Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


francis-and-fidel-i

As the British would say: “Surely, he’s having a laugh?”.

Today we reference a post that appeared on the catholic Zero Hedge website titled Pope Francis Warns Against “Saviours” Like Hitler, But Says “We Must Wait And See” On Trump. (I will not repost below just to keep this post short, but please go to link and read the source post.)

In this post, we are provided with some key information that is relevant to understanding the “intellectual” basis for Francis’ “bishopric of Rome”.

First we learn that the Francis’ “axiom“, i.e. “Who am I to judge”, is neither comprehensive nor is it axiomatic. In other words, it is not a universal principle that is true always and everywhere and holds across all space and time. Here is the relevant quote: (emphasis added)

Then, having made it clear how he feels about Trump, the Pope tried to back down, saying that it was too early to pass judgement on Trump. “I think that we must wait and see. “I don’t like to anticipate events. Let us see what he does, we can’t be prophets of disasters. 

Now if something is not universal, then by definition it has an incomplete, particular, specific or local property. In other words, this “Who am I to judge?” “axiom” is purely subjective and can be used at the discretion of the said individual.

Therefore, we than need to examine the words and actions of the said individual that is using this “axiom” to see whether this individual is morally or ethically fit to use it. The reason that we use a moral and/or ethical standard of measure in this case is that the “axiom” is moral/ethical by its very nature. But I digress…

And by examining the evidence as to the moral/ethical suitability of the said individual, we can state with a very, very high degree of certainty that the “axiom” expounded by Francis, bishop of Rome has very little moral/ethical value to it. This is due to the questionable moral authority of the source of the “axiom”.

On an aside, the picture above is a prime example of exactly this moral authority issue. (see here)

On another aside, impartial the boy is NOT!

Next piece of key information, we have Francis’ warning against the spread of “populism”. So here, let’s do a definition, this one from the Business Dictionary (see here):

Populism:

In general, ideology or political movement that mobilizes the population (often, but not always, the lower classes) against an institution or government, usually in the defense of the underdog or the wronged. Whether of left, right, or middle political persuasion, it seeks to unite the uncorrupt and the unsophisticated (the ‘little man’) against the corrupt dominant elites (usually the orthodox politicians) and their camp followers (usually the rich and the intellectuals). It is guided by the belief that political and social goals are best achieved by the direct actions of the masses. Although it comes into being where mainstream political institutions fail to deliver, there is no identifiable economic or social set of conditions that give rise to it, and it is not confined to any particular social class.

If we use the above framework to define what constitutes “populism”, we can make the following case:

Francis, the bishop of Rome, via his Junk Theology (“done on the knees”), read IDEOLOGY, is attempting to mobilize a segment of the population, commonly referred to as the “poor”, against an institution, in this case the Catholic Church, under the guise that the “poor” need defending and have been wronged. (see here)

Francis is trying to unite the “uncorrupted”, i.e. any and all leftists, whether social, economic and/or intrinsically disordered, against the “corrupt” dominant elites, in this case the “clericalists”, who are orthodox, and the orthodox “clericalist’s” camp followers. (see here)

The “corrupted” in our case are the Traditionalists, a.k.a Catholics, “c”onservatives, the neo-cons and the wider JPII the Great personality cultists which Francis calls “rigid”. (see here)

The main charge against the “clericalists” and the “rigid” is that they are Pharisees, an euphemism for “intellectual”. (see here)

Francis is guided by the belief that his political goals are best achieved by the direct action of the “uncorrupted” masses and to this end has given a series of directives, one of which is the “hagan lio” (make a mess) directive. (see here)

The Francis phenomenon has come into being due to the failure of the Vatican II sect to deliver the promised “new springtime of VII”, which in fact began the complete disintegration of the post-conciliar church. (see here)

The disintegration of the post-conciliar church is violating the 2nd Principle of the LEX ARMATICUS, a core principle that is  the main driver of the populism,  namely:

Even Neo-modernists (and the poor) need to eat.

Hmmm…

In statistical terms, the above is what would be called a “perfect fit”.

And lastly, Francis, the bishop of Rome made the following statement:

“Hitler didn’t steal the power,” the pope said “his people voted for him, and then he destroyed his people.” The Germans at that time also wanted to protect themselves with “walls and barbed wire so that others cannot take away their identity,” he said.

This is a very telling statement in that a person who likes to “hang out with” and provide moral support to… shall we say…. brutal leftist dictators responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of their fellow citizens, such as the likes of Maduro of Venezuela and the Castro boys of Cuba- who turned their island into a penal colony, appears not to be too thrilled with the sovereign decision made by a population, a population that coincidentally lives in a country where the population has secured for itself the right of free elections and has a 200+ year tradition of a peaceful transition of power.

I wonder what Francis has in mind as the optimal alternative to “Trump Hitler didn’t steal the power” (…) “people voted for him”?

Going down that trail of though, I wonder if it is just this “optimal alternative” form of government that Francis has instituted behind the Sacred Vatican Walls. (see here) And the results are there for all who have eyes to see, and ears to hear.

Concluding, what we are a witness to is a supreme and absolute dictator monarch, who governs his city-state with a iron fist. He rules over his subjects by intimidation and through a network of cronies who spy and denounce anyone suspected of not toting the party line.

The ruling cabal has only one underlying shared purpose. That shared purpose is to hold the the IDEOLOGICAL party line, since that… in most, if not all cases, IDEOLOGY follows self-interest. And it is in the collective self interest of Francis, his revolutionary soviet lodged on the 4th Floor of the Domus Sanctae Marthae and other willing co-conspirators, to keep the status quo alive. 

And that scope of the status quo that Francis and his co-conspirators are attempting to defend, appears not to be contained to their direct purview of control, but reaches into other areas of human activity in the wider Visibilium Omnium.

This being the case, one can infer that Francis and his co-conspirators consider the wider Visibilium Omnium as an integral part of their power base, and therefore see it as being of critical importance over which they need to maintain some form of control.

And this is most likely the reason behind Francis’ latest attack on the “rigid” Pharisees Trump administration, and attack launched on the second day of its existence, and two days before its first working day.

A preemptive strike if there ever was one!

Post scriptum:  I am beginning to think that this is a instance of Francis using the State of Necessity. (see here)