Trudeau, Castro, & Naomi Wolf (who is, all too sadly, a Cassandra)

 Amici,

Can Justin Trudeau really turn Canada into a dictatorship?

The "Huff-Po", an online Leftist magazine, actually had a writer who in late 2014 predicted Trudeau would do just that. https://www.huffpost.com/archive/ca/entry/trudeau-dictator_b_6314494

It would seem unlikely, however, because Trudeau is such a lightweight, especially compared to his infamous father, Fidel Castro. Fidel was a man's man; he inspired followers to die for him and women jumped into bed with him (like a certain Canadian woman, in fact). Castro, handsome in his youth, stood over six-feet tall, commanded a rebel/revolutionary militia for years in the mountains, took over a country and, when the CIA bestowed the Bay of Pigs fiasco on posterity, Castro was on the battlefield in his own tank, fighting them off. (IIRC, that is.)

Obviously, this northern "Son of Castro" inherited too much from his flaky, wanton, not-mentally-healthy mother.

In such cases as this, however, always look to history's exemplar, Adolf Hitler. What stands out in the Hitlerian story is his political opposition. Hitler himself never changed his goals, and rarely his tactics. Certainly possessed, definitely a sociopath, Hitler was not too "flexible." What DID change was the quality of the opposition he faced. In the 1920s, he faced strong opposition and got nowhere (well, at one point, actually jail); yet when he faced weak and divided opposition in the 1930s, he triumphed.

This lesson applies closely to Trudeau (and the Democrats/BLM/Antifa in the U.S.). Will he meet strong opposition among Canada's politicians or will he walk over them? He seems to be walking over Parliament, and in general, half the Parliament and half the general population (seem to, right now, at least) want him to walk over them. So, we'll see.

As for HOW he'll triumph, and since I can't really say this better myself, I refer you-all to the (former?) Leftist – a mild, old-style "Liberal", one with a conscience – Naomi Wolf. She channels the spirit of Cassandra here in her Substact blog.

An excerpt:

The world has watched, in pain, as images of police violence from Ottawa, and of a bid for Canadian tyranny (that I would ever write those words!) are flashed around the world.

As usual, I hate to be Cassandra; but the chessboard ahead is all too clear. On Feb 12, 2022, I warned, during an appearance on Steve Bannon’s WarRoom, that we all must all now brace for a period during which the powers that now clearly seek to enslave our planet, and subdue our human species, will be broadcasting scenes of civil society mayhem, and of shocking violence against protesters.

I also predicted that there would be food shortages and other economic harms that would be blamed on the protesting truckers, and I warned too that people should print out their bank and any liquid asset records, as there would be cyberattacks on financial institutions and the freezing of accounts. All of that, of course, took place in the week that followed.

I recently received a kind note on social media thanking me for my bulletins about the near future as it helped people, the writer explained, to stave off shock and disorientation. I have often spoken about how tyrants rely on just these effects of shock and disorientation to “tenderize” a targeted population, so I will keep alerting you all to the near future, as unpleasant as that task can be.

So in this essay I wish to explain, especially to Canadians, what martial law really is, and how very dangerous it is, since many leaders there, especially Parliamentarians, appear to be in the treacherous “hangover” state of thinking that they still inhabit the old world that died when Justin Trudeau declared emergency law. I also wish to warn what happens historically at this moment in the decline of a formerly democratic nation, and what the murder of Canadian democracy — at least for now — means to the rest of the world.

Parliamentarians in Canada do not seem to understand that now their former colleague, Justin Trudeau, can arrest not just truckers, whose lawful protest has been declared illegal, but also the Parliamentarians themselves. This is, sadly, the next step in this kind of drama, historically. It is an extraordinarily dangerous sign that Parliament is not seated. When the Australian Parliament was suspended, by the time they reconvened, their powers had been dramatically curtailed. Tyrants seek to normalize the convening of Parliaments as “optional” or to suspend normal Parliamentary processes long enough to hollow out a legislative body’s deliberative powers, and to ensure that when and if a Parliament (or a Congress, for that matter) meets again, it will be merely a ceremonial assembly.

Parliamentarians in Canada also do not seem to understand that “dictator” is no longer rhetorical. A member of Parliament was shushed when he cried out this epithet, but the fact is that this is not a slur at this point. Justin Trudeau is by definition now in fact a dictator.

At this stage in history, you do not go back to a previous state of civil society order without arrests, though hopefully you can do so without civil war. Historically, when a would-be dictator has reached this point in the suspension of democratic processes and has sought this level of a power grab, his arrests of the opposition’s leaders, on trumped-up charges, come next. Also arrested at this point are labor leaders, outspoken members of the clergy, and independent journalists and editors.

Beware the word “incitement”; the next stage is an edict that casts criticism of what Trudeau is doing, as a crime, or an act of violence.

At this stage in history, too, the identity of the security forces are at issue. Who are these frighteningly gas-masked, uniformed, extremely violent men represented as police in the streets of Ottawa? For that matter, who are the masked, black-uniformed, extremely violent men represented as police beating the protesters in Paris, a week ago?

