We Need To Talk

Posted on by Sarah A. Hoyt

You know how I keep telling you not to fall for psy-ops? Well, egg on my face, because I at least half fell for this one.

In my defense, so did Trump and most of the media on the right. On the left, of course, they were in on the plot.

This is going to get far more uncomfortable than… well, than I’m comfortable with. This is not a religious blog. In fact for a long time I kept my religion as obscured as possible, because frankly the matters we work through here are rational and we should be able to argue them rationally.

In fact religion is one of the forbidden topics on this blog. Funny how that happens, innit? And I’m very uncomfortable talking about it where I know it will make a lot of you just as uncomfortable.

So, let’s lay down some parameters for this:

First, if you are an atheist, and a lot of my friends are, don’t try to argue this as a religious matter. Take the crazy parameters of what I tell you and what I say is how it works, and assume it’s my own little psychosis, shared with millions of people, and stay with that. The consequences of this mess are still important, if you know history.

Second, if you are a protestant, you can take a minute now, find a thick cushion and scream into it: REEEEEE PAPISTS. But don’t get into it in the comments. Do me the favor of believing that I am no more stupid or insane than you; that my route to my beliefs was not just “someone said to do this”; that I studied all the materials and re-upped — twice — of my own free will, the latest one being when I’d realized I had drifted so far I was more pagan than anything else. I’m not at this point interested in a discussion of the fine points of this or that belief. I have a religion and I’m fine where I am. Let’s not get in that fight, I had enough of that on twitter, with people who claim to share my faith.

Yes, what I am talking about is how in the last few days the media has been full of “The Pope berated Trump and kissed up to Islam and Trump is talking back — with a side order of the leftists being very upset that Trump posted a meme of himself as Jesus, which might or might not be it, since I remember that meme from January 25 as being of Trump as a healer, healing America. Goofy, but not Jesus — with a lot of people a lot them sane and decent people deciding the Pope was just a Chicago Communist and so on and so on, ad fricking nauseum.

I will confess I fell for it to an extent, or perhaps I rose to the bait. In my defense, I’m recovering from ear infection from hell, which — I have these a lot — is taking me longer to recover from than any of these has before. (Yeah, yeah, over sixty, but here’s the thing: I didn’t authorize any of this!) so I was a little more liable to sudden ’tism explaining.

So when someone shared a meme saying that Catholics couldn’t disagree with the pope I felt forced to quote retweet it explaining that no: we can’t disagree with the pope when he’s speaking ex cathedra, which is usually the culmination of discussions by theologians and always on theological matters. The last time a Pope spoke Ex-cathedra was 75 years ago. It is such a process that even Francis didn’t dare try something with it. Other than that, particularly when the pope is running his mouth on politics (and I confess I thought he was) I’m as entitled to disagree with him as with Joe Schmoe on the street.

This brought the world’s stupidest answers, almost certainly from non-Catholics, one of them informing me that that was “cafeteria Catholicism” and I was being an hypocrite — no. I’m being a Catholic. The rules haven’t changed. — and another basically screaming that no, Catholics had to do everything the pope said. That one was cute. Stupid but cute.

Then I had the horrifying experience of seeing someone who identified as a priest — though I’m informed that he’s uh… how do I put this…. the lavender mafia tells him “whoa boy, too far” — tweeting “If you are against the Pope you can’t be Catholic.” For those not Catholic, this is a piece of extreme evil. Note how he phrased it. Take if for granted from me that yes, Catholics can disagree with the Pope. In fact we, cradle Catholics make a sport of disagreeing with the pope. Praying for the Holy Father often takes the form of “G-d, could you please talk some sense into that lunkhead.” Because Popes aren’t supernatural. Yes, they’re fulfilling a role, and while in that role, we believe G-d makes sure they don’t step wrong. But as people? They’re men like the rest of men. And carrying a heavy burden, which doesn’t tend to make anyone sane. The trap here was that in the comments this priest admitted you could disagree with the pope, but you couldn’t be “against him.” What he meant, actually was that if you’re against having a pope at all, you’re not a Catholic. DUH. But what he was trying to make people — including fearful Catholics believe — is that you couldn’t disagree with the pope on anything. This is such breathtaking evil that it left me sick to my stomach and means I slept very badly last night.

Here I must explain some inside Catholic baseball. Those of you who are Catholic can beat me up behind the bleachers after school for it. The thing is, before I explain what I figured out was going on, I must explain that not all Catholic priests/bishops/cardinals are in any way the same politically. And there is, particularly in the US, a strong current of leftist Bishops. If you hear anything from the American Council of Bishops, assume they’re dyed in the wool leftists, and the Catholics are rolling their eyes along with you.

I will confess I thought the Pope had indeed run his mouth, and I was grieved not for the Pope insulting the President, which I didn’t think had any effect on Catholic Americans, really. But because I thought it would do damage to the church.

People! I didn’t see the half of it.

To begin with, the Pope was not in fact criticizing Trump or speaking about Trump at all. And his comments on Islam were carefully targeted at a regional branch.

I knew that the comments in context didn’t feel right to refer to the thing in Iran. Friends and I tried to figure out why he would say that stuff now, and the only thing we could figure is that he was trying to somehow protect the Catholics in Iran — there are 20k or so of them — from retaliation by the mullahs. But it didn’t quite fit.

… We were wrong. We were wrong, because the pope didn’t say any of it, not in the context of Trump and Iran. The thing is that the leftists who created this psy-ops forgot this Pope not only could read English, but read American media.

This is the thing we need to make sure it’s known far and wide. Yes, even you who just screamed “Papists” into the cushions. Because even you — and the atheists — want to ruin this psy-ops. Trust me on this.

This is the article: Pope Leo says remarks about world being ‘ravaged by a ​handful of tyrants’ were not aimed at Trump: report. Vice President Vance later thanked the pope for clearing the record.

Unbeknownst to us because the media doesn’t report it, this came in the context of the pope traveling to Africa, specifically if I understand correctly (I might not) to Nigeria and countries bordering Nigeria. If you don’t know this, Nigeria is the place where Catholic school children, nuns, etc. keep getting kidnapped by Islamic terrorists. The church there is under attack right now. it is one of those times when martyrs are made, and quite frankly it is a thing of beauty and great courage for Pope Leo to go striding in, trying to give hope and call attention to what is happening there. He has no armies, no temporal power (nor should he) but he has the power to call the eyes of the world to situations. John Paul II used this to call attention to communist abuses, and Leo is trying to use it to call attention to poor, bleeding Africa. He’s risking MARTYRDOM to do this, in the serene belief that his martyrdom in Africa would bring the world’s eyes to the situation. It is admirable, heroic, and worthy of John Paul II.

What our media made of it is an utter scandal and horror, and if the Pope isn’t furious at it, he’s more than human. Or perhaps less.

I figured out the psy-ops and the reason they’re all in on this yesterday, after being very disquieted by the exchanges on Twitter, so I’m going to lay it down as I believe it happened. (Note, that while the enemy is wounded and at bay, they are still more organized than us and are GOOD at using the resources they have for deception.)

Imagine you’re a leftist in America, and you’ve miscalculated. Part of letting in Latins by the bucket full is that you knew — KNEW — all of them would vote for the left forever, and the more left the better. They also thought they had control of the Papacy by installing an old Argentinian leftist as Pope. Because the left absolutely believes Catholics will blindly do what the Pope tells them. (Frankly they also think Baptists and even Mormons — MORMONS! — will do so.)

Anyway, imagine their shock when Catholic immigrants (who by and large are actually against illegal immigration) were horrified by the left’s lurch into all gay, trans and sex sex sex all the time, not to mention insane feminist girl bossing, and … well, became more Catholic.

Catholics increasingly, in fact, despite the leftist council of bishops and a lot of corrupt clergy, vote GOP. The left is so furious at this they spent most of the auto-pen’s presidency raging about “rosary extremism” and setting the FBI to spy on traditional Catholics (the worst thing they do is choose too lacy a veil) and and and–

But none of that had the effect they wanted. Promoting the priests who agree with them didn’t have the effect they wanted. Pouring money into NGOs with Catholic in the name (It’s complicated. A lot of them have no affiliation with the church. I always check) had no effect. And all these people where the younger generations are actually having a bunch of kids were slipping through their fingers.

So they started a psy-ops to get Catholics back in the fold.

There are two ways of scaring an ethnic or cultural group back into voting for the Democrats lockstep. Or at least in the Dem minds there’s two ways:

1- Make them believe they’re obligated to.

2- Make them afraid of voting any other way.

Note that they’ve been running a psyops with Jews too, having become afraid too many of them were escaping the Democrat plantation after the Democrats revealed their true anti-semitic colors after 10-7. I don’t know if they were, but I know the left thought they were, because the psyops using chowder-heads and foreign bots and foreigners and bots to post vile anti-semitic things while pretending to be on the right was supposed to scare Jews of voting any way but for Dems. I don’t know if it worked.

So, they started one for Catholics.

Was Axelrod’s visit to the Vatican part of the psyops? I can’t think of any other reason for that gutter-crawler to visit the Vatican. Did he actually have an audience with the Pope? I don’t know. The reporting on it was of that kind where it might be that. Or he might have seen the Pope’s third undersecretary. I don’t know. Either of them is possible. For connected people — and Obamanites are that! — getting a few minutes audience with the Pope is not hard. And it doesn’t matter what he said, if anything, the important thing was to have the record.

Their plan was as follows: Seize on the first set of remarks the Pope made that could be twisted as referring to Trump and used it to A) make those blindly lockstep obeying Catholics to turn against Trump.

B) In case that didn’t work, make sure to leak the Axelrod visit and paint the Pope as a dyed in the wool lefty and use it to smear ALL Catholics, bringing up one of America’s oldest bigotries, and get people on the right attacking Catholics as Catholics, so that Catholics in self defense would be locked into voting for Democrats.

It worked like a charm. With the trio of crazy lefty bishops chiming in: ’60 Minutes’ accused of using left-leaning Cardinals to bait Trump into feud with Vatican. Raymond Arroyo labeled the media strategy ‘pope-a-doping,’ saying it was designed to provoke a White House-Vatican clash.

And then the outright reprehensible priest on twitter and others like them.

It all rolled along until the Pope chimed in. Incidentally, this is the speech he gave and where he gave it: APOSTOLIC JOURNEY OF POPE LEO XIV
TO ALGERIA, CAMEROON, ANGOLA AND EQUATORIAL GUINEA.

