear contagion, or deem it dangerous to get out (say: self-isolating old people), or for people who have been ordered to stay in (say: relatives of people with symptoms), or for people who cannot physically get in church because of the social distancing rules. It is certainly also possible to the Bishops to make clear to the faithful that receiving communion is no integral part of going to Mass; a concept, this, that would have likely surprised more than a few, and would have re-instilled some Catholicism in some others.
Still, the main effect would have been reached already with the multiplication of masses: possibility to go to Mass for very many; plus possibility for all others to pop in and attend of the many masses during the week; plus adoration of the Blessed Sacrament every day. A faithful, but sensible and law abiding, reaction to a time of crisis.
If this had happened, no Government in the West would have objected more than they objected to people buying their own food. And if some idiot (like Trudeau) had objected, he would have received hell from all the Bishops of the world combined. Honestly, I cannot imagine that this would have been an issue, if the Pope and the Bishops had been ready to stand their ground and speak some stern words. Alas, most of them don’t believe in God. It really is as simple as that.
Before I go, let us spend two words on the priests. One of the excuses put forward for the closures of the churches is the health of the priests. This is more of the secular thinking just described. As thousands of doctors and nurses – and, in Countries like Italy, countless volunteers – put their health on the line for what is only a salaried job, or no salary at all, a priest, who must be ready to die for Christ at two second’s notice, will be afraid of even social distancing? Honestly, I think that most priests are much, much better than that. It’s their own bishops, and the Pope, who are the disgrace.
Last time I looked, Italy had lost more than 60 doctors, and counting, on the Coronavirus front in a matter of weeks. These are people who have not solemnly declared, upon being consecrated, that they were ready to die for Christ. I have no figures for nurses, but I can’t imagine those figures make for a very happy reading, either.
It would have been perfectly possible to face this crisis in a prudent and still Catholic way, and give the world an example of faith, discipline, and compliance with the laws.
This was lost because our Bishops, starting with the Evil Clown, simply don’t believe in God.
I wish I could find again an article with very useful information about the virus (my VPN is a real Hillary tonight, but the article might have disappeared behind a paywall, too). It was really informative.
The information that had struck me was twofold:
- The virus was with us much earlier than previously expected, meaning several weeks; having all the time in the world to gain momentum.
- This means that the virus had several weeks to spread undisturbed, all over the worst affected Province (Bergamo). The article stated that, for this reason, up to 25% of the entire province might have already contracted the virus. In short, the message is that it may well be that the doors were closed when the horses had largely bolted, which is bad; but that herd immunity is not so far away, which is very good.
The article struck me as very sensible, because it seemed to me to explain so well what has, in fact, happened: the fact that Italy had so many deaths among people in hospital and in nursing homes (a phenomenon that is becoming more evident by the day) is easily explained not only with the high number of old people in Italy, but with the fact that these people are still connected with their social fabric: their relatives and friends actually visit them, giving an insidious virus like the Chinese one every opportunity to penetrate the nursing care structures and make a massacre (I seem to remember the affected nursing homes had a 20% death rate in weeks, but again I can’t find the article anymore). Even easier was the virus’ “work” when we think of the high number of old people living either with their families and/or with home carers: again, leaving a great number of old people in daily, close contact with younger ones, for weeks, without anyone having the slightest idea of what is happening. Italy is a very inter-generational Country. Therefore, it makes sense that Italy would give the virus both the time and the opportunity to kill more in Italy than everywhere else.
Another number I read around: the city of Bergamo has around 120,000 inhabitants. It appears they now have 2,000 unemployed house carers. It tells you something about how easy it was for many old people to contract the virus.
Point 2 also makes, it seems to me, a lot of sense. If you follow the curve of the deaths and infections in Italy another element appears clear: the percentage of new infections compared to tested people trends downwards as the number of tests increases greatly. The number of deaths is fairly constant. Why is this? If you ask me (and not only me), this is because the virus is killing now people who were infected two or three weeks ago (one week to develop symptoms, one or two weeks for these symptoms to get worse and worse, with hospitalisation, then death in, likely, a matter of days). One can say that there are less people infected because people stay at home, and this certainly has contributed…. but…. but… could it be that the virus has slowed down because, say… hundreds of thousands in the Province of Bergamo alone (1.1 m) have in the meantime been infected and have recovered without even noticing, and the virus has less and less victims to target and/or use as vectors?
Is herd immunisation a pious wish? If this is so, how is it that Countries like Britain, who allow everyone, who has to, to actually go to work, have no noticeably different pattern than countries like Italy, where your neighbours count the time you take out the dog, alone, for a short walk, and woe to you it is beyond the strictest necessity? Do people in Italy realise that, here in the UK, there are also people actually taking the train, getting on the tube, and going to work in a normal office, to the tune of perhaps 10% or 15% of the normal, pre-crisis number? This has been going on for a while now. Why are corpses not piling up on the streets? Will we have Armageddon in a week or two? Or will we discover that the curve is near to flattening in the UK, too, which many people actually begin to hope already?
I do not know what the answer to these questions is. But one thing is clear to me: at some point we will have to isolate the old and frail, and ask the others to keep social distancing as much as practical, and reopen the damn factories and restaurants and shops.
Then we can’t discover that we have saved some lives, whilst destroying many more.
I have been, for many years now, an affectionate reader of the “American Thinker”.
It is, therefore, with great pleasure, and not a little surprise, that I read my nom de plume and an excerpt of a recent blog post of mine in that worthy publication.
It goes to show how the honest press works: instead of following the orders of the globalist liberal elites, honest journalists pose themselves questions and look around for what people are thinking, observing how they are reacting to the same issues and answering the same questions. It was, again, a great honour and pleasure.
This is, also, the first blog post after the unexpected and, frankly, brutal announcement of Sunday evening, that the US “quasi lockdown” would now go on until – gasp – April 30. I must admit that I was taken aback, and can’t say that I was pleased. I have been trying to make sense of the massive measure for a couple of days now, and I can only think of the following:
- Vast part of the economy (in the US and in Europe) is still working. I have not read exact statistics, but obviously the number of people who are filing for unemployment does not give the measure of the damage, as the jobs that went lost must perforce be, in their vast majority, low-wage positions in the catering and entertainment industry. I keep working, everybody I know keeps working, my company has not made, and does not plan to make, anyone redundant. Entire swaths of the service economy are navigating through this tempest brilliantly. Some reports indicates an impact for the US economy for the whole of 2020 of as little as 2%, with a total lockdown until end of April. This is way below my fears for the same duration of lockdown. One must trust Trump to do what he can to preserve the health of the American people as a whole, but without breaking the toy. He is a businessman after all, and he has repeatedly stated that the cure will not be worse than the disease. So here’s hoping.
- I suspect that the 30 April date was not chosen because it is the expected duration of the measures, but in order to put an end to the political issues involved with any such date. If Trump had said “15 April”, trust CNN to title “Trump backpedals again”, or “Government’ s plans in disarray” if the measures are, then, prorogued again. I think Trump considers the whole month plenty enough, and probably not even necessary as a whole. We might see partial relaxing of the measures during the month. We will also see a massive effort of preparation for the ICU emergency that will follow when the economy is reopened, which will make any decision easier in that respect.
- Trump will not do the right thing all alone, even if he is persuaded that it is the right thing to do. I am afraid that Trump himself sees that there is a measure of suffering the Country will have to undergo before the decision to reopen is both politically feasible and politically safe. Look, this is an election year. Trump will not stake his fate in November on a controversial decision that would see him alone among the main actors, and with a tiny minority in the Country. He owns casinos, but he is not much of a gambler. He will reopen when – besides him considering the time right – the country realises that there is no sensible alternative to it. Call me cynical if you want to. Politics is.
Still, this is going to be very bad for some parts of the United States. If I think of Nevada, I can only shiver.
I dare again to make the comparison with the Blitz, when life went on under the German bombs.
I cannot but wonder about how much is left of the spirit of that time.
Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. Weak men create hard times; and the cycle starts again.
Are we the weak men who create the bad times?
We will soon know.
I see the signs multiplying that the Left and the champagne-sipping Socialist troops are going to try to exploit this crisis to fundamentally reshape the West, particularly Western Europe.
No one in his right mind can suggest that 14, 16, 18 weeks of national lockdowns are anything near feasible, or sane. Heck, I have read around of “experts” simply stating that we might need a lockdown until a vaccine is found (this is up to 18 months). Boy, these people really hate working!
Look, this is bad. It truly is. I read the news from Italy every day, and, as you know because you read me , it is very realistic to think that 20,000 or more people have already died of Coronavirus in Italy alone. It is right to do all that we reasonably can to mitigate the hit. It is certainly right to put in place a lockdown of two, three weeks as the preparation for the wave of ill patients are ramped up. But at some point, the action will have to be directed to the increase of ICU places, as our Countries starts to work again.
To claim that all the West must be partially shut down (obviously, even during lockdown most of the economic activity continues, but for how long?) is just another way to say that we should profit from this to get rid of Capitalism, nationalise all the companies that go bust (all of them, at some point) and switch to a system where the “scientists” and the “experts” tell us what to do, how to live, what to think and, obviously, when to worship.
This is something that must be avoided at all cost, and I mean at all costs. No one in his right mind would say that 1%, or 0.5%, of the population is worth giving up our freedoms. If that had been the case, then it would have been perfectly sensible to surrender to the Soviet Union back then, against the promise that we would be allowed to live.
President Trump will, of course, not fall for the story. But Europe is different. Riddled with the Socialist Virus as it is, several Countries could abandon themselves to an orgy of assistance madness, either not thinking of the bill that will unavoidably come, or actually thinking clearly and accepting, or desiring, the consequences. Their politicians will do, as almost always, what guarantees their survival on the day.