AnP again: End of excerpt, but read the whole thing.

Steve Bannon, American Bishops, and the Laodicean Church's End Game

Every once in a while, someone shouts out, "The emperor has no clothes!" Not often, but it does happen. Our Blessed Lord Himself did so a number of times in Revelation. Once such is: Revelation 3:14-22 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition)

14 And to the angel of the church of Laodicea, write: These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, who is the beginning of the creation of God:
15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold, nor hot. I would thou wert cold, or hot.
16 But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth.

Former close Trump advisor Steve Bannon has called out the American bishops on their support for DACA specifically, and in general (what in effect would be) unlimited immigration. (Yes, of course. They don't technically call for total, unlimited immigration, as Bergoglio does in Italy, but that's what the de facto effect would be.) And of course, the American bishops have struck back. It's yet another reason to pity the American hierarchy, in general (not all: there being a handful of good bishops).

But even the Leftist-Progressive HuffPo "gets it", writing that 'Progressive Catholics in the post Vatican II Church have always adopted a “Christ without borders” ethos' in the article: "Steve Bannon may be right about the Catholic bishops and DACA.
The author there also writes,

'For people who spend time in the pews actually practicing Catholicism, Steve Bannon’s remarks about “the Catholic Church” and DACA , his contention that the bishops want unlimited immigration as a means for keeping the pews filled, is not wrong. Nor is it a “newsflash.” Is there any doubt that the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth demands that Catholics turn away from supporting DACA? No. Is the U.S. bishops’s support for DACA something new? No. Is it consistent with their longstanding way of regarding immigrants? No. Do progressive Roman Catholics, and those seriously engaged in social justice ministry embrace a “Christ without borders” vision? Generally speaking, they do. Does “the Catholic Church” as a whole support the continuance of DACA? Hell no. The Catholic Church is various and Catholics are not really all that obedient. As for the USBCC (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops), though it is excruciating to say so—Steve Bannon is right....I answered. “The U.S. Bishops love immigrants.” I gesticulated, cupped my upturned hand,  my thumb circulating against the four fingers to indicate: ‘Show me the money.’ “They have held that position for a long time. “It’s the one thing they’re progressive about. I believe they’re on the right side for the wrong reason.”'

 

The author also points out how empty the Churches are in Europe, with herself, being in her 50s, as the youngest person present at Masses in Spain and Ireland. And of course she also mentions Traditionalist Catholics: "The ultra-conservative fringe—-the Traditionalists, the Legionaries, the Church Militant movement—-they want 'the wall' and a strong leader."

• A Trad is on the "fringe"...
• aAnd notice Trads are lumped together with "the Legionaries", the infamous Legionaries of Christ, a Vat2 group that Trads hold in contempt for not only the insanely obscene sexual perversions of its founder, but also JPII's blind support of them (finally realizing the allegations about their founder were true, JPII died in shock) and their own refusal to celebrate the TLM – they always supported the Vat2/Paul6 Mass – which of course is why JPII loved them so. 

So the author doesn't get some basic things right (although she has nothing to good to say of the hyper-secretive Opus Dei, actually calling them "Phalangists", so that's a point in her favor), and thus one wonders a bit about the rest of her facts. If you read the article beyond this basic intro, remember it is written in a totally "Progressive" a point of view that's probably disturbing reading for a Magisterium, middle-of-the-road Catholic – especially what the author writes about Cardinal Dolan, a classic JPII appointment – and anathema to a Traditionalist like me – but then we Trads are conflicted, for we've little love for the hapless, befuddled, unspiritual mainstream American Church, which this author flays it royally. Sort of Screwtapian the article is, with some things that are black made white, and white black. But – and this is important – at least the Progs "get it" about the American bishops; and to some extent, the larger collection of world bishops.

BTW, had this writer attended the TLM in Europe (were she able to find that in either Ireland or Spain) she would have found a healthy mix of young and old. In common with TLMs elsewhere, the one here in Budapest has a lot of younger people and young families.

But if I may flog a dead horse a bit further, there's actually a very important article at HotAir (which is surprising as that site has been sagging a bit lately).

Yet this HA article is significant in an unintentional way, because it shows the blindness of so many Magisterium Catholics, Middle-of-the-Road Catholics. The author, Ed Morrissey, didn't intend that, but it is a revelation in how they think, and how they deal with the current disastrous ecclesial reality. They don't deal with it well. In this article, titled 'Bannon: Catholic bishops “need illegal aliens to fill the churches'", is by Ed Morrissey, a Magisterium Catholic and Vat2 deacon. 

Here's the basic issue:

• Bannon skirts a dangerous reef for Progressives; i.e., that there's no recognizing there has to be an end game. 
• There has to be a point answering the question: When is enough enough? 
• No Progressive EVER gives that a thought, not about any of the Progressive goals, and cetainly not immigration. Can the U.S. just take in everyone on Earth? If not, where and how is the line drawn?
• No Progressive has an answer to that.
• The media is focusing on Bannon's allegation that the bishops are doing this to fill up American Church membership rolls and to bring in more money, both money from the government to help immigrants and from the immigrants themselves, who often contribute more than the natives (i.e., the natives of the Modernist American Church)...
• ...But the BIG story is the premise that is indeed mentioned, but then passed over: that they are losing ordinary American Catholics so massively that they need to keep the Church alive by importing foreigners.