A friend who has family (Baptist family) in Cameroon says they are impressed with Leo and think he did good by coming there. Note the thing about Islam was basically saying “you Muslims in Cameroon, we can live with you, don’t fall for the propaganda from Nigeria telling you to start kidnapping and killing Christians.”

I’m beyond furious that a Pope’s actual noble and heroic mission, trying to look after his flock has been preverted into this. And that few people who were wound up into hating the Pope and Catholics in general, and running their mouths on it are going to see or believe the Pope’s explanation.

I’m asking you, yes, even the atheists, to stop conversations about this cold with the truth.

The reality of all this is that the left is indeed desperate. They offer nothing people want to vote FOR. They only have fear to herd people in. And they are despicable and unprincipled beyond belief.

I’m going to ask all of you — all of you, I don’t care who you are — that when a psy-ops like this rolls along, seemingly on oiled gears, trying to break the right to pieces and scare pieces of it back into the left? Stop. Stop and think about it. “Who does this benefit?” “For whom does this work?” “What does this do?” are the questions you should ask yourself first and foremost. And hold back your most intemperate comments until others have time to do the footwork and figure out what’s going on.

They’ve tried to scare Jews and Catholics. We were the low hanging fruit. I don’t know how they’re going after the other groups in the right, but I can promise you they are. There will be more of this.

Remember this. Remember what they’re trying to do and don’t fall for it.

And meanwhile, please spread the truth.

201 thoughts on “We Need To Talk”

    2. The next, perhaps current, big psyop being “62 million men visited an online r*pe academy, which proves all men are evil and we need to crush the patriarchy twice as hard”.

      With regard to the Pope vs. Trump psyop… that one hits home for me because 1) I’m Catholic, 2) I grew up fairly close to the Chicago area, 3) I used to work for a Catholic diocesan newspaper (back in the glory days of JPII), and 4) my husband is a lapsed/nonpracticing Catholic who cites stuff like this as the reason he wants nothing to do with the Church.

      My Facebook feed has become really schizophrenic of late — one minute I’m getting pummelled with posts from ultra trad Catholic pages saying that good Catholic women must cover their heads in church, never wear anything but skirts below the knee (“dress like the Blessed Mother would” is a common line; I get what they are trying to say, but she didn’t live in the upper Midwest during the winter, for one thing) never work outside the home if they have kids, attend ONLY Latin Mass, etc. etc., the next minute I get nothing but angry feminist rants and AI composed horror stories about abusive and narcissistic men. I’m sure the vast majority of it is rage bait trying to drive “engagement”. Of course I make the mistake of clicking on the rage bait-y posts out of curiosity and then start getting more of them.

      The trad Catholic influencers/figures that I tend to follow on You Tube are like this as well, but there is one — a guy from Canada named Kennedy Hall — who posted videos some months ago that I found helpful. One was titled “how to avoid trad Catholic burnout”, and another (which predates the current unpleasantness) was about how it is NOT essential, and is often detrimental to, one’s spiritual life and growth in virtue to follow absolutely everything the Pope says or does.

      Like

      Reply

        1. I will check her out. As for Kennedy Hall… he and wife have, I believe, 7 kids. His wife was pregnant late last year and they found out, I think around the 6th or 7th month, that the baby had a heart defect that meant he wouldn’t survive birth or would only live a few hours or days at best. Mom and dad decided they would carry the baby to term and let him live however long he did (their docs only perfunctorily mentioned “termination” as an option, but thankfully did not push it). Their baby was born in October, they named him Gabriel, and had him baptized and confirmed immediately. He lived only an hour or so after delivery, IIRC, but mom, dad and all the siblings were there to see him and hold him, and he was loved for every minute. Kennedy made some very poignant You Tube posts both before and after Gabriel’s birth, which are well worth watching.

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

      2. Because they can’t milk “millions of men visit a site where ONE discussion out of many thousands is about drugging and taking advantage of women” for performative outrage.

        Because performative outrage is all they’ve got. Take that away and they’re left alone with their own insignificance.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. The latest variation on this theme, which I just saw this morning, was a post by some man saying that while it’s true that 62 million website hits doesn’t equal 62 million individual men, that fact doesn’t matter…. what matters is that the 62 million number “sparked needed conversations” about r*ape culture, the constant fear women endure, etc. IOW, the truth doesn’t matter, only the narrative does.

          Like

          Reply

            1. Apparently there are plenty of Lefty women who want to be “Ketchup Bottles” enough to cosplay it – with gusto. Never would have guessed.

              Some of the ladies I dated over the years had some pretty strong “lets pretend” asks. (No one’s business)

              Little shocks me anymore. I really don’t want to know what others do/dont/whatevs. There are a few things that will draw my … ire. Doubt anyone here really would object to my boundaries.

              The left wore out “racist” and “nazi” and ‘hypocrite” and such years ago, so they have been searching for the new WORD OF POWER THAT DELIGITIMIZES ALL FOES 11!! “Pedo” is the current front-runner.

              “Stop discussing! Obey! You have been Labeled. You lose.”

              LOL! Nope. Go suck-start a warp drive.

              Liked by 1 person

              Reply

          2. Still no mention of how many of those ’62 million’ viewed that particular topic, or were even aware of its existence — much less how many viewed it positively.

            We don’t have a ‘rape culture’ here in America. There are criminals that attack women (and men, too) and deserve to be harshly punished for their actions. Strangely, the Democrats coddle actual rapists while they denounce innocent men for ‘rape culture’.

            Liked by 2 people

            Reply

            1. And yet no mention from the Left, at all, of the very real “rape culture” in Jihad/Islam.

              Odd that. Suspicious, even.

              Like

              Reply

  3. Oh, the second I saw that Cardinal Cupich was to be on 60 Minutes, the cat was out of the bag. His Excellency lieth down with dogs, and hath fleas which spread a Plague of Temporal Blackness.

    Almighty Father, could you please knock some sense into the Three Stooges of the USCCB?

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    2. Ding, ding, ding. And Tobin, my bishop as it happens. Funny enough, the handsome Italian actor friend he had in Rome didn’t appear. So, the money is cut, Obama’s consigliere meets with another boy from Chicago, and presto here we are.

      Honest question. Is anti-clericalism a thing outside Catholicism? My da used to say that the problem with being an RC is we were stuck with the bishops and our bishop was O’Connor who was the best of them,

      Off topic, there’s a huge foot and mouth disease outbreak in China. Look out for it.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

          2. Foot and mouth disease is no joke and the current breakout is just another in a series of diseases that have affected chickens, pigs, and all the rest. There is no Chinese inspection regime, at least not an honest one since if they want to destroy you they’ll do so, and Chinese agricultural practice is disgusting and operating way beyond codify. It’s a recipe — sorry — for disaster.

            Liked by 2 people

            Reply

          3. Ahhh. My apologies. Something more on my overfull plate to learn.

            I have associated animal diseases with the term “hoof and mouth”.

            And political “diseases” with the term “foot in mouth”, or “foot and mouth”.

            And I’m aware of the CCP smuggling diseases into the US. Prime example, the recent “Covid 19” (and all the associated panic and propaganda that went with it).

            Like

            Reply

            1. Bah, apologies for what?!?
              My parents are ranchers and THEY make the same joke– it’s a good joke!

              We’re just also a liiiiiitttle freaked out.

              Actually, it’s kinda on topic, too, because I know about the smuggled in bio matter because of some weird generated outrage when a Chinese national wasn’t allowed to bypass bio-security regulations coming in from Canada.

              Like

              Reply

              1. A “Canadian” student, eh?

                A Canadian student from Canadia? Or a “Canadian” student from Chyna (and therefore de facto a member of the CCP?)

                Liked by 1 person

                Reply

      2. “Hand, foot, and mouth” is the US term for a rash little kids get. “Hoof and mouth” is the term for the disease that’s not generally fatal to cattle but reduces their milk output and can cause miscarriages, and makes them less healthy in general once they get over it. They often die from secondary infections through the sores they get, or from not eating because of the sores in their mouths. There are vaccines for it, but … each different virus needs a different vaccine, apparently.

        Any country that has it gets promptly slapped with a full quarantine on livestock transport, meat export, and dairy export. Anyone who has visited a farm in a country with hoof and mouth is supposed to report that to the US Department of Agriculture, and stay far away from livestock for at least 14 days.

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

  4. I have been, many times and in many places a fool. Will be again, the same. When a conman fools me it is on me for taking it in and it is on him for being an ass. Those two things are separate, not together. The squabble about the Pope was confusing, now it seems deliberately so. Not terribly surprising, that.

    What the left, here and abroad, does is corrupt. Magnify disagreements between people. Faith is something nigh on all people have within them. We disagree on many things even within our own particular brand. That’s how we seek to understand and deepen that faith.

    The great ‘MAGA split,’ and this are of a piece. How can we get these people to hate each other enough so we can win again? That’s the strategy. And, sometimes, it works. You’ll see lots of these little sensationalist hate campaigns going on, ramping up towards the midterms. It’s as predictable as spring rains.

    Step back. Take a breath. Let it out slow. Let the topic sit for a while. Usually, chances are, we get clarity within a few days, week or two most times at the outside. If it looks bad for us, for all those values of “us” that we use, it might just be that the man behind the camera showing us that look is just what you think.

    Yet another conman.

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

  5. A little off-topic.

    One thing that annoys me is that the Left (and many Democrats) love screaming “Separation Of Church And State” when Conservatives speak out about their Religion, BUT LOVE IT WHEN RELIGIOUS LEADERS SPEAK OUT AGAINST CONSERVATIVES AND REPUBLICANS.

    Sorry but if it’s BAD when Religious Conservatives speak out concerning Politics, then it’s EQUALY BAD (or worse) when Religious Liberals speak out concerning Politics.

    And of course, Democrats Hate The Catholic Church when it speaks out against Democratic Sacred Cows.

    Liked by 9 people

    Reply

    2. How Democrats choose to interpret “separation of church and state” can best be seen as they shamelessly politicize from the pulpit of black Protestant churches–and are allowed to–while savagely heaping scorn on anyone who would dare do so from a white Protestant church.

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

      1. Oh no, my friend.

        Catch me or Jolie about the fate of the UMC sometime. They do it just as hard to white churches.

        They’re just further along in the gotal distruction.

