« Headline! "Trump betrays Kurds!" It's what we do! | Main | Turkey Double Talks Its Way Into Northeastern Syria by Willy B »

08 October 2019

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Richard Ong

Lots of arm waving on this topic but I've never seen an actual example of any Russian "Vote for Trump" interference. Wasn't there supposed to be some kind of a $100,000 Russian Facebook buy? Yet I've never seen one word from it. Not one. I think Russians (nefarious) must have occult powers.

Seamus Padraig

Oh? And what about a healthy concern for the decline of the community? Does this mean that anyone who seeks to preserve their culture, people and civilization in the face of an existential danger is necessarily a 'fascist'? If so, count me a fascist!

Seamus Padraig

You're right about Wayne Madsen, colonel. His output is of variable quality. In this case, his powerful anti-traditionalist bias is showing.

The real story here is not some alleged 'plot' against Pope Frank. It's very obvious why other ranking prelates in the church would have a problem with some of his--how can I phrase it delicately?--theological innovations. No sir! The real story here is who had his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, deposed?

https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/3001-did-vatican-attempt-to-influence-u-s-election-catholics-ask-trump-administration-to-investigate

Some choice outtakes:

- To what end was the National Security Agency monitoring the conclave that elected Pope Francis? [6]

- Did US government operatives have contact with the “Cardinal Danneels Mafia”? [7]

- International monetary transactions with the Vatican were suspended during the last few days prior to the resignation of Pope Benedict. Were any U.S. Government agencies involved in this? [8]

- Why were international monetary transactions resumed on February 12, 2013, the day after Benedict XVI announced his resignation? Was this pure coincidence? [9]

- What actions, if any, were actually taken by John Podesta, Hillary Clinton, and others tied to the Obama administration who were involved in the discussion proposing the fomenting of a “Catholic Spring”?

- What was the purpose and nature of the secret meeting between Vice President Joseph Biden and Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican on or about June 3, 2011?

It seems that some of the cardinals now realize that their church may well have been the victim of yet another 'régime change' scheme undertaken by the Obama Administration; in this case to help the globalists take control of the world's largest Christian denomination.

confusedponderer

Vig,
re: "But glad to hear Bannon has to look for another monestary for his international nationalist activists training camp. ..."

Bannon is, a Trumpist after all, less than subtle in what he says to Salvini and about the pope.

"Steve Bannon ‘told Italy’s populist leader: Pope Francis is the enemy

Donald Trump’s former chief strategist Steve Bannon advised Italy’s interior minister Matteo Salvini to attack the pope over the issue of migration, according to sources close to the Italian far right.

During a meeting in Washington in April 2016, Bannon – who would within a few months take up his role as head of Trump’s presidential campaign – suggested the leader of Italy’s anti-immigration League party should start openly targeting Pope Francis, who has made the plight of refugees a cornerstone of his papacy.

“Bannon advised Salvini himself that the actual pope is a sort of enemy. He suggested for sure to attack, frontally,” said a senior League insider with knowledge of the meeting in an interview with the website SourceMaterial.

After the meeting, Salvini became more outspoken against the pope, claiming that conservatives in the Vatican were on his side."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/13/steve-bannon-matteo-salvini-pope-francis-is-the-enemy

That coming from Salvini's side, is not exactly a surprise - after all he, capitano, made election campaign pics of himself with a rosemary and, occasionally, a machine pistol, or both together.

https://tinyurl.com/y3l87dxh

With folks like that blathering around a new blackshirt taking a shot at the pope ... well, sh*t happens. Do Salvinis or Bannon care? No way.

CK

I like Ecco's 14 points of fascism :
http://www.openculture.com/2016/11/umberto-eco-makes-a-list-of-the-14-common-features-of-fascism.html
Unfortunately it reads a lot like 2019 American liberalism.

Vig

Flavius, it's actually interesting she choses a specialist on Vichi, don't you think? Otherwise I would like to compare notes on reading Orwell with you.

A couple of decades ago I had my own favorite. Pick yours:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism

And yes, there is of course a long tradition on the accompanying easy going smear in its historical context:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist_(insult)

confusedponderer

Elora Danan,
the recently over his Ibiza scandal sadly too late crashed Mr. Strache has put it in a much shorter, new austrian way along these lines:

The policy is not limited by law, law is limited by policy.