I find this so pathetic because were these immigrants to become "Americanized", they too would cease to be Catholic. And millions of them, immigrants from Latin American, leave the Church once they get here!

So, clearly, it is an exercise in absolute futility.

• This is essential to understand about the American Church: Every American Catholic who isn't bound in the Iron Maiden of Invincible Ignorance knows a great many "Ex-Catholics". 
• I know any number myself, just off the top of my head. 
• And I meet "former-Catholics" or "recovering-Catholics" all the time. 
• OK, so, the question is, the query never asked: is that normal? Did Catholics leave in droves before Vat 2? 
• This the mainstream Church NEVER asks. and given that, Bannon makes a sensible point.
• Instead of refuting his point, however, Ed Morrissey quotes some stats showing the numbers of Catholics in the U.S. growing. 
• Then, incredibly, simply "not getting it", and painfully exposing that reality, he quotes these following stats:

In fact, the bigger problem is a lack of participation from existing Catholics. In the same 12-year period, the number of former Catholics went up from 19 million to 30 million, a dramatic increase. At the same time, the number of baptisms fell from 929,545 to 670,481. That’s why the USCCB launched its Rediscover program in 2013 — to “re-evangelize” backsliding Catholics into regular Mass attendance, and to shore up enthusiasm among current regular or semi-regular attendees.

Wow! That's devastating! Can the American Church be healthy with those sorts of statistics exposing its problems? Morrissey doesn't ask, but he continues: 

The USCCB has taken a more liberal stand on immigration, to be sure, but it’s not an open-borders policy per se. They put a high value on legalizing the immigrants already in the US for humanitarian purposes and retaining the family-based “chain migration” policies in order to keep the basic “church” unit intact, both of which do come from Catholic doctrinal positions, not from a “butts in seats” motivation. Matthew 25:35-36 would certainly be one basis for that doctrinal position, with Jesus’ direct admonition to welcome the stranger as a means of serving Him. That, however, does not necessarily mean that we can’t set up rational systems of welcome for strangers while taking the primary role of government — protecting its citizens — seriously at the same time.

So, this is the American Church: Desperately trying to import foreigners to bolster its membership, but losing millions of these from the get-go, and MOST IMPORTANTLY will lose the rest over the course of their acculturation because the American Catholic mainstream Church is so shallow to begin with!

He has the necessary information at his finger tips, but doesn't correlate it. Attention Ed: the situation is dire! Notice the insanity of it all: First, Ed Morrissey says stats show Catholics holding their own, then he shows Catholics falling away like leaves in November, AND they're not baptizing their kids.

Finally, of course, Ed Morrissey being a Magisterium, he dutifully mentions that the bishops have a plan! Oh, yes! And it sure doesn't involve a return to the TLM and the actual historical Catholic spirituality that built up and sustained the Church for two millennia. Oh, no! He writes that Ii is a "Rediscover" program! It's to "re-evangelize” backsliding Catholics into regular Mass attendance, and to shore up enthusiasm among current regular or semi-regular attendees."

"To shore up enthusiasm among current regular or semi-regular attendees."

In my life, I've never read anything so pathetic. "Shore up enthusiasm..." The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass wherein the veil between Earth and Heaven is pulled back, and Christ comes forward, a Lamb as though slain...if the modern Church had Him, He'd "build" His own "enthusiasm, Ed. 

But you can't "get that", can you?

If this Rediscover program doesn't sound like a Kiwanis membership drive, what does?

Trad Catholics have been saying for 50 years that the Church is not a Sunday-morning social club, but its bishops treat it exactly like that. No wonder people are falling away from it.

At the end, in a move that surprises me for its blindness, Ed Morrissey quotes a tweet from the excellent John Zmirak:

John Zmirak @JZmirak

Replying to @LarryOConnor @EdMorrissey

1 in 5 U.S. Catholics is now a Latin American immigrant. 40% of native Catholics leave. Bishops get millions in federal $ for "charities."

WOW! One in five U.S. Catholics is now a Latin American immigrant! Not "of Latin American descent" but an immigrant! John was replying to a friend of Ed's, who tweeted:

Larry O'Connor

✔ @LarryOConnor

So the Church's positions on homosexuality and abortion and woman priesthood and divorce and celibate priests... all to bolster attendance?

 

Just incredible. The blindness here is staggering. Does Larry O'Connor think that if the Church allowed women priests, abortion, and all that, that suddenly the Churches would be full?

They'd be utterly empty in a heartbeat.

No Progressive can get anything so black, so white.

This is why the American Church – The Laodicean Church (which the mainstream Church in general can be called) – is going to collapse into Schism, chaos, and rank unbelief. It already is happening. It's mainstream Laodicean defenders don't comprehend what's going on.

Pray God enlighten them. Before they are spit out.

An Préachán