        Liked by 4 people

        Reply

    3. Marxism is a belief system, in as such as it always fails. Marxism relies on the belief or faith of the populace, I put it to you that Marxism is in itself a religion. As such it can no longer be taught in schools due to the separation of church and state. They have to build their own Marxist Churches to teach it.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

  7. For folks wondering who Arroyo is, he’s from EWTN and associated media– and, like the rest of that bunch, is “conservative” because they’ve defined not killing kids, not killing old folks, not killing the disabled, not stealing, and not violating folks’ basic rights as “far right.”

    Oh, I forgot Father Mitch Pacwa– hunting, that’s crazy right-wing, too. :eyeroll:

    About as political-right as you’re going to get is Jimmy Akin, a very geeky explainer type who has a habit of converting prices into modern equivalents “when you account for the massive inflation resulting from printing more dollars”.

    They’re not political. They are philosophically grounded, with a solid eye on defending the inherent dignity of all people, including our right to be able to meaningfully choose.

    And yet they keep ending up strongly (sometimes more strongly than the professionals!) on our side, because they have principles, especially that you are responsible for your choices, and that threatens the Progs to their very core.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  8. Dear Hostess, if I overstep my bounds please remove this post and accept my apologies.

    To start I have never been a Catholic, nor do I play one on TV. I am an evangelical Christian with my closest ties being to particular (i.e. Calvinist) baptists. My own experience with the Catholic Church was as a paid chorister in the early ’80s for about 18 months of Sundays. In that time I met clergy and parishioners that I wholly expect to meet again; true Christians in the best sense of the word, devoted followers of Jesus and his teachings. I also met a few (particularly one Monsignor) who absolutely set the hackles on the back of my neck up, a very political creature. I’ve seen the same across the Protestant spectrum Episcopal, Baptist, Congregationalist, Presbyterian, assorted Evangelical and Pentecostals. In particular there was one pastor who I helped interview as part of a search committee who set me off far worse than that Monsignor. The Church Invisible is a distinct subset of the Church Visible. Scripture tells us the tares are sown with the wheat, the goats mixed with the sheep and my experience across all Christian denominations has shown this to be true.

    Pope Leo seems to be a decent fellow. However, I find I disagree with him in particular on his position on the Iran war, and on his position on war in general from what I can see. As part of his remarks on Easter (though not part of the Homily from what I can find he said

    Pope Leo XIV went on to recall the prophet Isaiah’s words: “Even though you make many prayers, I will not listen: your hands are full of blood” (Is 1:15).

    “Jesus is the King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war,” said the Pope. “He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them.”

    (https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2026-03/pope-leo-xiv-celebrates-palm-sunday-mass-rome.html I presume Vatican News is not TOO biased other than favorably with its reporting of Pope Leo’s remarks)

    The full context of the Isiah passage is this Isiah 1:10-15 (Using NET translation a good translation publicly available and free to use, with excellent translation and text critical notes )

    10 Listen to the Lord’s message, you leaders of Sodom! Pay attention to our God’s rebuke,
    people of Gomorrah!
    11 “Of what importance to me are your many sacrifices?” says the Lord.
    “I have had my fill of burnt sacrifices, of rams and the fat from steers. The blood of bulls, lambs, and goats I do not want.
    12 When you enter my presence, do you actually think I want this— animals trampling on my courtyards?
    13 Do not bring any more meaningless offerings; I consider your incense detestable!
    You observe new moon festivals, Sabbaths, and convocations, but I cannot tolerate sin-stained celebrations!
    14 I hate your new moon festivals and assemblies; they are a burden that I am tired of carrying.
    15 When you spread out your hands in prayer, I look the other way;
    when you offer your many prayers, I do not listen, because your hands are covered with blood.

    So the Context of blood in 15 is that this is the blood of the offerings (see v. 11). This passage has NOTHING to do with war or violence against humans; rather, it is about the hypocrisy in the offerings and celebrations of the Hebrew people in the time of Isiah (and by extension that kind of hypocrisy in general in religious observances).

    Pope Leo States “Jesus is the King of Peace, who rejects war”. Certainly He is the King of peace. Does Jesus reject war or violence absolutely? In general yes, although certainly in Luke 22:36-37 (Again NET translation) does say

    He said to them, “But now, the one who has a money bag must take it, and likewise a traveler’s bag too. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. 37 For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was counted with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me is being fulfilled.”

    Although the purpose here (That Jesus be counted among the transgressors to fulfill scripture) is not a violent one. Indeed when Peter later draws a sword and cuts off the ear of a slave in Gethsemane Jesus reprimands Peter and heals the slave.

    Leo also said ““He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them.”

    Scripture is also full of warlike sentiments (c.f. Kings, Chronicles, the imprecatory psalms etc) and at times Israel is punished for NOT finishing off an enemy (e.g. the Amalekites) when G*d commands it. Moses, Joshua, Saul, David, Hezekiah, among others, make war in some cases taking the Ark of the Covenant (the seat of G*d) with them. It is NOT clear that absolute peace is expected to be found at any time short of the Second Coming.

    Over time, the Catholic Church developed the theory of just war based on the teachings of Augustine of Hippo and later extended by Thomas Aquinas. This is the standard by which war is justified. It comes in two parts (with help from AI)

    Jus ad Bellum (Conditions for Going to War) (comments with respect to Iran in italics)

    • Just Cause:War must defend against aggression, protect innocent life, or correct a massive injustice. Here this seems satisfied, 30,000- 40,000 Iranian civilians were slaughtered. There was the high likelihood of Iran achieving a deliverable fission weapon and using it on Israel, or European cities which its missiles CAN reach (C.F. the attacks on Diego Garcia which would allow attacks to include London)
    • Lawful/Proper Authority: War must be declared by a legitimate government, not private actors. Although not explicitly declared by congress it was authorized for at least 60 days via the War Powers Resolution. In general we have not had an explicit declaration of war since WWII, laziness on the part of Congress
    • Right Intention: The goal must be to secure a just peace, not vengeance or territorial gain.Goal appears to be preventing Iran achieving nuclear status, so in line with the cause,
    • Last Resort: All peaceful alternatives must have been exhausted. We putzed around for 47 years and Iran has just been happily marching towards fission weapons, which they as signatory to a variety of treaties have forgone
    • Reasonable Chance of Success: A war that is likely to fail is unjust, as it creates chaos without achieving a just goal. I think so far this holds, this is a call I cant make, I’m a retired Software engineer not a skilled General
    • Proportionality: The good achieved must outweigh the destruction caused. Jerusalem, Tel Aviv , London, Paris, Berlin, Rome (!!!) are still there with no giant 20-30 KT scars, so far so good

    There is also Jus in Bello (Principles During War) (comments with respect to Iran in italics)

    • Discrimination/Non-combatant Immunity: Soldiers must distinguish between combatants and civilians, protecting the innocent. Here great care seems to have been taken to focus on targets of Military value (The Iranian Navy/ Air Force, Nuclear sites, IRGC commanders and Iranian command and control including the leaders). Information on collateral damage is limited but seems to be very careful. Far better than even Desert Storm or the Iraq war of 2003
    • Proportionality: The tactics used must not be excessive in relation to the military objective. There is some waffling here. Again, I am not a military specialist, but the tactics have been VERY focused and seem appropriate from my limited knowledge
    • Military Necessity: Attacks must be necessary to achieve victory, avoiding pointless cruelty. Again the tactics seem appropriate. There have been attempts to negotiate a settlement, but as expected this appears to be a classic hudna technique described in the Koran, Iran is just hoping we fold or go away

    It seems to me that the requirements of Just War theory are satisfied. Although Pope Leo SEEMS to believe that ONLY defensive action is permitted, that does not seem to be implied in the Just Cause clause. We are acting to protect innocent life (Both Iranian and potentially Israeli and Europeans). Pope Leo also made a classic homiletic error of proof texting using Isiah 1:15. I am certain his training in both Just War theory and scripture is far better than what his statements would indicate. I suspect he is letting his own distaste for war creep in as well as his distaste for the Trump administration slide in.

    Admittedly, Trump is NOT acting particularly presidential or diplomatic in his responses to Pope Leo or in his general Statements on the war. He is being, well, particularly Trumpian. That said, the President’s actions appear to be the right ones in respect to Just War theory. A little more restraint and contemplation from both parties seems in order with respect to their statements.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

      1. When Leo was quoted of “world tyrants” by the left, I knew that the ones reporting were expanding the remarks further than intended. None of Trump’s actions can be considered tyrannical (despite the usual suspects screaming). Bit surprised when Trump responded to the lefts quote of Leo. OTOH I thought was Trump being Trump and waving the red flag in front of the left? His “look here”, not over there.

        Still that Leo has followed up with “not commenting about Trump” clarification, is good. It spikes the lefts comments.

        Liked by 3 people

        Reply

    2. I presume Vatican News is not TOO biased other than favorably with its reporting of Pope Leo’s remarks

      :laughs:

      Oh, they’re biased as heck, starting with what they think is “favorable.” Much like anyone else who’s not actively lying for fun and profit!

      For that article, click through to the actual homily text– they were kind enough to link it.

      Note it’s for Palm Sunday, where the reading they just listened to was of Peter chopping off a guy’s ear and Jesus saying don’t do that, it’ll mess up the plan.

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

      1. The thing that occurred to me on that bit after I spent some time with swordlike objects in college was the sword work to JUST get an ear is very, very precise. I know even at my top Sabre fencing form back in the day (admittedly not all that high level, but fair), that level of cut precision would have been beyond me. And with the heavier short swords in common private use in the Roman era, even more tricky to my estimation.

        Any current sword cutting enthusiasts please chime in, but I remain impressed with Peter’s technique there.

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

        2. The way I always heard pastors explaining it in sermons was, Peter was going for a horizontal(-ish) swing at the neck, and the guy ducked sideways to avoid it. Didn’t entirely get out of the way of the blade, but did manage to get out of the way enough that it was only his ear that got chopped off rather than his head.

          Liked by 3 people

          Reply

          1. If they were carrying the Roman Gladius type of sword, it is a short stabber. It can be swung, but the preferred technique is rapid job/stab at the foe. Because a stab is quickly fatal and slashes far less so. The Gladius is also far less cumbersome to carry, as it is -short-.

            Note on the gladius that up to a quarter of the blade is point. (The swoop wasted Gladius Hispaniensis, not the later Pompeii type, which was straight sided and simplified.)

            Also, it is -much- harder to dodge/deflect/parry a well executed stab. Or the four to six of them that can be executed in the same time as one big swing.