That line explains why he had to quit asap for trivialities like seriously violating austria's election funding laws (accepting iirc max 15.000 € donations, donator named) and illegally accepting a much larger than allowed sum (some 15 million €, anonymously) from a supposedly russian lady to fund his party electioneering.

Of course, he is likely another victim of ... another witch hunt.

Beside being rather openly corrupt he is so right, right from him is only the wall, to quote a late and far more acceptable bavarial politician.

Is his policy career over? Not necessarily. His wife has iirc started a political career attempt of her own.

And his former political partner, the young chancellor Kurz, surprisingly just won austria's last election despite the Strache's scandal. That said, that election only became necessary because of Strache's Ibiza stunt.

chris moffatt

As a resident of Virginia I have no confidence whatsoever in any words from Mark Warner whose Russiaphobia once led him, without evidence, to accuse the 'russians' of hacking Google's search algorithm. If he now has completed some type of an 'investigation' let him produce the evidence for public scrutiny or let him shutup. We've already had one bogus investigation in which Mueller after two and a half years produced nothing because there is nothing to find. Warner is just grandstanding like other democrats, Schiff being the worst example. Note that Warner is up for reelection in 2020. Nothing he says needs to be or is likely to be remotely true.

fotokemist

Raven,

IMHO, the only defense our we need against foreign agents attacking confidence in our political system is for our politicians to be trustworthy. Having been influenced by Sun Tsu, I read translations of Putin's speeches when available, follow RT and Sputnik, etc. Any attempts to sow seeds of discord by these sources is overwhelmed by our own politicians and news media. Do you think the developing story of our federal agencies being used to spy on innocent US citizens for political gain has served to increase confidence in our government? Is trust increased by attempts to suppress these stories? Based on a recorded phone conversation of a high ranking US government official, we spent in excess of 5 billion dollars to overthrow a foreign government. Are we being hypocritical when complaining about possible foreign intervention in our elections? What about the likely role of UK intelligence assets in the Russiagate fiasco? The influence of Israel on our government? Why single out Russia? In my view, we should shut them all down.

In my case, the damage to Clinton's campaign resulted from the content of the released emails, not their release, whether by Putin, Seth Rich or some other means. Had the DNC behaved in an honorable manner, there would have been nothing to release. So far as I know, this view is shared by many people in my rural central NC location. The Democrats have done themselves a disservice by continuing to remind us of the corruption in the bowels of their party. For the record, I identify myself as intensely independent when I go to vote.

I am reminded of the Christ's teaching that we should remove the log from our eye before attempting to remove the mote from our neighbor's eye. I am saddened to see our nation continue to deteriorate rather than attack our problems and clean up the corruption.

turcopolier

chris moffat

Are you a resident of Virginia or a citizen of Virginia? Mark Warner turned hard to the left when he almost lost an election.

Terry

I'm so sick of this "Russian influence" campaign. I'm influenced by good ideas, historical information, and science. Much of this influence comes from books (And thanks to those recommending books here from time to time). Maybe we should ban books to avoid voters being influenced. And block access to all foreign websites. God forbid that I might be influenced by something I read on a foreign website. Social media too - not just Russians but lots of foreign sourced tweets on there. And foreign music- might sneak some influence in as well.

This whole thing is assbackwards logic - Trump is bad, people voted for him, something must have "influenced" them. Russians did it.

Lets call it what it is - a desire for thought control.

prawnik

There are freedoms not in the context of democracy. For instance, the right to own slaves seems like the apogee of liberty to the plantation owner, for the slave, not so much.

The Twisted Genius

CK, you see that definition as liberalism? Although I do agree the term fascism is near meaningless unless the user's definition is explained, Ecco's definition appears to fit Trumpism quite nicely. .

Seamus Padraig

Who's rosemary? You mean rosary?

Seamus Padraig

Sedevacantists would argue that those guidelines apply to the pope as well.