The first thing that we need to do is to start realising that the “experts” opinions are:
- often wrong,
- often politically motivated, and
- cannot substitute political decisions.
I do not care one iota of when the “experts” tell me that it will be safe to go back to work. The decision is not, and should never be, theirs. The Country should come first.
If your Country is bombarded, you don’t surrender because some people are dying. You keep on fighting and you do what you can to alleviate the suffering.
Expect the BBC and other panic-mongering institutions to bombard us with “experts” saying we must destroy the Country. They would clearly love it, thinking that hey will actually come out stronger from the attempts at socialist utopia that will result.
Call your MP or write to him, and let him know that you want to care for the old, but not at the price of suicide for an entire Country.
The figures for Italy released this afternoon aren’t good, with more than 900 deaths in a day, and the new record.
Before you freak out, reflect that these daily numbers don’t mean much anyway, which you know because you actually read my blog.
At this point, I would like to make a very worst case, a realistic worse case, and a comparison with data we have.
As you know from here, the Diamond Princess saw the worst possible incubation scenario, and was full of old people, who were going around for many days within the vessel and being happily infected without even knowing it.
The figures again:
Total death after weeks in the vessel of hell: 0.188%
Let us apply this to the, say, 60 million Italians and we have 112,800 deaths due to Coronavirus.
However, the Diamond Princess is, most certainly, not representative of Italy: firstly, because it was a heavily contained environment; secondly, because the average age was much older than in Italy. Thirdly, because (to my knowledge) no intensive care units with ventilators etc could be made available. So, let us say that 110k- 120k deaths is the very worst case. Then, let us (merely) halve it to allow for a very bad, resilient virus that does not find so many old people around as aboard the Diamond Princess, but proves resilient to medications, is not killed by warm weather, etc.
We are at 55k-60k deaths, mostly of old people with pre-existing conditions and average age of around 80 years. This is, I think, a realistic worst case. Not, mind, a likely figure, but a realistically assumed scenario for a very bad outcome.
Now, let us recall the great heat wave of 2003, which led to many old people dying of dehydration. At the time (this might have changed afterwards; these numbers always go through a series of adjustments) the talk was of anywhere between 20,000 and 30,000 deaths in France alone. France has around the same population as Italy, give or take single percentage digits. Certainly, a tragedy. However, these figures were calculated months afterwards, when there was nothing more to do about it. Question: would the country have been stopped for all the summer, to allow for the industry to produce a vast number of a/c systems, an army of technicians to install them, and an army of nurses to force everyone to hydrate until he cries? That emergency was, in the end, much less grave than this one, but you get my drift: no one would have asked, then, to stop the entire Country and drive it to the ground to avoid the tragedy.
We are, realistically, talking here of a maximum of twice the deaths we counted then, not collectively noticing until several months later. It’s a lot of deaths, and it certainly is the Christian thing to do to put in place those measures that can reasonably be put in place to avoid it, allowing all Western Governments to prepare for the tidal wave of people in need of intensive care units and minimise its deadly effect. It did, and it does, make sense to use the emergency brake for a limited number of weeks.
But – hand on heart, and in front of the Blessed Virgin – I can safely say that even the sobering, very sad, tragic figures I am putting in front of you today do not justify the collective economic suicide of a Nation, much less of a Continent, much less of the West.
And by the by, the Chinese figures are rotten and look more rotten by the day. It is inconceivable that they should have less deaths and – even more absurd – less infected people than Italy, when they went around happily infecting each other for who knows how long, and were prevented from isolating even when the situation was bad enough that doctors on the ground could easily see it. They are going through a carnage now; but people are expendable to them, so they don’t care. So yeah, a huge lot of excrement is happening over there just now; you are merely not allowed to know.
I do not think that anyone can accuse me of downplaying this situation, and I am totally allergic to the rubbish I am reading around the web (don’t try to bring that rubbish here, thanks; this is my virtual home, and I will have none of that crap).
Still, I think that the cure cannot be worse than the disease, and that undue alarm and facebook-induced panic only serves to destroy the fabric of Western Capitalism.
The data coming in every afternoon from the Italian Protezione Civile keep giving a mixed picture, with mostly positive days followed by days (like yesterday) marked by slight increases in infections and deaths.
But I, and many others, begin to think that the numbers are almost useless; or that they can be, at the most, merely a vague indication of where we are and what the general trend is.
The official data of the deceased because of Coronavirus just do not square (do not even begin to square) with real life where the unfortunate inhabitant of many places in Northern Italy, particularly in Bergamo and surrounding towns, are living.
Some journalists have compared the official Coronavirus death with the lists of the deceased, and have come out with one of those unavoidable truths that every now and then confront us: it is not that you are having hallucinations, it is that the official figures about the deceased do not even begin to give account of the deaths due to Coronavirus.
Let us take Nembro, a town near Bergamo where the virus has struck with great violence. Nembro lost between 110 and 120 people from the beginning of March. Last year, they were 14. The same strong differences (though not as brutal as in Nembro) can be found everywhere in the towns affected by the virus.
Now consider this: the number of deaths in the same city and town tend to be fairly constant from one year to the other, when you compare the same time of year. This is not happening now. Everywhere, where the virus struck, the number of deaths is four, five, six, ten times the expected number, and the official statistics of the deceased from the Coronavirus only account for a tiny part of the difference.
This means that the official Coronavirus death statistics are merely an indication of trend (if that), but nothing even remotely resembling the reality of what we are living.
Why is this, you may ask? For the very obvious reason that there not enough tests, and in many cases there is not enough time, to test every death of “pneumonia” (record numbers are being recorded in the last weeks) instead of Coronavirus. Therefore, either the deceased is tested after death (possible, but rare) or the death is recorded as “pneumonia”, and that is that. This is totally understandable: first, tests need to be used to prevent the spreading of the disease; second, those who are infected need additional tests (at times two, or three each) before they can be safely recorded as having recovered.
Mind, the other obvious data is also confirmed with growing numbers of deaths: this virus is a harvester, not a killer. People don’t die of Coronavirus alone. The Chinese Virus is, by and large, the one pushing them to the grave when serious conditions are already there.
So there we have it: this Chinese Virus is, for the population at large, certainly not a threat. But it is an unprecedented threat for old and frail people. It is, if you allow me the macabre image, like an evil witch from a children’s tale, going around and taking away all the old and frail people she can get; or like a huge, automatic machine aiming at the low hanging fruits from the orchard.
How to react to this? My suggestion is the same I always had: it being impossible to stop the West until this has gone or a cure has been found or a vaccine has been created, it is necessary to concentrate the preparation on the end part: the ICU places, with the necessary ventilators and personnel.
This should be treated like you would a bombardment in time of war, with field hospitals everywhere and part of the production reconverted to the war necessities (equipment for personnel and patients; doctors; nurses). At the same time, and exactly as it would happen in time of war, the Country should go on and production (of goods and services) should continue undisturbed.
It is, if you ask me, perfectly fine to stop a Country from going out for a couple of weeks. It is a hit that we should, as a Country, be ready to take to protect the vulnerable. This will allow the worst of the first brunt to be absorbed as we prepare for a medical emergency.
But at some point, the “war machine” needs to start working again, or we will all be victims.
The Italian Chinese Virus figures for Monday were very encouraging. The ones for Tuesday were a bit of a downer. Still, it appears more and more probable that the worst phase is now gone; even as the deaths increase in other regions of Italy, we can now reasonably say that this is because they are going through a peak that will last a week or two, certainly not months.
Some images I would like my readers to mind: the churches used as provisional deposit for corpses as the morgues became too full, and the column of Army trucks transporting the corpses out of Bergamo. If you think this was a hoax, or a fraud, I have a bridge I would like to sell you.
The Centre Left is in power in Italy. They don’t want to commit political suicide any more than Trump.
Possibly the worst, for every local, must have been seeing the obituaries of the Eco di Bergamo gradually go from around one to nine, then ten, then eleven pages. Imagine being a local and seeing the amount of devastation created by this virus; as you see, among the dead, people you knew personally, or whom people you know knew. Old people die every day, of course; but when the obituaries go from one page to eleven, it is not old age, or a cold end of the winter.
It is also abundantly obvious that the victims of the Chinese Virus are way, way more than the official count, likely a multiple. The fact is, the official data only consider as deaths from the virus those who had a test made on them, whether alive or dead. But there were not enough tests to use thousands of them on people already dead, as they are vital to prevent the further spread of the disease.
At some point, we will have at least an official estimate; and it will make for sober reading. The more so, if we think of what could have happened if the virus had not been contained in our Countries. Conversely, this will lead us to think to how many lives could have been spared if the Chinese officials had been not so unspeakably stupid, corrupt and, in a word, communist.
China lied, people died.
Still, and irrespective of the official count in the end, the following is crystal clear:
1. the victims were largely very old and with preexisting conditions, and
2. we can’t kill an entire Country because of a virus.
As always, President Trump was the first, among the heads of state and government who are actually listened to, to say it out loud: the cure can’t be worse than the disease. This is particularly brave of Trump, as everybody knows that the number of deaths in the United States is going to increase in the next days, thus forcing him to make difficult, but sensible choices as the screaming of the rabid left (who would be happy to gravely damage the economy in order to have him lose in November; journalists’ jobs are not endangered anyway, at least for now) increases in intensity.
There must be a balance, and the balance must be found in the weighting of human charity and common sense. Again, the effort must be directed at the end (the isolation of the old and the preparation for the emergency in the hospitals: respirators, ventilators, nurses etc), not at the start (the closing of factories, restaurants, and entertainment venues for a long time). The very fabric of every Western Country would start to die and get into gangrene if this situation continues for many weeks, without consideration of the damage made to the underlying economy.