            Think of a line of Roman Legionnaires as a line of macabre sewing machines on “fast” setting.

            Liked by 1 person

            Reply

        3. Only if you’re explicitly aiming for the ear. It might have been just a general blow at the servant in question (who may have been wearing a helmet, as well, since it was an arrest party of a “dangerous seditionist”) that happened to clip his ear instead of somewhere more vital (perhaps miraculously so…).

          Liked by 3 people

          Reply

      2. I had not noticed that link, I had thought this was presented at Easter and found the homily for that day (which was unsurprisingly unrelated). Having read the Palm Sunday Homily it is mostly the same kind of thing you would see preached in any Christian church on Palm Sunday, pointing out Jesus’ Use of a donkey (to fulfill scripture) and to emphasize that he was not coming (yet) as a conqueror but as a peaceful reigning king (Common middle east usage in the 1st century AD), Referencing the Isiah suffering Servant passages (Isiah 53) and many New Testament passages related to Jesus’ kingship, as well as Peter’s striking the slave (which I had noted as a counterpoint to the Luke passage where the disciples are told to trade their cloaks for a sword). The homily leans more into the peace side of things than in to the Kingship focus I am used to but that is a possible way to go with the passage

        The use of Isiah 1:15 in isolation is still poor homiletics. The reason the prayers are not accepted is NOT that the supplicant’s hands are bloodied but that their intent is hypocritical. They are going through the motions (the sacrifices) without the internal state to match. The blood of the sacrifices is thus meaningless.

        As our Hostess noted Pope Leo has said he did not mean Trump in this and he has been silent otherwise. His actions show him to be honest. I still think that his stand on war in general and Christian response to war is incorrect. This is at best a secondary issue of the faith (and more likely tertiary or quaternary) and Christians in good faith can agree to disagree on these points.

        Like

        Reply

        1. His actions show him to be strong and brave. Imagine what the rest of the world is saying about his Actually SAYING he didn’t mean to inveigle “Literally Hitler.” And most of his church is abroad, not in the US.
          The man — G-d forgive me for saying this about a pope — clangs when he walks.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

      1. Islam does not adhere to the Concept of Just War. Just War is a clearly based on the Christian tenets called out by Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas two doctors/saints of the church.

        Like

        Reply

    4. Soldiers must distinguish between combatants and civilians, protecting the innocent. 

      Since the use of human shields seems to be a basic Islamic tactic, if he didn’t use the term Perfidy even once…..

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. Indeed perfidy, both in the use of human shields and in eschewing clear delineation (by uniforms, or by misusing makings such as the red cross or crescent)) is one of the more heinous war crimes, one constantly used by Hamas and Hezbollah. Also one rarely if ever noted by the press.

        Like

        Reply

  9. On the topic of popes being lunkheads, the very first pope was the apostle Peter, who is Biblically famous for being a lunkhead. Little things like lacking faith, or denying Jesus. And yet, he was the one who was picked, probably so the rest of us wouldn’t get discouraged. So there’s definitely precedent.

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

  10. Ah, the old 48 hour rule applies again – this time with regard to matters Vaticanish, instead of the usual ‘hair on fire’ kerfuffle about a horrible crime/terrorism incident, or a political dumpster fire.
    I thought the Pope would be politically savvy sufficiently to make himself unmistakably clear at the start, but I guess he is in as much of a bubble as the rest of us.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    2. The problem isn’t what the Pope actually said.

      The problem is the Idiot News Media “selectively quoting” the Pope and claiming that the Pope is talking about Trump.

      IE The News Media is take “bits and pieces” of what the Pope says and claiming that the Pope is “condemning Trump” even/especially when the Pope wasn’t talking about Trump.

      Liked by 4 people

      Reply

      1. I am still in awe of the idea that the Pope saying “killing civilians is bad,” when Iran has killed tens of thousands of their own and is shooting neighbors at random, when Israel faced another organized overt genocide and is still getting all kinds of rockets, and they go:

        Pope’s talking about the US shooting military bases and train tracks.

        Liked by 3 people

        Reply

        1. No, that’s a reasonable conclusion if you assume (1) the Pope is a middle-of-the-road liberal (2) who gets his news from mainstream sources. How many people are convinced there’s a genocide in Gaza because the news said so?

          Of course, the Pope might not be as liberal as claimed, he might get his news from less biased sources, or the full quote might be unambiguous. But absent that extra context, the quote fits the hypothesis that he’s a liberal saying liberal things.

          Like

          Reply

            1. I always get back to this quote from Patton:

              “It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.”

              The first sentence is debatable; it’s only human. The second is not.

              Liked by 1 person

              Reply

    4. The news media will news media. That’s the problem. A month or two ago we had breathless news stories about the Republican who *gasp* had a copy of Mein Kampf. The reason that they knew this is because he mentioned it on a live stream, mocked it, and then joked with the host about how the exchange would be taken out of context to attack him. Which it was.

      Meanwhile, the media is blatantly ignoring the Democratic candidate in Maine (I think?) who has a tattoo of the divisional symbol of the 3rd SS Totenkopf Division (which is a distinctive and uncommon version of the skull and crossbones).

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

    5. Since the Latter-Day Saints were mentioned –

      I think we have a small advantage in this area in that we have a lay clergy. If your local bishop starts getting political from the pulpit, it’s not as big of a deal to have him replaced. It also means that the people in charge are from the local congregants, so you don’t get people coming in from elsewhere and cluelessly stepping in it immediately with an inane political statement. Doesn’t rule out the possibility, but there’s hopefully less cluelessness when it does happen.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. Last I saw was that progressive Latter-day Saints had fallen for the leftwing psyop and were questioning why our leadership can’t bravely speak out against Trump like the Pope did.

        Like

        Reply

        1. They’re always saying stupid things like that. They probably also pray that Uchtdorf will become the Prophet because he said he’s a Democrat, and they believe this means that women will get the priesthood on his watch (I’ve heard similar sentiments in the past regarding other General Authorities).

          So long as it isn’t brought up while someone’s standing at the chapel pulpit, it’s safe to ignore, imo.

          Like

          Reply

  11. In my defense, so did Trump and most of the media on the right. On the left, of course, they were in on the plot.

    Maybe I’ve gotten too cynical but I think most of the media on the right is in on it as well at this point. They fall for it too often.

    Then again, some days I think the real point of DOGE being covered at all was to just rub our faces in how much they are and will continue to steal.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. The noisy ones, I’d say so.

      Just this morning I went down a rabbit hole about REEE DEM STRATEGIST ANNOUCES PLAN…. short version, guy who worked for Clinton has a low-circulation podcast and said the same things he’s been wanting for 30 years now, and suddenly it’s A Big Deal and we’re Totally Needing to Panic.

      I think the conmen are shifting to the right because they realized there’s a market, following folks like Carlson.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

    2. Knowing there’s a problem is important. Being allowed to fix the problem is more important.

      Being allowed to fix the problem before the engine seizes is most important.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

    3. “Maybe I’ve gotten too cynical but I think most of the media on the right is in on it as well at this point.”

      I don’t think that’s cynical at all. The “Righty” media is focused on making a buck. That means clicks, and therefore they will make a tempest in a teapot every single time. Accuracy? That’s for suckers.

      The Canadian “Righty” media does this a little less, because they have too much red meat to throw the audience every day. They have to pick and choose which outrage-of-the-moment to run with, because there’s such a wide variety available.

      I like Jasmine Lane these days, she’s a little less for the hyperbole and a little more for the “Just take a look at what these f-ers are doing today, kids!” Plus she’s cute, that doesn’t hurt. ~:D

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  14. Reeeeeeee!!!! PAPISTS!!!!! Reeeeeeeee!!!!!

    Ok, now that I have that out of the way… Ignore the psyop. Remember your Gell-man Amnesia or however it’s spelled. Don’t let them divide us, just point and laugh at the stupidity, and thank God that he looks after America.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  15. The Prince of Lies, has his minions, they are called democrats and the press is their whore. nuff said. We are all human, which makes us all fallible, true courage is admitting you were wrong and standing by your own principles to help expose the truth, kudos.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  16. Being Mormon, I don’t pay a ton of attention to the Pope, but I admit I fell for this one and was mildly disappointed that he seemed to be another socialist. I should have known better, lol!!

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  17. One of the problems that modern media has is that it make it very difficult for an orator to tailor his language to the audience which he is addressing.

    Well that’s not accurate, it’s as easy as ever to tailor ones language to ones audience and speak to them in terms that they find meaningful.

    The problem is that your carefully tailored language escapes into the wild, and is seen by people who either don’t find the specific terms meaningful, or find them actively offensive because they understand the terms differently than your original audience does.

    And those people then set their hair on fire, assuming that you were addressing them when you weren’t, and are condemning them for actions that they have to do but (apparently) aren’t entirely comfortable with doing, even though they need to be done. Or for things they haven’t done at all.

    And that’s with people who under normal circumstances regard you as neutral-to friendly.

    When people who actively hate you put their oar in…

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  18. Honestly, I recognized the picture of #TheDonald that everybody is complaining about as a takeoff on the pictures of Dr. Norman Bethune that the Chicoms love to fawn over, and I thought it was fricking hilarious. So many delicious layers of mischief there. So much egg on the faces of the Lefties after the screaming dies down…

    Then there arose the business of the Catholic Church, and I A) didn’t care a damn because I’m as not-Catholic as they come and B) I assumed that all the media were lying. They lied about the picture, they’d lie about the Church too.

    I assumed all the #DemocRats hiding under priestly vestments would be lying right along, in unison. They always do, after all.

    This is not because I am so smart, I hasten to add. It’s just that I’m old and I’ve seen this sh1t so often that I never believe anything anymore. The #Pope called #Donnie a tyrant? Over a picture on the interwebz? Sure he did, uh huh. Either he didn’t, and therefore I don’t care, or he did, and I still don’t care.

    So I just waited a little, and here we are. Lying liars lie. Must be a day ending in ‘Y’.

    As a general rule, I feel that if some media guy wants me to be upset about something, I’m best to assume he doesn’t have my welfare in mind and behave accordingly.

    This is also why I don’t talk to Normies anymore. They’re like a pack of stupid monkeys fighting over a mango. Nothing they say or do makes a lick of sense.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  19. It’s a serious problem when the head of one of the largest organizations in the world can’t reliably disseminate his message to the only people who will fight on his behalf. Right-wing American Catholics are the only group with a direct interest in keeping the media from lying about the Pope, and for the past week or so, the best ammo they’ve had is “Well, the Pope isn’t always right.”

