Article on How Depraved Bergoglio Is, and His End Game, by Henry Sire

Amici,

So, now we know. It was all a gambit to change the method the College of Cardinal elects a holder of the papal office. No more Josef Ratzingers or Karol Wojtyłas. Just either ogres like Bergoglio or wimps like Paul VI from now on out.

Friends, with the whole Bergoglio freak show is reaching its apex; Henry Sire, the Church historian, has an article at OnePeterFive published that is truly, really, and most sincerely a "must read" for Catholics. 

It reveals much about how unscrupulous a Machiavellian politician Bergoglio is now and in fact has always been, and how simply ruthless and wildly dangerous the man is to the Catholic Church, and to anyone, really, who gets in his way. Read the article for details. 

Lots and lots of details and particulars to be reflected upon, but wow: Sire reveals the end-goal, what all the pain Bergoglio has put us through is about: and that is to change the way popes are elected. Excerpt:

This was the disclosure of a plan to change the rules for the papal conclaves so as to introduce the participation of lay people, including women. What this showed us was that the point of the preceding Synod had not been the document to emerge from it, but the process itself. It was designed to soften up the Church for a revolution in the papal election. Thus we had had bishops making declarations like: “It will be impossible from now on to hold a Synod without lay participation.”

Popes elected by laity mixed with cardinals? Women? And you know it would be "Catholic" women equivalent to Harvard's president, Claudine Gay (important news regarding here).

Sire makes no predictions except to say it will only get worse. I myself, for whatever it is worth, would say that should this actually eventuate, the Schism in the Church will be finally formalized; i.e. a good number of Cardinals will not participate, or conclave among themselves and elect a pope that way, one against the mainstream Church. Think about it. Who in the Church would accept a "Bergoglio-pope" imposed without the smoke and mirrors, all the chaff and counter-measures veiled via a traditional "election"? This would be truly slapping Catholics "in your face" and smashing them into "shut up and take it" territory. 

Such a carefully lavender Mafia groomed individual would be naturally very naive and pliable, or easily blackmailable, or yet another "modernist" like Bergoglio, and probably callous and shallow in the extreme. It's one thing to argue Bergoglio was – or was not – validly elected. It's another to change the election process of a thousand years and simply install someone no one can trust to do anything but wreak more havoc. It would be like the Deep State cockroaches running Joe Biden suspending the Electoral College and just declaring Biden re-elected. (They're actually close to this now, trying to install illegal aliens into the U.S. military and allowing them to vote in federal elections.)

This rebellion against such an "election" would include more than Traditional Catholics, but we Trads are the tip of the halberd here. As Sire writes:

A corollary of this is (Bergoglio's) drive against tradition. Pope Francis realises perfectly well that the only real obstacle to his revolution comes from traditionalists in the Catholic Church, the only element with any backbone prepared to recognise that the emperor has no clothes. Hence the campaign he has waged throughout his pontificate against so-called “rigid” and “backward” Catholics, whom he derides at every opportunity.

So, there you have it, my friends. The Church's eleven Purgatorial years of this buffoon blatantly imposing ecclesiastical Hell-on-Earth finally making sense: it was all a gambit to change the method the College of Cardinal elects a holder of the papal office. A method to establish the "Ape of the Church" forever.

One thing would be true, at least. The "Conservative" Catholics and "mainstream Trads" won't be throwing the words sedevacantism/sedevacantist and schism/schismatic around as bombs at  those of us who have seen this fiasco from the get-go.

           AnP

Germany's Troubles and the Dismal Reality of Modern "Democracy"

Germany is having troubles forming a government.

This article linked to above is just an overview it but lists various issues (such as immigration) and the different parties' problems with the issues, so it is a useful article.

Hmmm...modern politics. Let me quote from the Trad Catholic historian Henry Sire:

“…But one needs to say that what the modern world calls democracy is close to being the opposite. Parliamentary politics as they have developed today ensure that power is held not by the ordinary man but by a breed diametrically opposite: a breed consisting of the ambitious, the devious, the greedy, the loud-mouths, the aggressive, and the fanatical. If we look at the character of modern political life, we rather see it defined by the spirit of these than of the ordinary man."

I myself think very little of the British Parliamentary system of "governance by party". The U.S. system was designed (supposedly) to operate without parties. James Madison loathed "factions", i.e., parties. 