Keep praying, keep hoping and, for heaven’s sake, follow the instructions of your Government.
They don’t want to commit suicide, either.
It is only one day, but the news from Italy are extremely encouraging.
If this continues in the next few days, it will be clear that the summit has been touched, and the virus is receding. For the record, today could have been the first day with more than 1,000 dead. Yesterday, the rolling 24 hours figures was 793. Today, we are at 651. Clear decrease in Lombardy, too, from 546 to 361 deaths. New cases also clearly retreating.
Some considerations on the spot:
- Lombardy was at the forefront. The data from there is the most followed, but it is easy to predict that even if the figures for Lombardy go down in the next days, those for other regions (like Emilia) might grow for a while. Still, Lombardy is no China and I believe the data. If the death recede there, they will soon recede everywhere in Italy.
- Please do not say that “this was not a great crisis after all”. Look on the internet for explanations of the effect, compounded for 30 days, of every infected person infecting 1 or 1.25 people as opposed to, say, 2.5. It is staggering, as you would expect for an exponential growth. This means that: a) social distancing saved a lot of lives, and b) China lied, people died.
- We will know in the next months (assuming the crisis has peaked already) what estimated effect the measures taken in different countries have fared. For example: how did the Dutch and the Swedes (after accounting for differences in population age and climate, as far as they can be estimated) fare compared to, say, Italy and France? This will give extremely valuable indications as to how to proceed for similar new cases.
- China will have to pay. Firstly, they should be made to pay for the immense damage the inefficiency, corruption and outright stupidity of the Chicom machine has caused to the West (I think tariffs will be ideal for that). Secondly, they should have to pay through the repatriation of many important strategic industries, from which the Western machine clearly depends, both to keep producing and for the safety of the Western citizen. Thirdly, they should have to pay through sanctions like the expulsion from the WTO and the loss of the “most favorite” trade clause, as a corrupt third world government does not deserve to be given a seat in the first row.
- All Western nations will have to provide for contingency plans, and adapt their production chain to the new circumstances. For example, it is easy to predict that the “just in time” production methods will get quite a hit after the experiences of the last weeks. It may be cheaper in normal times, it becomes extremely expensive in abnormal ones. Many factories were closing already, in the last days, not because the government ordered them to, but for sheer lack of parts.
I suggest my readers that they pray very hard, today, for the virus to be finally receding.
The situation has not changed. Therefore, it seems to me that the analysis should not change, either.
However, it seems to me that, in Italy at least, the emergency is now morphing into madness. I have little doubt that other Countries like Spain and France will very soon follow, then they tend to react in the same way. I can only hope that the United Kingdom and the United States will keep a cooler head, following a tradition of “stiff upper lip” in times of crisis.
Listen, people: factories do not close even in war times, with the enemy bombers flying over them. The decision of the Italian Prime Minister, Conte, to shut down the country’s factories starting tomorrow is exactly an example of what should not, never (not if we had enemy bombers on our heads!) be done.
The very cold shiver that went down my spine when I read the news was mitigated by the detailed information: post, transports, banks, insurances stay open. Fishery and Agriculture also go on. This is a big chunk of activity in a Country like Italy, particularly when you consider that working from home will obviously continue. But the damage of the most recent measures for the Italian economy is now estimated at at least 7-8% of the GDP if this does not stop soon; and really, one wonders how can a Prime Minister who ordered half the Country to stay home suddenly say to his people “today is the fourth of April, this means you all can go back to work in your factories”.
One cannot avoid but noticing this: that people like Conte have no downside in paralysing the Country, but they will face a huge wall of hysteria and possible political annihilation if they don’t. They all go with the flow, because the tide is too strong to be stemmed. Like every politician, they know that the art will be in letting people suffer first until the circumstances allow to change the course, and not be seen as the responsible for the suffering later.
There was, in Italy, a luxury tax on yachts some time ago. Everybody – and I say everybody – in the corridors of power knew that this would have resulted in a very fast, and very easy, exodus of yachts to nearby countries, like Croatia. They knew, and they did not care. It was more important to offer the country some sacrificial lambs (the hated “rich”) and let the economy living around around the rich (the tourism, the services, the caterers, the maintenance industry etc) suffer as the business moved abroad in a matter of hours. It was a move of such cold-blooded, calculated cynicism, that it provided a very raw example of what a politician will do to survive in a democracy.
I think that something like this is happening now. As the hysteria grows (which I am afraid it will), Conte and the other politicians will not have any interest in trying to plant their feet, draw a line in the sand and say that there must be a limit to the measures taken to prevent the diffusion of the China Virus. On the contrary, the temptation will be big to put themselves “at the head of the movement” and look “caring”, even as they carelessly destroy the lives of millions and cause untold suffering for years to come.
Social distancing is all fine. Work from home whenever possible is all fine. The enforcement of the end of mass gathering is something which has always been done for public order reasons. But when you begin to shut down factories and condemn to closure every shop that is not “essential”, you are playing with the very fabric of the country and making of Italy the next Venezuela.
This massive spending (authorised by Brussels, but nevertheless to be repaid by the Italians; without even the ability of printing the money and take the inflationary hit, because Italy is not even in control of its currency anymore!) will cause massive tax hikes, which will cause huge discontent and will castrate the Country’s growth for many years to come. Three, four, six weeks of madness will have consequences for years to come, and will likely change the trajectory of the Country. If we are lucky, they will be at least the end of the Euro, but we shall see about that.
The numbers I keep seeing, and the situation I keep observing, is still exactly the same that I have described here . The figures have grown, as expected; but the fundamental nature of what is happening (that is: who is dying, what ethical challenges this poses, and how we should react to them) hasn’t.
The coming weeks will cause a huge ripple effect on the economies of half of Continental Europe. The Left will rise, as it is always the case when misery and poverty do. This may result in an entirely home-made World War I, with the citizen shooting themselves out of sheer panic rather than being shot at by the enemy.
Also, consider this: when you get bombed, you see immediately that things are going badly, and can decide to work towards a peace agreement relatively fast. But this madness might only end when the pain has become unbearable on the moment, which means that it will become much worse still in the 4-8 months to come.
As the German poet Schiller said (about marriage, but you get my drift) “der Wahn ist kurz, die Reu’ ist lang” (the madness is short, the regret is long).
Caution, yes. Prudence, yes.
But panic decisions that shut down the Country are not prudent, they are criminal.
This guy has invited, via video, Italians to pray more. He has mentioned, no less, Jesus, St Joseph and the Blessed Virgin.
Trump has launched a national day of prayer, but I am not aware of any other European politician doing the same. Silly me, a lot of these people would like to have abortion enshrined in some European Constitution as a human right. There isn’t much in them that would make them even think of the Blessed Virgin.
Matteo Salvini’s word are very moderate. He does not show the kind of assertiveness that anyone of us would have preferred. Still, he is at the very top of the movement as far as Europe-wide relevant politicians are concerned. Not an easy thing to do in today’s Italy, even as a conservative politician.
My rosary, today, is for him; then even a very, very imperfect Catholic like Salvini is way in front of most other Italian politicians and, of course, of that evil clown we sadly have as Pope.
Make Italy Pray Again, Matteo.
And may God bless you always.
As I receive information from first hand from Italy, and am obviously living the situation currently unfolding in England, it might be wise to give some coordinates as to where we are. So, there is goes.
- This is not a hoax. It’s no fake news. It’s real, and it’s serious. Believe me, I am not the guy who “buys the hype”. I don’t believe in global warming, or in papal conspiracy theories, and think myself solidly grounded in reality. I receive constant reports *from the ground in Italy*. Take it from me, this is as real as it comes.
- Most people will obviously survive. Most *old* people will, obviously, also survive. It is not the Plague, or the Huns invading our lands. It is somewhere between a nasty flu and the Spanish Flu. Most of us will not only survive, but thrive.
- The real issue is an ethical, not medical, one. The people who are seriously affected by the Coronavirus need intensive care unit places, and specialised equipment. No Country on the planet has the equipment to face such an emergency, as the cases come all together. Therefore, a relatively limited number of cases causes a very real emergency and short-circuits the system.
- This means that, whilst the number or dead will, likely, not be a big multiple of those who die for the flu every year (I will tell you below why I think that), what is terrifying is the horror scenario of hospitals and doctors having to choose who gets treated and who will likely die. This, and no other, is the problem as it appears now and with the information I am getting.
- The latter point poses (immediately in Italy, and later everywhere else), a fundamental question: are we, as Nations, the kind of people who allow such a situation to happen in the first place? My answer to this is, clearly, a resounding “no”. To answer otherwise means to have the same mindset as those who, say, want to leave people free to die by euthanasia. The defence of the population is one of the primary duties of every Nation. The defence of the more vulnerable people should be an even bigger priority. We are Christians, for crying out loud. Leave the “survival of the fittest” rubbish to the Darwinists. To say that we should pray for the people at risk is an empty slogan, if we then refuse to actually help them. God works through us. We should be the help we are praying for.
- Still, there should be, as in everything, the limits given by elementary common sense. For example: has it ever been a tradition, in Christian Countries, to stop everything during the Flu season, so that more old people could be spared from getting the flu, thus reducing the number of deaths? You know the answer. In the end, elementary common sense must be safeguarded, and the population must be free to go about their business and put food on the table.
If you ask me, we are now, everywhere in Europe, in the midst of the thinking I have explained under point 5. The fact that all this is meant to protect a tiny but important part of the population, and an all-important part to protect our sense of decency and common humanity, is generally accepted in Europe. But all this works on the assumption of a hit to the economy, not a total collapse and TEOTWAWKI.