    That’s really sad.

    Leo’s clarification that he wasn’t talking about Trump is a step in the right direction, but a lot of the damage has already been done. There has to be a better way to cut through the noise. (Assuming the Pope knows and cares. I’m not sure he has any reason to prevent a MAGA-Catholic schism.)

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. :raises hand:

      I have been telling folks to stop listening to the idjit media.

      I’ve told folks where they can go to get context. I’ve handed folks links left and right.

      And the self-anointed experts then proceeded to scream and do it anyways.

      Why? I have no idea.

      But it is a lot like the self-anointed “right wing” authorities who scream I need to be guilty for not speaking up when for the last 20 years they’ve completely ignored me in favor of the media-chosen chicks.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      1. “…the self-anointed “right wing” authorities…”

        …many (but not all) of whom seem to be in it for the clicks, and who will therefore say the loudest and most click-bait thing they can conjure up.

        So many of these dorks don’t understand that the “Right Wing” is a mob of feral cats that goes in all directions at all times, and will not be herded. It is easier for them to make sh1t up to blame you for, than come up with something constructive.

        And these would be the ‘honest’ ones, who are in it for the money. We know there exist legions of foreign actors and domestic trolls who are in it for the enemy.

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

      2. If the Vatican were handling this adequately, you wouldn’t need to play Pope-whisperer to get the truth out. The facts and rebuttals would be as easy to come by as they are for the rest of American politics.

        You can’t open X without hearing the Trump administration’s stance on every news item, usually within hours of the story breaking. I just watched conservative Catholics spend the better part of a week floundering for a single talking point to use.

        Whatever the Church is using to get its message out, it isn’t working. Either they don’t care how the media portrays them or they need to step up their game.

        Like

        Reply

        1. We have a lot of house cleaning to do, yes, but part of the problem is “our” loudest TwiX defenders are either compromised, confused, or listening to sources that are both. After a point, the Vatican itself can only do so much about the Pope’s messaging – and they weren’t keeping it a secret that he was in Africa. Most of “our” outlets and TwiX people were either focused on that, or on other things, so that the sudden left-field onslaught of “fight with Trump” caught them off guard.

          Part of the reason for that is we’re still trying to make sure he’s not Francis 2.0. So far he’s been very encouraging, but…okay, inside baseball moment here: A lot of “trad” Catholics are liable to flip their lids because it got them clicks under Francis. The same clique that got Francis in remains a problem, too, so some are not entirely wrong to flip, their reflexes are just twitchy. So. If they want clicks or attention, or if they somehow get that nerve hit now? They flip about Leo.

          Getting through that noise is not, after a point, the Vatican’s job. Half the floundering you saw was Catholics with compromised or “trad” or liberal sources and a serious Francis-induced flinch reflex spasming at the thought of “It’s happening again!” Seriously, Biden had 4 years to leave people twitchy. Francis had ten or so to leave Catholics bouncing like scalded cats who jump every time the kettle whistles.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          1. Yeah, that matches my understanding of the situation. It’s the same twitchiness the Right gets towards GOP politicians, only with a larger communication barrier, powerful enemies that have been entrenched for decades, and norms that discourage direct statements which might assuage political doubts.

            Mostly what I’m getting at is that if the Pope cares about the media distortions, he’s the only one in a position to do anything about it. The Left won’t tell the truth when the lie favors them, the Protestants have confirmation bias, and the grassroots Catholics clearly didn’t have the ammo they needed this time.

            It’s not fair that the media puts words in his mouth, and ultimately, you can’t stop people from lying. But the Pope has a huge organization at his disposal, and I doubt he has exhausted his communication options.

            (His clarification gives me hope that he’s trying to keep the media lies in check. Hopefully, the response is faster and louder next time.)

            Liked by 1 person

            Reply

              1. Exactly. And from the outside, it’s hard to tell where in the learning curve he is or (to a casual observer like me) what the internal power struggles are like.

                It took the GOP years and a rather unique figurehead to both grow a spine and figure out how to fight back against the media and our own Deep State. I’d love it if Leo speedran that process, but we’ll have to see. (I’m working under the assumption he’s well-meaning and not irredeemably leftist.)

                Liked by 1 person

                Reply

          2. We have a lot of house cleaning to do, yes, but part of the problem is “our” loudest TwiX defenders are either compromised, confused, or listening to sources that are both.

            Also, there is more than one “scandal ” to get the faithful riled up about. The, so called, “feud” with Trump made the biggest splash because, Trump, obviously. But suddenly there are all these photos of Leo from back in the early days when he was first in Peru where he is supposedly participating in Pachemama worship, the silly blessing of a block of ice, etc. All the drip, drip, drip, of things that a very new at world-wide ops Pope is being hammered with. The lavender mafia is pushing hard too.

            The psy-ops runners have been priming this pump for a while now. Basically, since he was elected a mere year ago.

            And also, remember, the adversary wants to pit the trads against the non-trads and all denominations against each other. C.S. Lewis, in the Screwtape Letters said,

            “One of our greatest allies at present is the Church itself… I do not mean the Church as we see her spread through all time and space and rooted in eternity, terrible as an army with banners. That, I confess, is a spectacle which makes our boldest tempters uneasy…”

            Our enemy does mean to pick off each battalion, squad, or individual solidier off by any means necessary.

            Pray for each other. Pray. Pray. Pray.

            And pray for our leaders, one and all. It is a fearsome task they have been given.

            Liked by 2 people

            Reply

            2. “Also, there is more than one “scandal ” to get the faithful riled up about.”

              ^ This. It occurs to me that one of the big hurdles for people who would normally fact-check this stuff is that there were like half a dozen stories going around. It’s hard to deal with all of that at once. Even if you can debunk one or two of them, if the third one gives you trouble (e.g., a real but poorly sourced quote from months ago), you’re at a disadvantage trying to get the word out.

              And, as Caroline noted above, conservative Catholics are still trying to feel Leo out. It’s one thing if you can claim, “No, he’s not a liberal. The media is lying.” You can put your weight into that. It’s a lot harder to argue, “He’s not quite as liberal as the media is saying.” (“He’s just saying normal Pope things.” is probably correct and doesn’t require reading his mind, but it’s not going to satisfy people who want to bin him as an ally or an enemy.)

              Like

              Reply

        2. If the Vatican were handling this adequately, you wouldn’t need to play Pope-whisperer to get the truth out. The facts and rebuttals would be as easy to come by as they are for the rest of American politics.

          This is as “easy” as American politics.

          The catch is that most of us (but not our relatives!) stopped turning our brains off when CNN announces Big Huge Outrage Story about republicans.

          Like

          Reply

          1. The Trump administration has about a dozen major officials who are tweeting, broadcasting wins, and clearing up misconceptions every day, not to mention a Rapid Response account and the President himself. That’s before we get into press conferences, ads, newsworthy actions, and publicity stunts.

            Some pundits go the extra mile and do their own research, but even the laziest commenter has facts to work with. Aside from the odd messaging fumble, there’s never any doubt what the administration’s stance is and why.

            That type of response did not happen here. The truth was out there, but out of everyone I saw talking about the issue, only you and Sarah dug it up. Including several Catholics who absolutely would have amplified the message if they had seen it.

            Maybe it’s the commenters’ fault for not digging deeper. Personally, I think this all could have been prevented if the Pope had a JD Vance or Stephen Miller to get his response out clearly and quickly. But the pipeline is broken somewhere. People aren’t getting the facts they need.

            Like

            Reply

            1. The Trump administration has about a dozen major officials who are tweeting, broadcasting wins, and clearing up misconceptions every day, not to mention a Rapid Response account and the President himself.

              All of which routinely get ignored, or lied about.

              Because people find it more useful to accept pre-chewed conclusions than to consider that the people who consistently lie might, again, be lying.

              A lot of folks just accept they’re lying liars who lie and don’t bother to go dig in to what the outrage of the day is, because it’s a lie and a waste of time.

              Liked by 1 person

              Reply

              1. “All of which routinely get ignored, or lied about.”

                Not the side of the equation I’m worried about. Without spokesmen who react clearly and quickly, the media dominates the narrative. Like we saw with the Republicans 15 years ago. Or the Pope last week.

                Grassroots supporters can fill that role, but this time they didn’t. The only rebuttal I saw was here. So either Catholics weren’t able to put a response together, or they weren’t able to convince their closest allies, who already distrust the media, to amplify it. Bad news either way.

                The Pope responded, eventually, but days after the narrative had taken root. We’re still getting snide “What does the Pope have to say about this Muslim atrocity?” posts as aftershocks.

                I get that there are any number of reasons why Leo can’t or won’t come out strongly on this. I don’t hold it against him. But something has to change, or the media’s going to set the narrative uncontested. Again.

                Liked by 1 person

                Reply

                1. P.S. If anyone with an X account wants to make a difference, getting this (Sarah’s) post in front of Cynical Publius might help, ideally with her observation about Leo’s courage to go with it. He’s a Catholic with a fairly large platform, and a lot of key allies read him. He’s also good at long posts, so he’d be a strong amplifier if you could convince him.

                  (Note: I haven’t been reading his replies lately, so I don’t know who has already tried to convince him of what. But the conversation last week seemed to pain him, so he might be open to seeing the lies laid out.)

                  Like

                  Reply

                2. Not the side of the equation I’m worried about.

                  Why? It is directly relevant to the idea.

                  So either Catholics weren’t able to put a response together, or they weren’t able to convince their closest allies, who already distrust the media, to amplify it.

                  What allies?

                  The same ones that are happy with Catholics when we’re useful, but upset when we have views of our own, such as on abortion or making nuns buy birth control?

                  The Pope responded, eventually, but days after the narrative had taken root. We’re still getting snide “What does the Pope have to say about this Muslim atrocity?” posts as aftershocks.

                  Yeah, and they’ve been using THAT for my entire life, every dang time a Catholic official walks into something they can claim is Muslim. (Although “The Pope prayed in a mosque we’re going to totally ignore is an ancient church” is extra special.)

                  There is no magical way of telling someone things that will make it so they CANNOT choose to believe lies.

                  There is no formatting of the message and getting the word out that will force people to listen.

                  You are responsible for your own choice of deciding to trust the same guys who hate you and wish you ill when they pull the same dang trick they’ve used for decades, now.