Seamus Padraig

The Russians ate my homework!

turcopolier

TTG

I'll put you down as undecided about the Deplorables. Do you think Warren would make a good president? Please don't tell me anyone would be better than Trump

GeorgeG

Dear Colonel,

Mr. Madsen addresses an interesting and important issue, but he presents it in the form of rather dubious constructs. To begin, let’s merely parse his opening remarks (from the original):

“From the outset of his papacy, Francis found himself dealing with his right-wing predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI – a rarity in papal history – who insisted on remaining domiciled in an apartment on Vatican grounds. Benedict has not remained in quiet retirement but has conspired with Francis’s politically influential enemies in the Vatican, Italy, the United States, and other countries.” 1. “right-wing predecessor… a rarity”? Well, Mr. Madsen may be plagued by short-term memory lapses (a sad malady when dealing with the long history of the Vatican), but John Paul II was certainly “right-wing,” fought the Jesuits and Liberation Theology, and promoted Opus Dei as a counter-weight. 2. Rarities: a Jesuit Pope, since normally the rules of the Jesuit Order forbid Jesuit priests rom seeking higher offices in the Church; a Pope “retired” to be replaced by a Jesuit? No, the Pope as St. Peter’s representative on Earth cannot retire, and – as Mr. Madsen concedes – actually never did. There is no room in Roman Catholic Theology for a “Pope Emeritus.” Was Benedict “fired”? – No, absolutely not. Where does Benedict get the power to “insist” on anything? 3. No, Benedict is not “domiciled in an apartment on Vatican grounds,” certainly not off in the mountains meditating, but squarely quartered in his own garden apartment, from which Benedict’s private secretary, Gänswein, shuttles between the “old” but still-in-power Benedict and the “new” co-power-sharing Francis. That, indeed, is rare. It is more than rare. Extraordinary problems in extraordinary times apparently require extraordinary solutions and methods.

To what effect this show? – The College of Cardinals is effectively split between the “Left” (Francis, whose name is not derived from St. Francis, but from the third General of the Jesuit Order, Francis Borgia (1565 -- 1572), the grandnephew of Caesar Borgia, to whom Machiavelli dedicated “The Prince”) and the “Right”, Benedict XVI. So we need to appreciate the machinery of conspiracy, and I beg indulgence for suggesting that the Catholic Church could ever have anything to do with conspiracies. Chuckle!

The basic scheme of things: If the “Left” can be identified with “Liberation Theology”, that “Left” needs a “Right” so that the two can rub up against each other, confuse each other, wear each other out when real issues are at stake. The “pedophilia” scandal / scam is what we may call a predicate in this conspiracy: If a member of the Curia sees through the conspiracy, a white smoke / black smoke screen is already there, everyone is confused, Is Francis protecting the pedophiles or hunting them down?, but if you are a Cardinal, and you are too smart, or too concerned with Catholic spirituality, the scene is set to do a “Kavanaugh” on you, or at some point you were snared in the Vatican version of “Operation Epstein”. Does the Church acknowledge innocence before proof of guilt? (I insert the idea that AOC, the Saul Alinsky activist, is actually a liberation theology activist.)

But what do we get from Mr. Madsen? – We get a phony “Left” vs. the “Fascists” narrative. It is a gang / countergang narrative, and Mr. Madsen is a proponent of or an activist in one of the gangs. – I have no idea whether Mr. Madsen is a Jesuit or Jesuit trained, but that is Jesuit-logic. Mr. Madsen presents us with a faction fight, which is entertaining but phony.

What is this all about, or, as I suggested just above, what is the extraordinary problem that requires, in the eyes of the puppet-masters, extraordinary machinations?

As luck would have it, Vladimir Putin visited the Vatican this year on Independence Day, July 4th. His gift for the Pope was a Russian Orthodox icon with the apostles Paul and John on it. Mr. Madsen should have mentioned this, but since it confuses his “Trump-fascist” vs. Vatican Reformer narrative, the oversight is understandable.

What is the message in the icon? While I have certain ideas about that, it may be better to provide some context rather than try to explain it directly. Part of that context is that, according to a Radio Vatican report on the Putin-Francis meeting, the Pope expected a return invitation, to Moscow or at least an invitation from the Russian Orthodox Church. Putin had neither in his briefcase. I believe I can translate that: Putin to Francis – You are not calling the shots and what you offer is not the answer to our common European crisis.

Additional context is provided by Putin’s subsequent meeting with Macron in Brégançon. Putin: “As far as the perspectives are concerned in connection with the creation of a common Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok, this was not our idea. General de Gaulle once expressed this idea when he was talking about a Europe from Lisbon to the Urals. But Russia reaches much further, all the way to the Pacific. That is the space of European culture. It is important to understand this. But it is not the point. The point is not that it seems to be impossible today. What appears impossible today can become inevitable tomorrow." And Putin asserted that the implied cooperation is not only important for Russia, but also for Europe “if Europe wants to maintain itself as the center of a civilization.”