In time, and if the warm weather does not kill the virus, or medicine/vaccines are made available within a reasonable number of weeks, point 6 will have to be considered and weighted against point 5: then we don’t stop life, say, every December 15 until February 15. At that point, and depending on what information is available at the time, something like this will have to be considered.
Also, consider this: the total infection numbers are not going to be earth-shattering. Among the largely very old passengers of the Diamond Princess, the figures on Wikipedia state 3,711 passengers, of whom (in a contained environment, and with a lot of old people) only around 712 were infected; of whom only 7 died. The infected ones had to cope with a level of exposure worse than every of the old people currently not infected in Italy will receive in, likely, months, when it will get warmer. Summa Summarum: it’s not that if we do nothing 100% of the 80+ years old will die. Actually, a great number will not even be infected.
Still, we face the decision: what kind of Nations do we want to be? What does it mean to call ourselves Christian, if the weak among us are left to die? When I was a child, I read that the Redskin tribes left the old people out in the cold, to literally…. die of cold, when they had become useless and had not used the tribe the courtesy to die in another way. I always despised those savages. I would not want to wake up in the morning, and know that we have become like them; still, this should be within the boundaries of elementary common sense.
The emergency should be, I think, in the provision and manning of ICU places, equipment, field hospitals etc.; in the production of virus tests, and the like. When that has been addressed, the grip on the population should be gradually released. There is a limit, and the limit is the one of elementary common sense.
Best wishes to everybody.
You will soon have more free time.
One of the things we all can do is to pray more.
Well, this really boggles the mind.
There is no doubt, because it is black on white, that Francis must take responsibility for the decision to shut down every church in Rome, made on Thursday. There can be no doubt that the “consultation” with the Evil Clown means that he himself, Pachamama Francis, is behind this.
Imagine a Pope who hates Christ and his Church so much that, after the Government orders the shutting down of Masses, piles on and order the closure of all churches altogether; because it is dangerous to pray near the Blessed Sacrament, you know…
Let me tell you what I think: I think that this horrible decision was taken by Francis thinking, and hoping, that all other dioceses in Italy would have followed his example, praising his foresight in the protection of the Italian people from the Coronavirus (or from Christ; one of the two). After which, he would have basked in the glory of being the Great Protector of the Italian People from that most dangerous of all places, the…. local church.
Well, it is already well-known that it did not pan out that way. Apparently, many Bishops reacted in the other way, and started pestering Rome asking what is wrong with Francis (Francis, of course…). After only one day, Francis backpedaled and, always the gentleman, indirectly tried to blame other people (no link, because evil site).
Can you believe this guy? He literally sabotages Catholicism every time he can, then accuses other people when he is exposed as the problem.
Once again, Pachamama Francis piddles outside of the potty, and shows even to his very Aggiornamento-damaged Bishops what a dangerous embarrassment he is. But you see , dear Bishops: this is what happens when you keep supporting a man who never had an ounce of Catholicism in himself, and is very happy to let you know it every time he can.
That Francis could even think of supporting the measure tells to everybody with a brain that his fourteen neurons are a Catholicism-free space. To him, Christ is the problem, and churches are dangerous places. That many people would go to church and silently sit and pray (certainly, at safe distance from one another), finding solace in Christ’s vicinity in the Tabernacle, is something so foreign to his entirely secular mind that the decision to shut down everything (an unprecedented decision, not adopted even during the Black Plague) must have seemed entirely expedient and worthy of praise to him.
We need to get rid of this horrible, horrible guy. One would hope that more and more Bishops start to understand this, and start whispering among themselves of more drastic measures than phone calls behind the scene.
Or perhaps this is just wishful thinking, and Francis will keep piddling outside of the potty for the rest of his disgraceful life.
The situation in Italy as I write this blog post is this one. You can obviously follow the link for updates.
The news this morning seem apocalyptic for those living abroad. perhaps some explanations are in order.
Having the whole Country on lockdown does not mean that everyone is physically quarantined. It means, in a word, that everyone must self-quarantine unless he has valid reasons to move. These are, for example, going to work, visiting relatives who need assistance, going to the hospital, buying groceries.
He who has such necessity to move can print or copy on a piece of paper the self-certification that he needs to move for this or that reason. If stopped by the Carabinieri or Polizia, he will show his self-certification and say to the law enforcement officers, say, where exactly he is going. The LEO can check at any time. The self-certification means a criminal offence (three months in jail) if the information is not truthful or the person is riding the system.
I miss the information about how exactly many day-to-day situations will be dealt with. However, I think that whilst it is not paralysis (offices will keep going, transports will keep going) it is, I think, pretty much the end of those sectors of the economy that depends on recreational activities, from restaurants to football (soccer) games. The football (soccer) championship has been suspended, no doubt many other sport activities will suffer the same destiny.
I am not a doctor. I understand the Government is trying to do what they can whilst trying to remain sensible and within the legal framework of a free country. However, as a layman I ask myself this: with millions of people still moving around (as it is, in fact, unavoidable) how can anyone think that the virus will be seriously hampered? If, say, ten million Italians go to work every day instead of twenty (many people can work from home, I have several friends in Italy who are working from home with no massive disruption), how does this exactly impair the ability of the virus to spread? Does it make such a big difference that people can’t go to the stadium on the weekend? As a layman, I frankly doubt it.
Plus, there is a nagging doubt in my mind; which. again. comes from life experience.
In situations like this, the temptation for every Government is to follow the stupidity of their own voters, and take drastic measures not because they are of any real use, but because the Government does not want to be accused of inaction or of listening to the “evil Capitalists”. The entire West is now accustomed to living in a climate of permanenet, extremely stupid low-flame hysteria due to so-called man-made global warming. Why would I think that Governments which even adopt stupid measures to prevent imaginary dangers, and who do that to pander to the stupidity of their own voters, will not adopt even stupider measures when the danger is real?
This is something I cannot avoid thinking, when reading of a nationwide lockdown that isn’t one. In a way I am not blaming the Government as such. I blame populations who have lost the ability to separate real dangers from fake one, and who are therefore prone to adopt or support wrong measures in the case of real dangers because of the massive hysteria that dominates their lives anyway.
I also miss realistic comparison with other events, say: average age and daily numbers of people who died of the common flu in the same period. So for example: in the last 24 hours, 500 people died in Italy of Coronavirus (we aren’t there yet, I this we will be soon), of average age X (it’s very high last time I looked: 81, so the dead seem to be what is called the “harvesting effect” of some diseases), compared with so and so many of such and such average age for the flu. It would, I think, help people to put things in perspective, instead of only reading the latest shouted headline and a dead count constantly rising without any sensible coordinates.
However serious this virus is (it is serious; but it is no Ebola, and no Black Plague), in the end we are in the hands of the Lord. One can only behave responsibly, go to confession and know that, if his time has come, it is because… his time has come.
The day of the Lord comes like a thief in the night. It was so yesterday, it is so now, it will be so forever. Be reasonable, pray for the living and the dead, and carry on.
And it came to pass that this morning, due to coronavirus and the guidelines announced by the UK Bishops’ Conference, the following changes were announced:
- No communion on the tongue
- No communion under both species
- No hand shaking and effusions by the “sign of peace”.
Sad not to be able to receive communion. However, I immediately rejoiced for the “sign of peace”. Also, I immediately realised this would, at last and for a while, free us from the oh so saintly looking “extraordinary ministers” holding the chalice.
On the latter, I was wrong.
What happened was that, instead of holding the chalice, the extraordinary etc **were given the hosts to distribute**.
Then I had to look at the lay ministers giving the host to people … giving communion to themselves! It was a purely lay exercise in Protestantism, and a fitting image of the stupidity of our times.
In many churches here in the UK, the priest distributes the host, whilst the extraordinary etc holds the chalice. Not always, but often. You would think if there is no chalice, there is no need for the laypeople. But no, this could not be. It should not be said that the pewsitters are freed of the sanctimonious busybodies, silently screaming “Look at me! Look at me” I am sooo actively participating!” as they look almost as important as they feel.
We are getting mad. For countless generations, communion has been given on the tongue, and it is new to me that this should even be considered a potential vehicle of contagion. I receive(d) on the tongue every time, and the hand of the priest never touches my tongue or any other part of me. The host is gently deposed on my tongue without any touching, I retract my tongue carefully, that is that. I can’t imagine this requires more than minimal training on the side of the priest, as I do not remember one single episode in which my tongue was touched by anything else than the consecrated host. After his minimal training, the priest touching my tongue to put the host in it must be half blind or with an impaired ability to move his hand. In that case, I wonder how he can consecrate the host in the first place.
Of course, I know what’s going on. The priest is perfectly able (like they all are) to do things properly; but who will go against the Bishops’ guidelines and expose himself to the accusation from concerned witches of wanting to infect the population?
I wish someone explained to me how it is a problem to receive on the tongue; but then again, we have now entered an age in which common sense and normal occurrences (meat eating, dairy eating, carbon and oxygen in the air, wanting that children are not killed) are seen as madness or dangerous behaviours every day.
Pete Buttigieg has officially dropped out of the race for the White House. Actually, he has “suspended” his campaign, which he what is fashionable to say these days. But yeah, you can stick a fork in him, because he’s done.
The son of one of the founding members of the International Gramsci Society and translator of the notorious Quaderni dal Carcere, young Pete clearly grew up in an household full of the wrong ideas before God punished papa with a homosexual son, because the sins of the fathers, and all that.
I wonder what Gramsci would have thought of young Buttigieg? No, wait, I know! Alas, not even revolutionaries like Gramsci supported the Butt Revolution young Buttigieg was promoting.