                  If you don’t care what the Pope says? Cool, stop using it as a hammer. You care about what the Pope said? They’ve made it really easy to go look, do so.

                  I know it’s unlikely to make anyone think twice, but this is a really good test for who is actually a Brave Truth Teller, and who is flying off the handle for outrage-clicks.

                  Like

                  Reply

                  2. Why? It is directly relevant to the idea.

                    How is the media lying about Trump’s spokesmen relevant? We’ve established that’s what they do. Trump 2.0 has done a fantastic job of combatting those lies in part because he has competent, vocal people getting his message out there 24/7.

                    The Pope apparently does not, at least as far as the American political sphere is concerned. So the media lies about him, and no one tells the truth. Because the few people willing to dig it up didn’t have a big enough platform to spread it.

                    Which is why you have spokesmen.

                    What allies?

                    The right-wing pundits I read daily, who help set the national political discourse. The ones who would be happy to call out a media psyop if they knew it was a psyop. The ones whose hatred of the Left is currently being weaponized by the Left to attack the Pope.

                    The ones Catholics failed to get through to in time to make a difference.

                    upset when we have views of our own, such as on abortion or making nuns buy birth control?

                    I have no clue who you’re talking about here.

                    There is no magical way of telling someone things that will make it so they CANNOT choose to believe lies.

                    So? We don’t need to convince everyone. We just need to convince enough people to foil the enemy. Trump didn’t win three elections by converting MSNBC viewers. He won by convincing moderate voters he had something to offer.

                    There are a ton of people out there who could be convinced that the Pope isn’t a communist, David Axelrod isn’t setting Catholic policy, and the media is up to its usual tricks.

                    Your stance is the equivalent of: “Our product is the best. Any informed consumer would know that. Therefore we don’t need to market it. If they don’t buy it, it’s their own fault.” You’re right, but you’re missing out on a lot of sales that way.

                    Consider it a form of charity: You’re helping the people who got duped by the media learn the truth. Some of them should have known better. Fine. Some of them will get duped again next time. Fine. But some of them will see the light and become staunch allies. Over time, that’s how you win.

                    Like

                    Reply

                    1. How is the media lying about Trump’s spokesmen relevant?

                      About what Trump, or his commentators, say.

                      And people choose to believe it.

                      Then, when they cannot hold to that choice anylonger– they then flip around and blame the one who was lied about.

                      For not magically making it so that for the first time in history, Gossip was stopped by the subject of the gossip, rather than by folks refusing to indulge in gossip, even with known liars.

                      Like

      3. But it is a lot like the self-anointed “right wing” authorities who scream I need to be guilty for not speaking up when for the last 20 years they’ve completely ignored me in favor of the media-chosen chicks.

        If they listened to you, they’d have to admit that their perfect little AWALT models are wrong, and that women maybe aren’t a monolith of feminist- brainwashed THOTs who only value men for their money.

        Liked by 3 people

        Reply

  20. An excellent summary. I confess (…to Almighty G_d, and to you my brothers and sisters that I have greatly sinned…) that it was all too easy to see/read Axelrod, Cupich, and our new Holy Father the White Sox fan* and connect an unrelated set of dots.

    I still compare the Holy Father’s remarks to those of his predecessor Leo XIII (Rerum Novarum, Humanum Genus, etc.) and can’t help but wish Leo XIV had Leo XIII’s gift of stupendously clear communication, but then I wish anyone, myself decidedly included, had that gift in greater measure.

    *I have to give the Holy Father his props for that. Anybody can root for the Cubs; they’re easy to like and Wrigley Field is as good a place to watch a ballgame as there is. Takes conviction to root for the White Sox; the only way to top it would be to have a Pope who roots for the Cleveland Browns, a team that could try the patience of a saint.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  22. This is a hard thing to navigate. I’d say the Left is the enemy always and everywhere, and it’d be absolutely true…except that they know we know this, so they’re sowing confusion about who they are, where they are, and even who *we* are. This isn’t helped by the fact that they’ve managed to infiltrate and co-opt almost every major institution (and by now they know that we know that too), including most of mainstream Christianity, to the point where if you’re seeing leftists lurking everywhere, including and especially among the loudest doomers on the right, you wouldn’t really be wrong.

    For better or worse, I assumed that the pope was likely flying his true colors…and that it didn’t matter very much because commies gonna commie, and like cockroaches, they’re everywhere, so it’s more or less another FIDO situation. *Almost* right, at least in the judgment that it’s the kind of kerfuffle that I could ignore. But wrong because the entire thing was fake, and I reflexively accepted the lie.

    It’s easy to say everything’s a lie, so pay no attention, but you’ve got to believe at least some things, from some people, sometimes, because like it or not, we do need outside information in order to orient ourselves to the world and make decisions. If the so-called mainstream and other, farther left outlets are saying it, you can safely assume it’s a lie or a deception. But when everyone on *our* side is saying it too, what are we supposed to do then? Wait and see and reserve judgment is about all you can do, I guess. There’s no satisfaction in it, but there it is. F— it, drive on.

    It’s an evil bind the left’s got us in. Both division/confusion and lockstep conformity are powerful social weapons, and the left wields them both against everyone: against their own to keep them in line and against us to demoralize and enervate. Seems like they’ve weaponized human nature against itself.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. “They’ve weaponized human nature against itself” could literally be the grand-strategy mission statement of leftism, itself, as “we” understand it. This is the means; the end is power.

      Power for the Party, the apparatchiki and nomenklatura, the fascisti, the in-group that always works like an aristocracy and is never called that. And even if the particular people in some historical or hypothetical or possible-future group of leftists (authoritarian-communists, authoritarian-socialists a-la NSDAP, authoritarian-fascists, authoritarian-democratists like the New Dealers, authoritarian-statists of any sort but anarchists, maybe) were not so consumed and driven by power as a goal, their whole system is as good as designed to attract the very sort who will take that power as their end, as their reason to be (and do unto others), take it as their own.

      It’s like the biggest social-genetic algorithm, the best human-level gain-of-function experiment ever. So how can be be surprised, when the machine does what it’s designed and built to do?

      Need a better machine. (See 1776 etc.)

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

    3. “Seems like they’ve weaponized human nature against itself.” The left as an auto-immune disorder? I’ve never thought of it that way but it does fit.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  28. Now, as to all that kerfluffle…

    Jesus is Lord. Moving along….

    Collecting Lightsabers is fun. I particularly like the “build your own” options from Saberforge. You can have them assemble your creation, or ship you the loose parts. The latter option is essentially “Saber legos”. Highly recommend.

    Now, I need to figure out what a MAGAsaber is and build it.

    (grin)

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  29. Oh. And I had one of those “Oh crap” realizations.

    60% enriched is sufficient for crude gun-type weapons. Too big ti fly, but ship delivery works.

    If I were wargaming as Iran, 2-3 such weapons are either on Kharg Island, and/or on tanker(s) docked there. If the USA player takes Kharg, Iran player removes it and its contents from the game. “Mahdi” summoned with hellfire.

    Ouch. I hate my brain sometimes.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. That would require the person/people in charge of the Iranian forces to be capable of believing they’re going to lose Kharg Island and not be able to get it back.

      Furthermore, it would require said weapons to have been prepositioned before the war launched, because once the war launched and there were hostile aircraft all over the sky, any significant movement of troops or material near where the enriched uranium is (buried under tons of rubble after last year’s strike) would have been noticed and reported. It’s kind of hard to keep a secret when enemy pilots can fly over any part of your airspace at any time.

      And I don’t believe that Iran had weapons before the war kicked off, because what the Iranian negotiators said to the American negotiators (which they then reported to Trump, which caused him to call Netanyahu and go “We’re out of time, we’ve got to go hot right now”) was “We can have nuclear weapons within weeks”. They did not brag “We already have nuclear weapons”, they bragged “We can have them within weeks”. Were they exaggerating their capabilities? Perhaps. But given the context (they thought that bragging about their capabilities would help them in negotiations, having completely misread Trump’s character), they would not have underplayed their capabilities. If they had had working nukes, even poor ones, they would have said so; instead, what they said was “we’re weeks away from having nukes, so take us seriously” (and Trump did take them seriously, in a way that was not at all what they wanted).

      Like

      Reply

      1. It’s kind of hard to keep a secret when enemy pilots can fly over any part of your airspace at any time.

        It’s even harder when you have the level of electronic and humint penetration we and the Israelis had before the first drone launched….

        When the guy in charge of counter Mossad operations is revealed as a Mossad agent — not because YOU found him but because your enemies extracted him and then admitted it — that just HAS to be a tad demoralizing.

        Like

        Reply

        1. “guy in charge of counter Mossad operations is revealed as a Mossad agent“

          –

          What are the odds that a still undetected embedded agent went “we need to finish this”. Told the Iranian PTB, “to demoralize the satan of the US (citizens) we need to let them know that they missed all the weaponized nuclear material?” (Essentially, “nah, nah, missed me, nah, nah”.) Because the boast of “material for nuclear bombs within weeks”, doesn’t have to be true in the boasters mind. They just have to think it will cause the other side to back down. As usual, the other side forgot to look at history.

          Anyone remember the official fable of “Iraq weapons of mass destruction”, and what that caused? (Never mind that the fable is fake, and a fable itself.) Point is. Look what Bush did because of Iraq’s boast. Bush isn’t Trump. Or rather Trump isn’t Bush. Trump is sure heck not Obama or Biden. What did the Iran leadership think was going to happen? Now that I know why Trump called Israel and said “they said …”, and boom lowered. Is anyone on this blog surprised? I’m not.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

            1. I know. Which is why I worded it the way I did. Should have added sarcasm tag. As in:

              “Anyone remember the official fable (scarcasm) of “Iraq weapons of mass destruction”, and what that caused? (Never mind that the fable is fake (not sarcasm), and a fable itself.)”

              Liked by 2 people

              Reply

            2. -thosands- of chemical weapons found and demilled.

              “Oh, but those were leftovers from the eighties, and degraded.”

              So. WMDs.

              See also the river highly contaminated with Yellowcake.

              Liked by 1 person

              Reply

      2. You missed an essential point. So do most people.

        It is -trivial- to make a “Little Boy” weapon. It was not challenging in 1945. Please go look it up. It is 100% online available to anyone.

        The hard parts were 1) knowing it works and 2) making the fuel.