Basically, and not only as Putin sees it, the crisis of the so-called West, or of western European Roman Catholicism (other denominations are the differences that make no difference), is the collapse of the Pan-European thrust to conquer Russia. Russian and Chinese power is only part of the reason for that collapse. Europe has a Pope who subscribes to “The New Green Deal” and thus unmasks its infertility in science as well as spirituality. Its power is therefore hollow. No one needs to be Orthodox (I am not) to see that.

On the background of Patriarch Kirill’s recent polemics on these issues, Francis’ expectation that he would be invited to meet the Russian Orthodox is nothing short of fantastical. In any case, he was mistaken, i.e. he calculated badly. But from this perspective it is perhaps possible to understand how Benedict / Ratzinger fits hand-in-glove with Francis / a.k.a. Borgia. Benedict was the “old German” representative of the Pan European “right wing” anti-Russian thrust, while Francis is the new paganism form of Liberation Theology, just as much “right-wing,” just as much anti-Russian. Mr. Madsen fails to understand that the old European Pan European (Kalergi) has nothing to do with what he considers his American “right-wing” foes, but the Russian, Putin, understands that, which is why he visited Francis on the 4th of July. For Putin America is spiritually “independent” of all these entanglements.

Vig

the real story here is who had his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, deposed?

Not sure if I was a fan of him, theologically spoken, but there you go: Benedict XIV resigned. May have felt that the "staging", sorry it felt a bit that way, of his precursor's death may not be quite the thing he wanted to look forward to.

Besides: I found the idea of a Pope emeritus quite appropriate considering his background.

Also notice: Jorge Mario Bergoglio already got the most votes next to him at Benedict's election ...

https://www.lastampa.it/vatican-insider/it/2011/07/27/news/il-diario-segreto-dell-ultimo-conclave-1.36953205

Fred

Richard,

"Wasn't there supposed to be some kind of a $100,000 Russian Facebook buy?"

Best marketing team on Earth. I'm thinking of suing a few companies I own stock in for spending so much on marketing when they could have just hired theses guys.

Diana C

Well, the Russians copied my homework, and I was blamed for cheating. Those Russians are busy little sneaks.

for your consideration

I think Lars was referring to existent voter suppression, not nonexistent voter suppression. As an example of what Lars might be referring to, aren't you aware of the current efforts of the Republican majority in the Florida legislature to subvert the restoration of felon rights that Florida voters approved of in 2018? And it's worth noting that polling before that vote indicated the measure, to my surprise and relief, had bipartisan support.

Jane

Steve Bannon, the Catholics, rightwing populist Italian politics and orthodox economic neoliberal crowd: This is an article in the Guardian from last year, which together with coverage by 60 Minutes. Google Bannon and the story of the Italian monastery he has leased to be the site of his activist? intellectual? religious think tank.
His allies include powerful US church officials and rightwing Italian political party. Francis should never have given his consent to Mrs Gingrich as Amb to the Vatican.
jcg
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/13/steve-bannon-matteo-salvini-pope-francis-is-the-enemy

The Twisted Genius

It all depends on how you define Deplorables. Is it Clinton's definition of "the racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it" as she said in her ill-fated speech? Or is it the other half of Trump supporters she described as the "basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they’re just desperate for change. It doesn’t really even matter where it comes from. They don’t buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won’t wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroine, feel like they’re in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well."

The second group seems like the kind of people, poor people, that Warren is trying to appeal to. The rich, the elites see her as public enemy number one. I don't know how much she can accomplish if the rich and elite wage war against her. If she can really mobilize the poor and just not rich, she may be able to bring real change. Her main problem, as far as I'm concerned, is that she still wed to an imperialistic foreign policy. She has to change that for me to support her.

seward

Francis is the only Pope we have. Faithful Catholics, therefore, need to support him as best we can, certainly not oppose him. We can be confident as Catholics that the Lord will not let him commit the Church to any egregious error. Peter was promised by Jesus that his faith would not fail, the scriptural basis for infallibility.

(Too a much lesser extent, the same applies to the President: he's the only president we have. If he fails or goes down, we all fail or go down with him. St.Paul enjoins us to respect our rulers, no matter how much we might dislike them. He can be voted out in 2020 if necessary. The impeachment hearing, IMHO, are just so much political theater.)

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

December 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    
Blog powered by Typepad