The U.S. House of Representatives was supposed to be just that: i.e., it is supposed to represent the people. not parties. The lower house of the British ('mother of parliaments') Parliament, the "Commons", represented not the people per se, as individuals, but the commoners as groups: peasants had no voice but business interests did, city burghers, trade guilds, the corporate medieval society. Lords of course represented the nobility, lay and clerical. But the people as a mass, as citizens -- they didn't exist as individual citizens: they were subjects of the crown. And of course the peasants had no representation at Parliament. They belonged to the land owners (either as outright serfs, or as free tenants, etc.).

Now I point all this out because I think this carried over into today's party system, for the parties don't represent the people either, but parties, i.e., their own interests, just like the Commons represented towns, districts, trades, & business interests. Clearly in the U.S. the American Blacks are still the "property" of the Democrats, who treat them as serfs. (And they'll do the same to the millions of Latin Americans they're importing.) They may no longer be slaves, but "The Party of Slavery, Sedition, and Secession" certainly treats them like some medieval churl class. Equally clearly, the GOPe (the Establishment Republicans) could care less about the actual people who vote for them: the GOPe represents business interests and party factions just as the Commons once represented such hierarchical groups in late medieval/early modern England.

Something else to point out, the U.S. Senate was NEVER supposed to represent the people, either, but rather the states qua states. The 17th Amendment (that made senators directly elected) was an outright treason against what the Founders envisioned and the great "deal" they made to get the states to ratify the 1787 Constitution in the first place. So was the 16th Amendment, which gave us an income tax: no greater power grab occurred in U.S. history except for the attempt to establish a national bank in the early 1800s and then the establishment of the "national bank" we have now, "the Fed" (Federal Reserve Board). (N.B. The Bank of England basically ran England from the late 1600s till the early 20th century, when WWI bankrupted the British Empire. Henry 8th replaced the medieval Engish noble oligarchy with an oligarchy of "squireens" he created through grabbing medieval Church land; that lot ran the place until James II//VII was deposed; with William of Orange as king, the Bank of E. was established and called the shots -- pretty much -- thereafter.)

So all this is prelude to Germany's troubles. The "English System" that has been so widely adopted in the world is coming up short for Germany (and that's obviously not good for Europe). Being a failure at actual democracy is built into the parliamentary system. Sire again:

The first of these mechanisms (of government systems to defend oligarchy) is the party system, which is nowadays regarded as an essential feature of democracy, but is in fact the chief device for keeping parliamentary politics undemocratic, for keeping them the preserve of professional politicians. It is the party system that prevents the people from electing genuine representatives and limits them to choosing among activists selected by party machines. Contrast this with the politics of ancient Greece, in which election was regarded as the mark of oligarchic states, while in democratic ones the rulers were chosen by lot. … It also promotes the influence of pressure groups, supremely in the United States, where the two-party alignment saves lobbyists the trouble of scattering their resources among several patrons, and ensures their maximum influence.

(After a discussion of how France adapted the parliamentary system since 1871, Sire writes:)…In Germany, after 1945, the leaders of the country were painfully aware that the only really popular government there had been in the recent past was Hitler’s, and they were determined not to make the same mistake again. They devised a system in which the people’ s will was to be guided by the wise and good, by whom they had in mind themselves: the capitalists, the bureaucrats, the academics, and those who share their view of how things should be done. In countries such as Italy, Spain, and Portugal, politicians have little idea of what democracy is, except that it is different from the Fascist past. The countries mentioned have combined to form a political union which is the showcase of modern pseudo-democracy, one that takes government further from the people and puts it in the hands of a political class.

…Everywhere the shock troops of the oligarchy are the journalistic profession, which thrives on the domination of affairs by facile and over-heated views. If an attempt were made in the Western world to introduce genuine democracy, representing ordinary opinion, one would find the journalists fighting in the last ditch to prevent it, rather like the armies of well-drilled henchmen who in Hollywood films immolate themselves in the service of the master-villain.

An Préachán again: As you can see, Henry Sire (of French ancestry, born in Barcelona, educated in England, etc, a true European.) gives a pretty dour and no-nonsense take on our presumptions. The basic underlying problem is just where government gets its authority from. In medieval and ancient times, the source of such was religion (basically, except for the classical Greeks) and today, since John Locke (1632-1704), we supposedly have government founded on the consent of the people. But in reality, as Sire details, oligarchy rules absolutely, and rules all to suit itself. Hence its hatred of any type of Donald Trump or Geert Wilders who threatens to upset the apple cart. (Sire's book, Phoenix from the Ashes, was published in 2015.)

Such is our world. Pompous, lying, self-flattered and flattering, essentially dishonest. Kinda like Pope Francis' inner circle, actually, come to think of it. (Talk about conforming yourself to the world!)

An Préachán