Buttigieg’s claim to fame was as the mayor of a city that would not qualify for major office in Italy, much less in the United States. In this city, he managed to compromise the relationship with the Black community and to preside over a sharp increase in criminality statistics. Still, being a very vain man (like those people very often are), Buttigieg thought that he was ready for the Very Big Jump; or, at least, so he said, thinking from the start that even a failed run would increase his visibility, possibly propelling him to a lesser, but still brilliant glory in the future, hoped-for, Post-Trump Democratic administration.
Mayor Pete (as he came to be called, in order to sound folksy and “one of us”, which this guy certainly isn’t) had, however, a major card up his sleeve: his perversion. He was soon able to put up an impressive electoral machine, and that was fuelled by donations of rich men which, it is rumoured (and it is sensible), were more than proportionally donations of rich men afflicted by the same perversion as him. Everything went well for a while, the elegant wine caves of the sophisticates wineries in Napa Valley were open to the selected crowd of more or less effeminate rich donors, and Petra was able to do well in the small, vastly White States of Iowa and New Hampshire, where the Democrat voters barely remember the story of Sodom and, if they do, they either don’t believe it or they must think that it is out of date for some reason. In short, as a homo you can have a decent run in 2020 America, until you encounter the Real Country.
But the Real Country was not going anywhere, and was awaiting. First in Nevada, and then in South Carolina, Buttigieg showed that where even a small dose of Fear of the Lord comes in, Mayor Pete has to go out. The Latinos in Nevada and, most notably, the Blacks in South Carolina did not really gel with the wannabe Mayor of Sodom. The USS Pete was torpedoed even by Joe Biden, who barely remembers he is running for President, and sank rapidly. Wisely (because he is a homo, but he is not stupid), Mayor Pete decided to “suspend” his campaign before Super Tuesday, in order to curry favour with Bloomberg and Biden and pretend he might have gathered a number of delegates on Tuesday, rather than risk total humiliation and show the world he was going to go absolutely nowhere apart from hell.
Do not believe the stupid press (like here) telling you that Buttigieg started well but “lost momentum in recent weeks” as if this is something that could have gone differently. Buttigieg did not have a chance from the very start. You need a lot of Black votes to win a Democrat nomination, and Buttigieg never ever had them, actually showing dismal numbers among them from day one. Buttigieg was, from the very beginning, the vanity project of Pete Buttigieg and of the wealthy donors who either wanted one like them running for the White House, or liked to look progressive at the lavish parties they give, or to which they are invited.
Farewell, Mayor Pete. I wish you repentance and conversion, because I really wouldn’t want to be you, and God does not want people like you with Him.
If you go here and, once scrolled down to the comments, click on the little image posted by reader “Defensa de la fe”, you will find the transcript of the words of Our Lady to St Bridget concerning a Pope allowing priests to contract marriage. Alas, I did not manage to import the image here, but you will be just fine clicking on the image and letting the image fill the screen.
Note this: a Pope allowing a person who is already a consecrated priest to contract marriage would be infinitely worse than a pope allowing men who are already married to become priests. The first case has never happened and could not possibly happen, as it has always been a tenet of the faith that a priest, once consecrated as such, cannot marry. The second has always happened in exceptional cases in the Western church, and regularly in the Eastern (and then schismatic, and then in part again in communion with Rome) one. I actually know of two Catholic bloggers (one good, one not so much) who are exactly in that situation: marriage first, consecration later.
Still, the text that is reported of the vision to St Bridget does not say at all that a Pope who would do such horrible things would, ipso facto, cease to be a Pope; nor does it say that it would be for every faithful to decide that such a Pope is an Antipope, or a flower vase, or an elephant. No, the words of the vision (those, mind, who can be read in that image) leave the reader in no doubt that such a horrible man (more horrible, no doubt, that even His Heretical Horrendousness, Pachamama Francis) would be subject to blood-curling punishment for being an absolutely horrible Pope. Also, it is clear that God would allow such a pope to lose every spiritual illumination and inspiration, and to be left in a state of complete spiritual blindness, whilst remaining the Pope. No other interpretation is possible, because if a pope carrying out such deeds were to lose his office, most certainly Our Lady would have warned the faithful, via St Bridget, to refuse to recognise him as such!
This, my friends, is exactly the reading that every Catholic raised in the Italian environment (accustomed to horrible popes, and finding the history of the city and surrounding territories scattered with the remnants of their deeds) would think of such a pope; then the idea that it would be for the individual faithful or theologian to establish who is the pope and who is not the pope would be so outlandish as the idea of rewriting the Commandments.
Mind: this is an individual revelation and, whilst St Bridget enjoys enormous prestige, no Catholic is obliged to believe in it. Similarly, there could be more in the revelation than is addressed in the quotation I have linked to.
Still, keep this well in mind: that it is not for you, or for me, or for everybody that is not a sufficiently robust body of bishops and cardinals, to officially declare who is validly a pope.
The sad fact still remain, that this pope is clearly so evidently heretic as the sun is evidently hot; but the heresy would be just as evident in the hypothesis related to St Bridget.
The situation is, if you ask me, brutally simple:
- We live in times of heretical popes (I add here Francis II Cupich and Francis III Tagle for good measure, so you are ready for things getting even worse)
- The heretical popes are God’s punishment for the immense rebellion of Vatican II; they are, in fact, allowed exactly in order for the faithful to get this single point.
- The heretical pope must, in the natural, be deposed by Bishops and/or Cardinals rebelling to the heresy and forcing him to recant, or else declaring him deposed; and woe to those bishops and cardinals who refuse to act!
- This age of heresy will end when God has decided that we have been punished enough, either by inspiring the bishops and cardinals to finally act or through some other extraordinary event.
- it is, cela va sans dire, not for us to decide who is pope in the meantime; particularly when there is no other person even claiming Francis’ job, or declaring him an usurper, or even rebuking him publicly and officially; the person often unwillingly chosen for the role obviously refusing it very publicly and supporting Francis on different occasions.
We live in sad times. But I personally still prefer these times to the fall of the Roman Empire, the Black Death, or the conquest of Constantinople.
We cannot choose the times we have been given to live in. What we can do is to march on with the truth revealed to us, dying in the Catholic faith in the midst of crumbling worlds if needs be.
The legal structure of the United States never ceases to surprise those who come from different legal systems. Compared to every European Country, it is, in many issues, rather atomised due to the existence of 50 States, each with their own very extensive legislative powers. This is why, even if Roe vs Wade were to be reversed (it will be one day), the battle would only be half won, as many States would run to implement State legislation allowing the killing of babies. It is only when the Supreme Court declares abortion not compatible with the U.S. Constitution, that the legislative powers of the States will be neutralised.
The same happens with the phenomenon of “sanctuary cities”. In Europe there are no “sanctuary cities”. The concept itself is foreign to the legal system. If, say, the Italian region of Lombardia decided that, within its territory, illegal immigrants are welcome and the local authorities are ordered to disobey or to obstacle law enforcement, people would start going to jail pretty fast. It is obvious that this does not happen in San Francisco or Los Angeles, where – the way I understand it – the battle against sanctuary cities is fought with federal lawsuit and with the threat of withholding federal funds, not by sending the FBI to simply arrest people (legislators, and enforcers) for subversive activity.
It works, fortunately, both ways. I am following with interest the phenomenon of the “sanctuary counties” in Virginia, vowing to defend the Second Amendment rights of their citizen against the tyrannical attitude of their own State legislators. The most recent development I have read about is the one of the eleven Texas cities banning abortion. The linked article is interesting not because it indicates a way to get around Roe vs Wade (it is obvious that the legal ground is extremely shaky here; which, if it was not the case, would allow for the vast hollowing of every unwelcome judicial decision in States like, say, California or New York), but because it moves the battle against abortion to the public opinion via the courts.
It is clear to me that this lawsuit is not meant to result in a victory. It is meant to result in a discussion. It is meant to, as they say in today’s parlance, “raise awareness”. It is the expression of a local, pacific revolt of decent citizen, choosing to fight through the courts against the iniquity of a Constitution willingly and unashamedly bent to the will of the leftist mob by politically motivated activists.
If you think that cities can decide to not follow Supreme Court precedent, you can keep dreaming at your leisure. But if you think that these initiatives amplify the discussion about the evil of abortion, you might be on to something.
Still, the way towards an abortion-free United States (which, make no mistake, will in time result in an abortion free Western Europe) does not go through “sanctuary cities”. It goes through sound judicial appointments both in the higher courts and in the Supreme Court.
In 2020, just as in 2016, it is vital that Trump be reelected in November, and that a working majority in the Senate allows the President to keep doing the excellent job of appointing dozens, at this point actually hundreds of sound thinking judges.
Look at the age of the Supreme Court Justices, add to Breyer and RBG the diabetic Wide Latina and realise that Trump’s second term can be, as far as the Supreme Court is concerned, just as explosive as the first; actually more so, if the great, 72 years old Clarence Thomas felt sure enough of the soundness of his successor to resign, allowing Trump the appointment of another judge like him, but 30 years younger.
Like 2016, 2020 is an extremely important battle in the war for the defence of the unborn.
Please hammer the concept in the head of your tepid relatives, or colleagues, or friends, whenever they start moaning that Trump is not nice enough, and his tweets are oh so unkind.
I am late to this party; but the party does not want to end, and it might be useful to spend a word or three on this.
Some Bishops reported that the Evil Clown was “displeased” that James Martin, aka “Martina”, used the meeting of the two months ago to promote his sodomitic agenda. Others deny or disagree.
In my view, the truth is in the middle; or rather, both sides are right.