        The reason everyone flips out over “90%” enrichment is it makes missiles and air-drop weapons practical. Note that we -didnt- need 90% to wreck Hiroshima.

        While the boffins are fizzing and ‘fuming, the Ordinance types build the damn things and practice with big slugs of lead. Objective is a proper shape/density of result. Then you use something else instead of lead. Then another. Somewhere along the way, you start slugging the “waste” U238. It won’t boom, but it will “perfectly” (minus kaboom) simulate assembling a critical mass of U235.

        U238 is connercially available. They use it for trim weights in aircraft. It has industrial uses.

        So the “ordies” have -years- to build gun devices around a stepladder of refined levels. Given a large structure. 20% is the minimum.

        You can smuggle the 60% pieces in decent speedboats or pickup trucks. Four strong men can carry either piece needed.

        This is why we have to keep whacking nuke-moles. Because some of those effers are crazy enough to do it. And they believe their crazy beliefs that some demon whispers in their ear that they cannot lose.

        Personally, I think Persian/ Iranian arrogance and the lazy “inshallah” belief works against my scenario.

        But if -I- was facing an state opponent that wrote in 1987 he wanted to take my milkshakes, you can bet your ass my fridge is wired for sound.

        Wrecking Kharg makes -us- OPEC. But it does deny any neighbor , Arab or Israeli, the loot.

        So at a minimum, the island is rigged. It will burn just as Saddam burned Kuwait. Works for us, but sucks for the Marines. Bigly.

        And I hope the folks we send have time to persuade the locals -not- to “Sampson” the place.

        And the Threat leadership saw what we did in Venezuela, and elsewhere. So, -if- they had even a snippet of foresight, even a mocodium of “just in case”, they staged the too big too immobile devices on Kharg and fueled them as material became available.

        And note that they did this contingency planning for government, munitions reserve, production. Etc.

        It’s a trap.

        And I suspect -Trump- knows it. Because we have been telegraphing this punch for a month. Popeye dramatically eats the spinach and winds up….

        So. (Grin)

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. I understand that it’s easy to build a Little Boy type weapon. But the key point in my comment, which you didn’t entirely miss but it sure felt like you did on first read-through, was “That would require the person/people in charge of the Iranian forces to be capable of believing they’re going to lose Kharg Island and not be able to get it back.” (Emphasis on “capable” added just now, italics in original comment).

          From your line “I think Persian/ Iranian arrogance and the lazy “inshallah” belief works against my scenario,” I think you agree.

          But to my mind, that’s the key reason why it doesn’t work. They did not have the foresight to see Trump and Netanyahu pulling the trigger on an attack in March, and they certainly wouldn’t have believed that they could ever, ever lose Kharg Island. So IMHO, they didn’t pre-position anything. And positioning it after the war has been kicked off, with enemy aircraft all over the place and even Iranian civilians calling in airstrikes on IRGC checkpoints, I think any movement of troops or material near the known locations of uranium would have been noticed, called in, and hit.

          Now, I’m not an intel guy who has to make calls that will cost thousands of soldiers their lives if I’m wrong. So I haven’t dived into this with anywhere near the depth I would if that was my actual job. I’m just a software developer with access to a very small amount of actual data, extrapolating from what I have. But based on personality, my analysis is that both Ahmadamnnutjob and Khomegetsome were the type of person who can never even consider the possibility of losing, not when it really counts. They would be so certain that their forces could drive off the forces of the Great Satan that they wouldn’t have made contingency plans in case of losing. (So being killed in, quite literally, the opening salvo of the war came as a great, and very brief, surprise to them).

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          1. I think they ABSOLUTELY believe they will win. And the 12th Imam will come, and so on.

            But since they believe that the world will belong to them, Kargh island can be considered expendable and would make a very excellent trap.

            Once the Great and Little Satan are taken care of, they will have all the oil they need from elsewhere.

            When I consider all the possible scenarios, I appreciate all the more a competent leader who can make the right decisions.

            Liked by 1 person

            Reply

    3. And Trump is having the Navy and the Marines intercept and grab every Iranian shadow fleet ship that they can find. Though this is aimed at cutting off China’s source of below market cost energy.

      But with regards to the weapons, it’s all but certain that Iran didn’t complete any.

      1.) The Israelis appear to have penetrated Iran’s nuclear program so thoroughly that they (and us through them) likely have a very good idea of just how far along the Iranian nuclear weapons program was. There have been coordinated acts between both of our countries to stall Iran’s program.

      2.) The only way to know for certain that you have a nuclear weapon is to test one of them. This is considered the all-important final step to be certain that your scientists actually figured it out. Iran hasn’t detonated one yet.

      3.) If Iran did have one or more weapons, they likely would have either announced that they had one (to use as a deterrent) or sent it off to explode somewhere already.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. Point you missed, item 2, testing.

        Dead wrong.

        We tested Little Boy on Hiroshima. We only had enough 85% fuel for one. From noncritical testing, we proved they cannot work with Plutonium and can work with enriched Uranium.

        We. Never. Detonated. A. Test. Little Boy. It wasn’t necessary.

        Pu or U implosion is much harder. Much. But the details and false paths are well published.

        We needed the first test to assure military minds that it worked. It’s been done.

        Everyone else knows it works.

        Their leadership are religious fanatics, not military.

        My take? They built working devices and fueled them under that mountain. Where they were safe. Lol. Israel tipped us off and we clobbered it. Thus the “bolt from the blue” strike.

        And I guarantee, its a certainty, that someone showed that B5 clip of Molari’s Daybreak Button to the Ayatollahs. Or a Tehrannywood version.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

    1. For some reason the majority of people don’t seem to understand (or believe) that Iran’s whole game is world destruction.

      If your whole world view is to take the world for your god at the point of a sword, why NOT use a nuclear weapon? Why not attack other islamist nations? Why not kill your own people?

      The destruction is planned and deliberate. You can trust them to do the most insane thing possible, if it will cause death and destruction. The more the better, from their pov.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. If you grew up with MAD, you assume that the other side is not suicidal. if you grew up without truly believing in religion but mouthed the words to keep parents/teachers/whoever happy, then you don’t take other people’s beliefs seriously (as the State Department showed during Ahmadinijad’s presidency). If you don’t know much about the ayatollahs’ interpretation of the end times ideas of Shia Islam, then you don’t know that they really want to start the war that forces the return of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi, and Issa bin Maryam (aka Jesus).

        That leaves the rest of us jumping up and down and yelling, “They want to kill us all, you idiots. Take them seriously!”

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. Yeah, I’ve been amused for a while at these cretins who mouth about respecting cultures and beliefs….. and never seem to take the Muslim beliefs as expressed in the Koran seriously enough to admit they mean what they say.

          Like

          Reply

          1. I have been warning about Iran and Islam since the mid eighties. Unlike the Russians or Chinese, those weirdbeards are -insane-. Self-delusional. And they haven’t forgiven or forgotten the Greeks level stubborn.

            They built a four lane highway to an obscure well. It’s where the Mahdi, the 12th Imam, is possibly supposed to arise. Yes, the crazy effers built a highway to the pit of Hell.

            Now tell me they didn’t pre-make nuke devices, on assumption their geeks would provide the fuel someday.

            Somebody queue up Queen’s “Hammer Fall”

            Liked by 1 person

            Reply

  31. I knew years ago that Carlson, et all were leftist stooges. Just too many times when they subtly used leftist talking points, or not so subtly used the same words/phrases that the leftists were currently using.

    It became obvious pretty quickly that if they weren’t leftists themselves they still lived in and trusted the media bubble. They were steeped in it, lived in it.

    CO is a different flavor of crazy. I’ve gotten to the point where if any of them say anything I reflexively go in the other direction.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  33. Heard this third-hand through a friend of mine, so disclaimers apply, but the screenshot he sent me seems to bear it out.

    There is a new video game (released on the 16th) called “Pragmata” (developed and published by Capcom, the company known for popular games such as Street Fighter, Resident Evil, Monster Hunter, and a *lot* more). In it, you play an astronaut named Hugh, who is sent to investigate a manned facility on the Moon that’s suddenly gone silent. When he arrives, he meets an android that’s built to look like a very young girl (think around 6-8 years old). Hugh works with the android, which he nicknames “Diana”, to investigate the now-empty base.

    There is nothing sexual or flirtatious in Diana’s artwork or personality. To all appearances she is a cute, wholesome little girl, who wears what looks like a zipped up oversize snow jacket that leaves only her head, hands, and legs (from about the knees down to her bare feet) exposed. The cover art for the game shows her riding piggyback on Hugh (who is wearing his armored space suit). My understanding is that the relationship that develops between the two characters is similar to a father-daughter relationship. Steam states that the reviews for it are “Overwhelmingly Positive”.

    The mods on Reddit are apparently banning any positive mention of the game. The screenshot that my friend sent me is of a post on the Playstation Reddit, with the title stating that the user 100% completed the game (meaning he or she ran down all of the extra side objectives and collectables that aren’t required to finish the game proper), and the writer gave it a 10/10. The body of the post reads merely “I definitely recommend this game.” The post has over 700 “likes” from fellow posters on Reddit. And there’s a note at the bottom of the post stating that it has been deleted by the mods (“deleting” a post removes it from the list of displayed posts, and blocks further comments added to that post; if you have a direct link to the post, or already had it open when the deletion happened and refresh it, you’ll see the note along with the post). According to the info that my friend sent to me, it’s because the lefties that basically control Reddit with an iron fist these days are insisting that the game is pedo bait, and anyone who likes it is a pedo.

    TLDR version – A new video game has been released that appears to show a healthy father-adoptive daughter parental relationship. The lefties who moderate Reddit are calling it pedo.

    I wasn’t going to get the game, but now I’m tempted.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

      1. It’s more than that. They openly welcome things like that Netflix abomination that I choose not to name from a few years ago. It appears that they only reject a depiction of a healthy relationship.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

    2. Uhhh…the girl is an android, right? Not human. ‘Underage’ is not a concept that even applies to robots. And while there are probably people with robot fetishes, that’s a completely different issue. 🤔

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. As I understand it, most countries that ban sexualised photos of children also ban drawings of such, where no actual child was being photographed. I imagine that once sexbots become widely-enough available that countries start legislating them, those same countries will ban sexbots designed to look like underage children, for the same reasons. (Those reasons being that many, probably most, pedophiles won’t be satisfied with a mere simulacrum, and will rather be encouraged to seek out the real thing).

