Thursday, 26 November 2020

WHATEVER !!

 


MY MOTHER, ETHEL, Aprox 54yrs.

 . .MY FATHER, NICK [Adolph], Age aprox 36yrs.

---

 


---------

WHAT'S THIS ALL ABOUT THEN?

 What follows is, in summary, a booklet of my mother's sayings. Right now I have no idea of the form it might take. There will be some narrative for context, but it is not a story as such and neither will it be a list alone.

 

BACKGROUND

 Sayings and anecdotes are drawn from my life in a family of father, Nick, mother Ethel, older sister Joan, and younger sister Nancy. My earliest memories of family life begin around 1948 [when I was 2yrs old], living in mum's parents home at 16 Willowbank Rd. Nth. Fitzroy. From 1951 events are situated in our own home at 47 Union St. Northcote. Up until around 1959 my cousins were living with us sporadically due to a marriage break up. Their family consisted of mum's sister, Lena, and children Don, Rob, Frank and Ellie. Thus, while the subject of this work is the sayings [and some doings] of Ethel, it will often involve Lena since customs and sayings are common to both and the commonality contains much Irish and early Australian influence. Custom and commonality aside, these two sisters had their own uniqueness of expression and attitude which rubbed off on their progeny that made for some amusing times.

 

WHY 'WHATEVER'?

Good question. Glad you reminded me. I might change it but I had to type a letter followed by a word to get started because I am well able to procrastinate - even about procrastinating. Still, the title of 'Whatever' may not be all that inappropriate, now that I think about it.

 

WELL, GET ON WITH THE BLUDDY STORY THEN

 


Keep your shirt on ....... Rome wasn't built in a day ......... Don't get your knickers in a knot !!

One or all of the above would have been Et's reply to the demand to get on with it. That looks okay in italics if I type her sayings in that form, rather than other parentheses. Agree? Good . On the subject of patience, mum had a stock verse if she wanted to elaborate on one of those quips above. It was .....


Patience is a virtue. Possess it if you can. It's seldom in a woman and never in a man !!

Back to the title. I was just discussing the millennials' use of that annoying response with Ellie recently by phone [as she is in Melbourne and I am in Perth]. The reason that 'Whatever' may not be entirely out of place is because there were equivalent expressions back in the day, both Australian and Irish. It denotes an attitude - a sort of "if you say so" and "have it your way, but I don't care". I'm trying to think of what Ethel or Lena might have said instead of "whatever". Try ......... Stick it up your bum with chewing gum, chum !!

Now is an appropriate time to warn readers. The crudity is only going to get worse. That's just the way it is and was. We kids didn't think much of it. It was funny for us and we ourselves were discouraged from swearing and crudeness. Crikey, I still recall using the F word once when I was about 4yrs old not having the foggiest about its meaning. I was given a mild lecture on why that word should never be uttered. [Important life advice always came in the form of a reasoned talking-to with mum and dad, and I can't remember any time when either of them "did their block" in anger over our misdemeanors]. The result of that was that I never again used the word until I was in my twenties. Very few of my peers swore very much either. On that score, I think the worst of our secret naughty boyhood mumblings was "Lady of Spain I adore you. Pull down your pants I'll explore you" was something that went around the playground for a while. Just a variety of pre-pubescent toilet jokes. Some never get out of that stage but that's a story for another day. Dad was not a swearer either and nor did he possess mum's talent for slipping in those little crudities that shock. Dad had to be very angry to swear and his expletives usually boiled down to: "Bloody bastard". That applied to a person or to accidentally hitting his thumb with the hammer. He did, however, reserve an expression for a person he did not like or trust but it was racist and out of context for my purposes, but that said, I would add that one talent that dad did have was his ability to assess another's character quite quickly.

While on the subject of expletives, colloquialisms and swearing, enter Aunty Lena. First, let me paint the picture of my dear Aunt. She was our resident saint - for me and my sisters at least. Within her own family, there were lots of teasing banter and sometimes to the point of being over the top [but that was a young lad's impression]. You know how it is. Kids get impatient with the ways of parents but, make no mistake, the teasing banter was all love and similar to my own occasional reactions to Ethel. Lena was the instigator of the nightly family rosary - for all of us except for dad who usually did the dishes when we retired for prayer. Two holy girls were the Riley sisters [descended from the Morris clan]. But naughty too. So, now for Lena's unique expletives. While Et usually found a saying to respond to a situation, Lena would come out with an unadulterated string of whatever popped out of her mouth when upset, hurt or angry ......... Bloody buggar, poop, kack, shitty shit, poo poo, kack, bitch, bastard. Straight forward and got out of the way and out of her system.

I think that covers the topic of language and the context. It wasn't a big deal. The crudities were simply part of the expressions that belonged to people, even though I have to admit that, for two holy gals, it may seem incongruous to readers.

 

CHAPTER 2.

I know - I didn't have a Chapter 1. I may make adjustments later but I figured it was time for a natural break and to move things along. Here's a new scene to picture - Uncle Tom is knocking on the door for one of his fairly regular visits.

Come in if you're good looking. 

Tom enters. "G'day Et."