Francis will say what his counterparts want to hear. This is what he always does and will always do. A man able to say “soon, soon!” to the parents of a persecuted FFI friar will obviously not have any qualm in saying to visiting Bishops a couple of words that makes them believe that he is actually not actively helping Martina to push his agenda. This makes the poor nincompoops happy, and avoids the awkward moment for Pachamama pope.
The real news in this is not what Francis may or may not have said. It is the fact that, after seven years of speaking out of three corners of his mouth, there should be any Bishop who gives any importance to what this evil man blathers.
A short internet search will reveal to everybody that the meeting between Pachamama and Martina happened on the 30 September. The alleged conversation with the Bishops happened in February, which means that the Bishops and Pachamama Guy were talking of something that had happened more than four months before.
You would think that, if the matter had had any relevance to Francis, he would have made known his opinion before February? Even if Francis expressed his disapproval in strong term to the Bishops, what value does this have, if this disapproval is four months late and expressed in private conversation? It would clearly mean that Francis himself does not attach any importance to anybody exploiting him for his purposes.
Make a mess!
Francis is a born liar. He lies just as easily and automatically as you breath. He does not attach any value, or dignity, or manliness to his words. To him, a man is as good as his Socialist credentials. It is really dumb to believe that anything that he says in a private conversation would have any value to him. If you were to say to Francis that the earth is flat, he would answer to you that there might be some merit in what you say, just to avoid the awkward situation. Why wouldn’t he? He lies about everything anyway!
This is the guy who boasted of lying to his mother, who was sending money to him, about studying Medicine whilst he was paying his studies in the Seminary (which, by the way, tells you a lot about the lack of Catholicism in the allegedly oh so pious home of Mother Bergoglio). If one is able of lying to his own mother about what the money she sends him – and, no doubt, the fruit of her sacrifices – is being used for, what would he not lie about? If he is able to even boast about it, what does this say about the attitude of this scoundrel?
I report less and less about what the man says in his almost daily heretical exercises in bloviation. The fact is, once you understand a guy is – as the common parlance goes – full of shit, you cannot give any value to any word he says, period.
Francis is – besides being a heretical pope, who would have been deposed and trialled for heresy a long time ago if our Bishops and Cardinals had some testosterone in them – a compulsive liar with no self-respect, no decency and, quite possibly, homosexual tendencies. How any Bishop can give any value to anything he spouts is beyond me.
Francis is a cancer that has now spread to the very limbs of the Church. To excise this cancer will require the amputation of one or more limbs. But this does not make this amputation less necessary, if we want to avoid that the cancer, albeit never terminal for the patient, keeps spreading everywhere for who knows how long.
The Bishops and Cardinals need to move and force this guy to retract everything (it would be a long retractation), or be deposed and trialled for heresy. This should be the daily issue of conversation among them.
What the old, lewd liar might have said to some of them is really neither here nor there.
The Nevada Caucus results are out, and it is clear that it will be between Bolshevik Bernie and Mini Mike, with more than a hunch that a lot of grassroots Democrats are really, really angry at a billionaire wanting to buy the presidency and being (up to now at least) so pathetic at it.
Bolshevik Bernie has, among his many delirious policy points, a federal law that would enshrine abortion rights in law. Let us set aside for the moment the constitutional feasibility of this, and let us reflect on what this means for the American people.
It is fair to say that Sanders’ is the most brutal attack on the unborn ever committed by a Presidential candidate. He really goes all the way out.
The current frontrunner of the Democratic Party really, really hates babies.
A person claiming of being “proud to be Jewish” promoting a yearly Holocaust. Go figure.
Mind, it is not that the other candidates are much better; in fact, it is only now that some people on the left probably begin to regret moving the needle of the party so much to the left. The “moderate” candidate, Ueber Bitch Amy Klobuchar, voted against both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh and, if memory serves, attacked the latter viciously. If these are the “moderates”, give me Sanders every day. At least the danger is made very clear.
Bolshevik Bernie hates unborn babies really a lot. Klobuchar will gladly sacrifice them to get elected. All the others are in the middle, which means babies will still have to die. Whoever gets the nomination, this was the most baby-killing candidate troop the United States have ever seen.
If Bernie gets the nomination (we need to wait for Super Tuesday; but I think Nevada was a good indication of the raw energy that will be mobilised against Bloomberg), his extremism even in the matter of baby-killing needs to be a constant issue among Catholic journalists, assorted pundits and humble bloggers. I know, it will likely play second fiddle to the obvious danger the man represents for the economy and the freedom of those who have not been aborted. Still, it cannot be neglected merely because other parts of the man’s utterly bonkers platform catch the imagination of the public with more force.
We need to attack Battleship Bernie with the Catholic submarines, torpedoing it all the time to November. Trump and the GOP will attack it with the aircraft carriers USS MAGA and USS KAG, hopefully disposing of the danger.
But we need to do our job trying to move some of those who tell themselves believers to stay away from this toxic man in November.
In a piece of good news that will not fail to please the readers, the Gay Scouts of America have filed for bankruptcy. What this means, is that they will now begin to sell the silverware (they have a lot of that) to deal with the many sexual abuse charges they are facing.
They will, of course, re-emerge from bankruptcy at some point as a new organisation, and I bet the legal framework is more complex than the newspaper article mentions. Still, the new organisation will be, as things stand now, also doomed.
These people allow weird things, like having boys who think they are girls to join them. This is in addition to allowing homos within their ranks, after which they are suprised that it rains sexual abuse charges on them.
Most homos like young men. Deal with it.
Similarly, “boy” means “boy”. To allow a boy who thinks he is not a boy to join the Boy Scouts is like admitting to a seminary a young man who thinks he is a girl (or, come to that, an elephant, or a Ming vase). What other things these people do I have no idea, but I am sure the details are quite disturbing. I am curious to know whether the Girl Scouts allow boys who identify as girls, or the Boy Scout girls who identify as boys.
Confusing? It’s because they are confused themselves.
Henceforward, the Gay Scouts will be an organisation for the offspring of liberals who insist in confusing their children as much as humanly possible, perhaps because they think that growing them in a “tolerant” environment will help the parents themselves get away with all the selfish stuff they do (infidelities, divorces, remarriages, addictions, etc.). If you are a marijuana-smoking swinger, with a divorce behind you and actually liking the fact that your second wife really likes the milkman, the Gay Scouts might just be the right place for your boy; particularly, of course, if you have encouraged him to “identify as girl” just in order to go for the safest option.
The simple fact is that, besides the obvious impiousness of the PC stuff, it never pays to get away from common sense. A boys’ organisation is either a boys’ organisation, or it is useless. Going away from the simple facts of life is like hoping that water will suddenly start falling upwards.
The Gay Scouts are desperate. Desperate people with no faith do desperate, stupid things. It really is amusing to see how dumb they are.
Keep your boys away from the Gay Scouts. There’s nothing good left in them.
I have now made my homework on the text.
I wish I could share the optimism of those who see in the text of Querida Amazonia a stop to the mass ordination of married priest. However, I think that Mr Verrecchio has, from what I have read up to now, one or two very sensible arguments. I am a bit in the middle, as I will proceed to explain.
What follows is paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Excrementation. Emphases mine.
2. During the Synod, I listened to the presentations and read with interest the
reports of the discussion groups. In this Exhortation, I wish to offer my own
response to this process of dialogue and discernment. I will not go into all of the
issues treated at length in the final document. Nor do I claim to replace that text
or to duplicate it. I wish merely to propose a brief framework for reflection that
can apply concretely to the life of the Amazon region a synthesis of some of the
larger concerns that I have expressed in earlier documents, and that can help
guide us to a harmonious, creative and fruitful reception of the entire synodal
3. At the same time, I would like to officially present the Final Document,
which sets forth the conclusions of the Synod, which profited from the
participation of many people who know better than myself or the Roman Curia
the problems and issues of the Amazon region, since they live there, they
experience its suffering and they love it passionately. I have preferred not to cite
the Final Document in this Exhortation, because I would encourage everyone to
read it in full.
So: Pachamama Francis is *not* officially endorsing the heretical Final Document. His exhortation is to be read as a response to it, which clearly (as far as anything with that cretin can be “clear”) means that the response of the Pope has higher authority than the document he is responding to. I note here that Francis is clearly not ratifying the decisions of the Synod. Therefore, I think that Can. 343 does not find application.
However, Pachamama Francis is not slamming the door on the heresy. In fact, he encourages us to read all that manure. He does not endorse the heresies, but he does not want the discussion to die.
To me, the meaning seems clear: “I do not have the balls to ratify the Final Document, because you never know what could happen afterwards. But I hate the Church and all Her institutions. Therefore, I refuse to close the debate and I actually encourage fake Catholics to “make a mess”; what I could not destroy today could well be destroyed tomorrow, no?”.
We can accept as uncontroversial that the document, in itself, does not endorse either mass consecration of married men or – which would be impossible anyway – sacramental deaconesses and other such rubbish. Still, the issue is not that. The issue is in the fact that Francis has refused to close the door on the subversives, clearly showing that he is on their side, but he does not see it as feasible – or prudent for his own job security – to officially endorse their theories.
Therefore, we remain in a state where we are invited to read, and therefore to debate, the unreadable and not debatable.
Trust this cowardly subversive to put a bomb in his document, so that he can continue to wreak the Church whilst maintaining the desired amount of plausible deniability. The bomb is still there, armed, waiting for a Pope able and willing to make it explode. Francis is willing; but, for the moment, he does not feel able.
What a little, cowardly piece of work this guy is.
In the last year or so, I have noticed a word used fairly often by the Left: “dehumanising”.