        For the record, I have zero personal knowledge of any of this, only second-hand knowledge (which may or may not be accurate) gathered from various online sources. So don’t ask me whether the relevant laws, real or proposed, are a good idea or not, because I’ve got no facts to base an opinion on.

        So if the game were depicting the android character in a sexual way (note the conditional tense because that’s a counterfactual), then a reasonable case would exist for banning positive discussion of such. There would be reasonable arguments for and against the idea, but I would not find the Reddit mods’ stance to be a prima facie unreasonable position if that were the case. But since it isn’t, and they’re inventing something that just isn’t there, they’re being idiots. (But then, it’s Reddit. Many Reddit mods are idiots, so that I’m actually surprised to find a subreddit that isn’t being run by idiots).

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

        1. For those who don’t know, it’s now common for SJWs to brand people as pedos for liking or drawing female characters who are too short, too flat, or have anime-style features. I’ve seen a short, flat-chested female artist get this accusation for drawing herself with her husband.

          Even stupider, some bright bulbs have decided that liking women with large breasts also makes you a pedophile. No, I don’t understand it either. Woke rots your brain.

          Anyway, all of this is to say that the stupidity regarding Pragmata comes from a long line of stupid, whose forefathers stepped off the Dumbflower at Idiot Rock.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          2. I still remember the performative outrage over ‘Uzaki-Chan Wants To Hang Out’. Main character Hana Uzuki is 20 years old. She’s in college. She is (ahem) extremely well-endowed. And still they pointed the ‘pedo’ finger. Well, I got a Finger for ’em. 😡

            Their gripes about Rory Mercury in GATE are more understandable. She’s 960 years old, but she stopped growing at 12 when she became the oracle and apostle of Emroy, god of war and death. Her weapon is an 8 foot long battle-axe that weighs over 100 pounds, which she tosses around like a toy.

            Like

            Reply

            1. Uzaki might be part of the fall-out of the anti-age gap contingent. There is a contingent out there that claims that ever-decreasing age differences in relationships are a bad thing, but seem to reserve their ire only for those relationships where the man is older than the woman. So-called “cougars” are ignored, even those those often involve a greater age gap. There’s even a meme template out there that apparently started life mocking the claim (the one with a happy couple telling each other they “consent”, only for an unrelated woman to interrupt saying she doesn’t consent).

              AFAIK, the original source is women who waited too long, and have suddenly found that the men their age who want long-term relationships are focused on younger women who can more easily have kids.

              Like

              Reply

              1. There’s even a meme template out there that apparently started life mocking the claim (the one with a happy couple telling each other they “consent”, only for an unrelated woman to interrupt saying she doesn’t consent)

                I don’t know which came first, but — that’s also used for laws declared to involve “victimless crimes.”

                Such as sex between two “willing” individuals where one is chronologically disadvantaged.

                Like

                Reply

                  1. I was wondering if anyone would make a note like that. :Rofl:

                    It is an amazing way to say “a 12 year old” without being instantly and obviously evil, though, isn’t it?

                    Like

                    Reply

              2. That makes no sense either. The guy Uzaki wants to hang out with is one year older than her. That’s perfectly normal. Most of the other non-parental characters are in the same age range, too.

                Like

                Reply

                1. The Uzaki claims might really be aimed at the male *viewers*, many of whom are likely older than the male lead. i.e. if a twenty-five year old male viewer thinks Uzaki is attractive, then he’s a cradle robber, and therefore bad.

                  And yeah, a five year age gap in a relationship seems to be too much for many of the people pushing the claim. I’ve also seen some claiming one year is too much, but I have suspicions about trolls…

                  Like

                  Reply

                  1. I see. So nobody over 25 should be allowed to view characters under 18. They’re all excluded from the multitude of high school comedy, drama and romance animes. Any 40 year old enjoying ‘My Dress-Up Darling’ or ‘Assassination Classroom’ is a pedo. Nobody over 18 can watch ‘The Simpsons’ because Bart and Lisa are children — even though they’ve been children for longer than most of those Karens have been alive.

                    But it’s perfectly OK for 16 year old ‘trans’ boys to share bathrooms and locker rooms with actual 8 year old girls, and you’re Eeevul if you find that objectionable.

                    Liked by 1 person

                    Reply

              3. AFAIK, the original source is women who waited too long, and have suddenly found that the men their age who want long-term relationships are focused on younger women who can more easily have kids.

                If college guys dating high school girls was a ‘thing’ back when you were in high school– then you’re familiar with the issue of the older guys with more resources are going after “your” girls, too.

                Often has racial angles as well, because of course all the emotionally high impact bad ideas do.

                Like

                Reply

                1. And most people acknowledge that people under twenty probably shouldn’t date people over twenty. There are issues there, even if it’s legal There will also likely be issues if dating someone who is literally twice your age, even if the younger member of the relationship is over twenty. But that’s not what’s getting complained about. IIRC, the original meme I mentioned is a thirty year old guy with a mid-twenties woman.

                  Like

                  Reply

                  1. Without seeing which specific image you mean, impossible to tell– but I am trying to point out that not only is this not new, but the part that pinched your toes isn’t even the most common version I’ve run into in skin space.

                    The old equation of “half your age plus seven” — or “your age, minus 16, divided by two, that’s how far above or below your age you can date” — are examples of trying to figure out the ‘socially acceptable’ limits, by the self-anointed. Likewise the rule of “grass on the field,” which you do not want to google, it’s along the lines of “if it bleeds, it breeds.”

                    Like

                    Reply

                    1. In Regency England it was completely normal for 30 plus year old men to marry 16 year old women. There were reasons. Including pregnancy back then aged (And killed) a lot of women. But — you know? that literally is social norms, not biological.

                      Like

            2. Of course, in world, the male main character is also freaked the heck out by an ancient Loli-goth murder machine hitting on him.

              Because he’s a decent 30-ish year old guy but also doesn’t want to be murdered.

              Like

              Reply

            3. Japan makes some borderline-sketchy stuff and some outright-pervy stuff. It’s hard to tell where to draw the line, especially when you factor in cultural context, the intention of the work, etc. There’s a nuanced conversation to be had about what our norms are there for and how they apply to the weird corner cases seen in fiction.

              Naturally, the SJWs make the situation 10x worse by labeling the relatively unambiguous cases as problematic. So now we’re arguing if you’re a pedo for liking big breasts or whether a 30-year-old man is preying on his 25-year-old girlfriend instead of having a sane discussion about distinctions that might matter.

              They really are the locusts of fandom.

              Like

              Reply

  35. …considering that when I get to the Summervale storyline, the Empress is going to have one of those frank talks with the Pope that can be summed up as “figure out how to allow priests and nuns to marry and still keep their vows, deal with the pedophiles and the Liberation Theologists, or I’m going to have to come in here and solve the problem. With power tools”…I might not be the most enthusiastic booster for the Roman Catholic Church.

    But when the press suddenly starts adoring someone or something, it’s time to check your pockets and make sure they haven’t stolen something-or slipped in something to get you in trouble.

    The day when the Left can be made to cease to exist can’t come soon enough.

    Like

    Reply

    1. Our Hostess mentioned “Ex-Cathedra” above, and I suspect that’s what would be required for all of those things. As a non-Catholic, with little understanding of the process, I get the impression that something like the items you list would require a *massive* degree of consensus among the upper levels of the Catholic clergy. And it currently appears that the upper levels of the Catholic clergy have just too many individuals who would refuse to go along with that. Note that I didn’t say a majority. But they likely make up a large enough minority that the required level of consensus wouldn’t be obtainable without a considerable amount of clerical house cleaning. And until that house cleaning was finished, a single countervailing Pope along the lines of Francis could undo much of that cleaning quite rapidly.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

  36. Ms. Hoyt,

    Completely serious question. Did you watch the TV series THE YOUNG POPE, starring Jude Law? If so, what did you think.

    I found it fascinating, and I was wondering if you had any thoughts to share about it.

    Like

    Reply

  37. Speaking from the Mormon perspective, the last person who both we and Catholics can agree as being the highest mortal authority over the Global Church is Peter. Yes, that Peter! So it really is hilarious that I would be expected to “obey” whatever the Pope says, any more than I would obey a friendly neighbor who happened to be Catholic.

    That said, I think the Catholic Church is a great force for good, and that the man in the papal seat ought to be someone we can respect and honor, even if we don’t agree on whether he has apostolic authority. From what I’m seeing here, Pope Leo seems to be smart and thoughtful, and frankly rather brave. I can definitely respect that!

    And the dumb media talking heads who are trying to drive a wedge into it can just go away, no matter which party they’re affiliated with.

    Like

    Reply

  38. One forgets that while Pope Leo is from Chicago he has spent a ton of time away from it before being pope.

    The Axelrod audience was ill advised & without said visit none of this spin works.

    It didn’t injure Trump because Catholic who actually go to mass get it, many in the cafeteria fell for it because they still think the Democrats are the party of JFK and Tip O’Neill and they’re not.

    What really scares them is the number of people being received into the church and that such people are devout.

    The targeting of the GOP & Trump was the goal but the primary target is the church itself which has always been the primary target of the left.

    Like

    Reply

    1. The Vatican will give an audience to ANYONE who knows where to push the button. I know several people who got audiences. Shrug. They’d find another way to implicate him.
      But I want you to take a deep breath and realize how brave the pope was in basically saying “I wasn’t talking about him” When every other country KNOWS Trump is Hitler. He’s probably right now appeasing delegations from Spain and France not to mention the other countries.
      So be assured Leo is doing what needs to be done and is a brave man indeed to not just let this die down.
      And let G-d work.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      1. “But I want you to take a deep breath and realize how brave the pope was in basically saying “I wasn’t talking about him” When every other country KNOWS Trump is Hitler.”

        Actually, that’s a really good point. We praised Tom Cruise for simply being non-political in a leftist environment. Leo just did the same thing, with much higher stakes.

        I’ve still got my doubts about him, but I’ll be thrilled if he keeps talking like that.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

  39. I’m am befuddled by the many Conservatives that claim to hate the media but fall for every lie about a Catholic priest, bishop, cardinal, or (especially) pope.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    2. If you’re going to bring up Catholic charities, weirdly they’re not affiliated with the church. It’s a deep, weird dive to find it out, though, and the three stooge cardinals are definitely involved with it.

      Like

      Reply

Leave a reply to 11B-Mailclerk Cancel reply