They use it every time someone describes one of their own in some time-honoured, typical fashion, for example calling him “ass”, “donkey”, “cow”, “bitch”, or the like. So, if I say that Nancy Pelosi has the brains of a hare – or, much more spontaneously, that she is a cow with the addition of Botox – I am “dehumanising” her. I am, or so they say, preparing the ground for the alleged Nazi behaviour of Trump supporters, who – so goes the theory – are depriving their opponent of their dignity of human beings as a prelude to putting them all in ovens, or something like that.
If you think this is totally deranged, reflect that a prominent members of the Leftist Cult has declared – quite officially, and not joking in the least – in the Senate, that, if Trump is not stopped, he could give Alaska to the Russians in exchange for help by the next election. I know, I know….
Well, I am more than somewhat surprised that the accusation of “dehumanising” human beings should come from exactly that corner.
These are people who support the right of a mother to kill her baby up to the moment of birth.
Let us sink that for a bit, and let us reflect of who is “dehumanising”: me for calling Pelosi a cow, or them for killing babies in the womb.
Series 2 of the “Impeach Him!” reality TV show went to an end yesterday, with the brutal rejection of the Democrat machinations by all Republicans Senators but one, the well-known Senator Judas from Utah (I think he writes as Pierre Delecto, too).
The TV show achieved abysmal ratings, vastly disappointing its creators in the Democratic Party. It never gained traction, and as the episodes went on it was clear that the public was not only not interested but, actually, positively hostile. Even the mass media hostile to him must admit that Trump’s popularity reached a new high during the impeachment show. What they don’t tell you, is that Trump likely achieved this new high in popularity, at least in part, because of it.
I followed the last episode of Series 2, live, yesterday evening. I enjoyed every minute. Not even the strident whining of Chuck Schumer managed to make me angry. In fact, I found his warnings about the impending end of Democracy As We Know It quite amusing. Thank you, Mr Schumer, for this bit of entertainment! We all know that the (mediocre) comedian blood runs in the family.
The Producers of Series 1, revolving around Russia, and Series 2, revolving around the Ukraine, must now decide whether to start Series 3 of this shameless reality show. The end of Series 2 hints at such a decision: the screenplays have decided to create another TV fantasy and have Trump end Series 2 as King. Therefore, it stands to reason that Series 3 has been already approved, the casting is going on as we speak, and production will begin as soon as practicable.
However, the producers of the show need to reflect on this: whilst Series 1 could attract a certain audience for a long while and managed to keep the public entertained, Series 2 – which was much shorter to boot – had the public bored, annoyed, or even enraged rather fast. Therefore, Series 3 constitutes a great risk. It could do much more damage than the already disastrous Series 2, as the public decide that they really have had enough of bad reality TV shows of this sort.
I, for myself, wish for Series 3 to start soon (It could start very soon: Series 2 first went on air merely days after the end of Series 1!), as I think that it would greatly help Trump’s reelection prospects, which are excellent anyway. In a strange way, I think it might be ghoulishly entertaining to watch. I am, I must confess, getting accustomed to it as I can barely remember a time without this TV show (heck, I think Obama was still President!).
Alas, it does not help to promote sound legislation on infrastructure etc. and will more or less paralyse the legislation activity; but hey, I don’t think the Producers of Series 1 and 2 will give us the sensible collaboration that would be necessary, so I had better enjoy the entertainment they can clearly give us.
The next weeks, perhaps days, will likely tell us whether Series 3 is going to get approved.
It is amazing to see how much The Producers do not care for viability or commercial success. They seem to love the show as a welcome escape from a sad reality (for them and their cult followers; the rest of the Country is in an excellent mood) and they might well have developed a dangerous addiction.
It might be very, very fun to watch.
The suicide of the young priest, Father Evan Harkins, has been keeping me occupied for a while. A suicide is always shocking, and a suicide generally leaves – whatever rubbish some V II priest may have told you – very little hope that the person who committed it escaped hell, for the reasons we all knew when we were three and a half year old, before political correctness utterly ruined our sensus catholicus. I will, therefore, remind everyone that the “heart in the right place” argument, so easily used to play God and feel good at the same time, must be expunged from the Catholic mind.
The sad case of Father Evan Harkins, however, might really be different.
Read here the absolutely terrifying letter written by a religious who witnessed several cases of people treated with the same medicament. The most terrifying period of an otherwise terrifying letter:
Yet another Sister fell into deep depression after being prescribed an anti-depressant for the relief of headaches. After she had been taking it a couple of days, she felt so depressed and suicidal, she walked out of the monastery down the road, with the overwhelming yearning to just end her life.
I realise the medicament given to Father Harkins was a reaction to severe, likely life-threatening, digestion problems, which demanded a robust countermeasure. However, I cannot avoid thinking that there is something seriously wrong with a medicament that can cause such suicidal instincts in those who take it. At the very least, it is fair to say that cases like the one of Father Harkins and the other ones mentioned by the Abbess should be thoroughly investigated by the appropriate authorities and regulators; at the very least, one would think that a thorough and serious warning about the potential side effects and, perhaps, mandatory medical supervision should be linked to the cure. I am approaching sixty years of age, and I did not even know that medicines with such brutal side effects exist in the first place. Truly sobering reading. I am, of course, not God and therefore do not know, but I truly hope that this goes as “not being able to understand what one is doing”, helping our poor Father. Lord, have mercy on him, and on us all.
However, you would rightly accuse me of becoming soft in my old age, if I were to engender the impression that this is just another “let us make our own fluffy religion” post, like you read almost everywhere nowadays. There can be no doubt that in case of suicide – of someone that is not insane, etc. – the probability of hell is just very high; so much so, that the Church thought it appropriate (who would dare, in the West, to do it today?) to prescribe that there should be no burial in consecrated ground, and no requiem mass. It did not mean, of course, that the suicide was in hell. It meant that the hand of cards was bad enough that the Church deemed a scandal to just send the signal that the deceased is quite OK, because “he had his heart in the right place”, and such stuff. For the record, pretty much everyone has his heart in the right place, and every professional assassin loves his children and pets.
I am also told that Hitler was always extremely nice. It gives one food for thought.
Pray for poor Father Harkins. Hope with a sensible, rational hope that a merciful God had mercy on him.
But please, do not nourish the narrative of a God looking at suicide now in a different way than the Church always told us He does.
I have received this message and I thought I would publish it:
You need not publish this comment. It’s simply a personal information, and also a request. First the information: I hadn’t heard about the Kobe guy before he crashed, but what I’ve read these days about his commitment to support the perverts’ lavender lobby isn’t quite to be expected by a Catholic man. It’s more like the stuff of a Pelosi hag or what not. I report only hearsay, I haven’t investigated the whole thing. So feel free to ignore the info if it happens not to be reliable.
The other thing is a request: after I was sacked from “Catholic” University in Belgium for speaking against abortion, I found a job at a small pro-life group in my country. We have a monthly letter sent to people supporting the good fight in both French and Dutch. I happen to like the manly measure you suggested about how to deal with the abortion issue properly the other day. A bit harsch, maybe, but the world is a tough place, so it’s an option worth considering. I’d be glad to translate that little article from you into French and hand it to my boss, to see whether he’d consider publishing it and sending the message through the mail to our supporters here in Belgium. He might refuse because, you know, sensistive matters etc., but I say this is definitely worth a try. If people feel a little outraged it means they’re not quite dead yet and still able to react, so…
By the way, a Mass was said for you the other day, as I promised. A traditional Mass, it goes without saying. And I’m keeping the promise of one Hail Mary per article, too. If you want to answer my request favourably, you can simply mail me at
Well, I must say the one or other tear might have escaped my eye here.
This is guy who loses his livelihood for speaking in favour of the unborn, whilst working at a supposedly Catholic university, and not only prays for me every time he reads me, but also has a Mass said for me, and a TLM one at that.
If I ever manage to get to heaven, I will find the likes of this gentlemen (I prefer not to publish the name, not knowing if this is desired) much higher in graces and accomplishments than myself, then my blogging here does not even begin to approach the level of dedication to the Christ, sacrifice and steadiness in the face of and persecution that this gentleman is enduring.
Be assured of my prayers, Sir!
I invite all of my readers to pray for this gentleman (you don’t need to know the name, of course) and dedicate to him your rosary of today as I will do.
My readers in the United States are, I think, not so much aware (for lack of lived experience) of the level of stealth and less stealth persecution that has been going on in Europe for several decades now, with countless personal tragedies (doctor and nurses above all, but in other professions, too), loss of job, loss of house, that people have to endure for wanting to be Christian in Countries that restricts more and more not only their ability to practice their faith, but to speak about it.
Speaking of which, of course everything that I publish can be translated (and, in fact, I see this happening routinely) in other languages, and spread in whatever ways the reader finds convenient. I have, I must confess, no desire for martyrdom and have, up to now, managed to navigate the XXI Century without persecution (at the cost of some professional choices that were prudent, but not anything approaching sacrifice or outright persecution); but I think that I can write well, at least for someone who is not mother tongue, and think that this might be useful to much better people than me.
Dear readers, pray for this gentleman today, and remember the many who, without any fanfare and proclaims, or any defence from Church authorities, suffer for Christ today, in the middle of the oh so advanced and allegedly civilised Europe; where people are euthanized and countless children aborted, but the phones are so, so smart.
P.S. I wish Kobe Bryant salvation, as I do even to Pope Francis. I am, however, not expecting him to be a sterling defender of Catholic values. He was a churchgoer, which certainly will have helped him in his all-decisive moment. But yes, we don’t know the state of his soul, and we don’t know the degree of rebellion that might have been present in his heart. Still, I really hope he made it, as I do of everybody else, even darn Francis The Pachamama Scoundrel.
After my first post on Kobe Bryant, I have been informed that his name apparently means something that might be Christian, or might mean something else i some language. Well, let us spend two words on it, shall we?
Firstly, I have not invented that Mr Bryant was called after the beef. I have read it around from professional journalists.
Fake news? Maybe, but when one is called Kobe, I think the journalist in question can be forgiven for it.
Secondly, and most importantly, the point I made is that the guy went around all his life without a recognisable Christian name. Whether his name meant tortoise, or Jakob, or “He who goes to Mass every cloudy Wednesday afternoon with a smile on his face” is fully besides the point. As the name is given to give testimony of one’s Christian name, it should be recognisable as such.
If I call my son “Lamborghini”, and have to explain to the world that it means “he who prays a lot in the morning” in some obscure African dialect, I have obviously failed in giving testimony of my Christian faith. Rather, I have either chose the name “Lamborghini” because I like fast cars, and want to attach to it some obscure Christian meaning, or – at the very least, and without a doubt – I have indulged in this damn habit of our times of thinking that common names are not good enough, and I must give my son a snowflake name before raising him telling him all the time what a unique, wonderful snowflake he is. We all know this happens all the time, and we all know that the obscure Christian meaning, if any, is obviously not the reason why the name was given; then the first duty of a name is to make the person with that name recognisable (as a person and, in this case, a Christian).
The problem with the word Kobe is not whether it means beef, or cat, or John The Baptist. It is that it is not recognisable as a Christian name and therefore does not give witness of the Christian faith.
Therefore, the point stays; and the blog post, too.
I read, like everybody, about the tragic death of Kobe Bryant, and said my prayers for all people involved. But I need to get rid of a little rant.
Kobe? Like the.. beef? Really? I thought it was a nickname. But no, he was called after a quality of beef!
I read he was raised in a Catholic family. Where I grew up, it would have been inconceivable to call a child after a type of beef. I don’t say Catholics, but not even a militant atheist would have done it!
Christianity – and Catholicism – should not be something that we “do” one hour a week. It should be something that walks with us, it should be what we are. Therefore, it behooves every Catholic – particularly in these times – to have his children named in a way that makes them recognisably Christian, at least in their general cultural outlook.
Yes, it is certainly right to mourn the tragic death of a sport superstar, particularly when other 8 people are also dead. But I wish there were more people around complaining about this further sign of the decadence of Christian culture in the West, and pointing out that, if Christianity is what they are, it should be reflected in the way they are called.
I am terrified at the thought that the priest who baptised him might have allowed “Kobe” as his baptism name. More likely, he had a baptism name (say: Luke) and an official first name (the beef). But again, where I grew up the first name and the baptism name were, actually, synonymous. Which is just as it should be.
I missed the time when this kind of behaviour was punished with endless mockery. Alas, the times are too effeminate for that, and the unwillingness to defend Christianity in the way Christians call their own children is then, in time, reflected in the unwillingness to fight the many other challenges to Christian culture, from promiscuity to contraception, and from abortion to sodomy.
If he had a real Christian name, I hope that his tombstone will carry that one. Mr Bryant presented himself to his judgement with the name Christ knows him from.
Forget the beef, and the potatoes.
I have just seen a moving picture, and I would like to share it with you.
The link to the article is here.
Look at our beloved Francis, basking in the warm support of Reverend Gonzalo Aemilius, his new secretary.
The Reverent is impeccably dressed as a priest, in a traditional cassock and – to show reverence to Francis – dark brown shoes. But just because he is so impeccably dressed, you don’t need to think that he is a desk man; a boring, cold apparatchik, who loves to work in some obscure bureaucracy role. No!
This man has worked with “street kids” in – I suppose – the streets of Uruguay. This is sooo good!!
I invite the readers of this blog – who all know better than to be judgemental about our Sweet Peter on earth – to reflect that, whilst some priests working with “street kids” in the poor quarters of Buenos Aires, and knows as curas villeros, could, according to several reports, use their position to seriously abuse vulnerable poor children, the same can certainly not be told of Uruguayan religious working with the same street kids. We all know that Uruguay is different, and no priest would, over there, ever try to use his role to engage in homosexual acts with children and minors, away from the eyes of his bishop, or from the scrutiny of decent faithful.
Rather, please focus on the posture and attitude of the cassock-wearing priest. His warm, smiling attitude is indicative of full support, both physical and spiritual, offered to the Holy Father.
Francis, who is seen almost giggling, and clearly enjoying his little, innocent “magic moment”, understands the spiritual vicinity of the Reverend, and signifies by his expression all his satisfaction at this budding bromance.
Oh, how many battles will be fought together! How many discussions about the many qualities of the street kids will be held! How many fashion tips will be exchanged!
Pope Francis The Humble has been such a gift for the Church.
It is beautiful to see that he is, now, also in almost direct contact with street kids.
I think that soon after his departure, he will be canonised by the new Pope. Particularly, if the latter turns out – as we all hope – to be a progressive like Tagle, or Cupich, who both understand what the church needs to remain relevant in the XXI Century.
Please look at the picture again.
Isn’t he so, so very happy?
A horrible blog aggregator (no link!) has the usual stuff about “helping people where they’re at” (no idea where the usage comes from. Blacks? If I had written it at school, it would have been marked a mistake). As always, things are complicated, we are detached, we seek simple solutions for complex problems, etc. Oh, how peace and love, dialogue and understanding would help!
I would like to offer, here, my two cents. Feel free to be offended. I would be very happy to live in your head, totally rent free, for a while.
Contrary to the opinion of many wannabe philosophers, the solution to most problem *is* simple.
Nazism was destroyed by just… physically destroying it.
Communism crumbled when it was aggressively tackled, and forced to choke under the weight of the challenge.
Saddam Hussein ceased to be a danger when he was invaded. His sons ceased to be a danger when they were terminated.
The Brigate Rosse started to be defeated when the Italian Government started to, actually, be willing to kill them.
It works every time. You kill the enemy, and the enemy is suddenly not a threat anymore. As to the multiplication of the enemy always promised by the Cucktelligentsia if you get tough (be that Islamic or Italian terrorist, just to make two examples) *I have never seen it*.
A dead terrorist does not magically transform himself in a propaganda wonder. He transforms himself into a corpse. I have never seen corpses killing people. I have also noticed that the willingness of people to die as “martyrs” is way, way below what the prophets of doom keep telling us.
Therefore, I present to you
Mundabor’s Quite Astoundingly Efficacious Recipe Against Abortion
1. Brutal legislation
2. Brutal enforcement
3. Brutal communication
Abortion is murder. Make legislation treating abortion as murder, enforce it just as you do with murderers, and don’t pussyfoot around the issue. Headline: “woman jailed for 28 years for murdering her own baby; doctor gets 35 years; boyfriend who procured the address 21”.
Also, forget all sociological analysis, and focus on… repression. I have been around the block enough to know that, whatever leftists say, repression works.
To those who give the trite answer that baby murder will continue to happen, but this time illegally, I reply that we will never obtain the complete disappearance of criminal behaviour. Murder still happens. Terrorism still happens. But it happens on a small scale, compared to what would happen if the behaviour were just legal. If (say) 900,000 abortions all over the USA (or, say, 110,000 in Italy, or 130,000 in the UK) are treated like murder, someone will still risk 20, 25 or 30 years in jail to abort. However, they will be few and far between. You need a lot of money, and a vast criminal energy, to make people defy *that*.
I saw the effect of enforcement in so many societal changes that I have lost count. I remember the time when, in Italy, it was common for a restaurant owner to declare a lower income than any of his waiters. Nowadays, the restaurant must be really doing bad, and the enforcement against tax evasion is so brutal that, last time I looked, not even the cleaning lady could be paid in cash.
It works. If one is smart enough to adopt harsh legislation and to dedicate enough energy to enforcement, it always does. Mussolini eradicated drunkenness from the Country. Yeah, you still had the occasional drunkard. But no, he changed the landscape on that. It wasn’t made with dialogue and understanding, or an army of social workers perpetuating the mutual dependency.
What is your real priority: the end of abortion (as far as practicable) or just looking good, and sweet of heart? If it is the first, start supporting harsh measures, and no mistake.
Yes, it means sending to jail – inter alia – the mother. The threat of a very long jail sentence will clear the mind uncannily, and a baby will thank you.
Most problems have simple solutions.
From the answer people give to them you are generally able to gauge how really interested in the solution they are.
Every life brings love into this world. Every child brings joy to a family. Every person is worth protecting.
Who said this:
- Pope Francis
- Donald Trump
- The Bern
The answer is below. No prize for guessing.
What times we live in! As the Lord punishes us with a clearly heretical Pope who, by the way, insists in not wanting to die and at least give us a new shuffling of the cards, hope comes from the most unsuspected corners.
A man of whom no one, the day Francis became Pope, would have imagined he could become President of the United States – a sinner, for sure; a brash man; but with a big, big heart – is giving the unborn help in many ways (judicial appointments; constant attention; participation to the March for Life), showing himself to be a new Ronald Reagan of sort, showing up on our side on this most controversial of subjects. This, without caring for the effect of his taking side in States like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, or Wisconsin; and this, in the year in which his political destiny is on the line.
Follow the link and listen to his beautiful words.
I suspect that Mike Pence and Kellyanne Conway have played an important role in this behind the scene, then it is difficult to me to think that the likes of Ivanka are on the front line on the issue. But most of all, I think that Providence is at work, and that God is giving us a hero as he punishes us with the villain Pope we, collectively speaking, have deserved as Catholics after sixty years of Vatican II madness.
Not since Ronald Reagan had I seen anything like this, and I never thought I would
When you wake up in the morning, I suggest you say a prayer for President Donald Trump.