Ah, it's little Tommy Nicholarse who lived at the circarse, lifted up the canvarse and saw the monkey's bare arse. Isn't that ridicularse? 

How's your physical fum face segaciating Thomas?

There was a standard answer. And Tom obliged........ "Not too super alecafusialastically well. Is Nick home?".  

No, he's gone down to the rubbidy to put a few bets on.

Usually Tom would call me and give me his old mags - Pix and Post, and I would go to my room and try to draw the cartoons I found in them for those editions. I began my art interest in that way when I was around 7 or 8. Dad used to find them, take them to work, and give them to his wharfie mates. Very little of my early work survived. I know what you're thinking dear reader ......... Yes, sure, he did his drawing after he had a good perve on the page3 girls. Well, they couldn't be avoided but no, for your information, pre-pubescent boys are not interested in sex and the female form is accepted as a mystery that would one day be revealed. But yes, today it may be different as the young are sexualized by certain interests with an agenda.

Tickle your arse with a feather?. That was mum using a standard tome about the weather; the interpretation being "Particularly nasty weather?" if Tom looked a little wet or wind-blown.

Regarding those quotes above - don;t ask about the spelling or the meaning. I don't have a clue. They are just things we said as per mum's example that became custom. It's going to be like that with some of the sayings that I quote as I go along. Readers will note that many sayings are not unique to mum or to our family. A lot are the lingo of the day. 

Must be a bit rough out there, Tom. Your hair's all over the place like a mad woman's kack. Want a beer?

Tom has a king brown in his bag and asks mum if she wants one.

Bless your cotton socks Tom. Not for me. I like coffee, I like tea, I like sitting on a black fella's knee so I'll wait 'til Nick gets home. I'm a two pot screamer so I don't want to be pissed while I'm trying to cook dinner.

Mum would pour a glass for Tom who would say: "Here's mud in your eye, lass".

Bless your cotton pickin' socks. Drink up, I have to get a wriggle on with lunch.

Tom asks what mum's making for lunch ........... Bread and duck under the table. 

.UNCLE TOM & NANNA [Left]

              ..                                                                                   .UNCLES TOM & LES [Right]

 

CHAPTER 3  

New scene. Mum pops her head in my door to say that she is going out. I ask where she is going.

There and back to see how far it is.

I'm curious and want to know why she has to go out and what she needs to buy. Standard replies .....

I need to buy a wing wong for a goose's bridle. And we're having visitors for tea.

I ask who's coming and she would burst forth with a ditty as was her want.........

Aunty Mary, Aunty Mary, lost the leg of her drawers. Uncle Charlie, Uncle Charlie, won't you lend her yours. I just need something a little fancy to please little Nancy

I'd give up then. We did have an Aunt Mary. We also had an Uncle Charlie who was married to Ethel's and Lena's older sister, Gladys, who lived in the street behind us. Gladys was not in the mold of her mischievous siblings. Charlie was an old Irish rogue who cheated at cards but quite good fun. He took me golfing with his buddies once but there was no repeat invitation because, I think, I could drive the ball farther than he. They had two children, adults at that stage, and I was Confirmation sponsor to one of theirs. There didn't seem to be any friction between our families but it hung in the air that Glad's daughter was married to a police detective. The police were not viewed well by our clan.

It looked like there was going to be a gathering. They often happened on a Saturday night for some period of time. Usually a large crayfish and various foods repellent to us kids festooned the table with various oysters and uncles and aunts attending, after which would be adult card night and/or an Irish sing along. Both Ethel and Lena were expert piano players. "Is it crayfish night again?".

You can get some fish and chips for you kids. You didn't even eat what you got last time. Your eyes are bigger than your belly sometimes. But you know what dad is like; he gets hungry enough to eat a horse and chase its rider. And don't pull that face you get when I put the seafood on the table. You put on a face like a fried fart last time. You kids can take your fish and chips into the kitchen.

Mum always wanted us on good terms and at any hint of tension she would try to make us laugh. Perhaps she thought she had been too critical of me. She fell back on an old trick with ........

Ooh, I've got a pain in the side. Quick, pull my finger, quick so I don't have a pain when I walk to the shop.

I'd been caught too many times for that one and the fart. "No. I'm not falling for that again".

Getting too clever for your own good my lad. You should grease your arse and slip into the next world !!

 I would have asked if she wanted me to go with her but I was at an age where I'd prefer not to be seen walking with my mother, as though I needed help. But there were other reasons. Should we be running late or in between trams, mum could whistle a taxi that was driving along Rucker's Highway maybe 100 meters distant. Kind of embarrassing. Worse, she would inspect that I'd washed behind my ears and, if not, the spit on the hankie would do the trick. Yes, you grow out of these things. Even walking together somewhere or other, mum needed to converse and fill quiet spots. If there was no relevant conversation she would fill it in with a ditty. And she had many. For example, let's imagine that we were walking together and there was a void in the conversation. Then she spots a magpie nearby...........

Mary and the magpie, sitting on the grass. Mary stuck her finger up the magpie's .........ahhh said the magpie, upon my soul, don't you stick your finger up my ahhh, soul.

There was a ditty at the least provocation. Any time, any place. I know not from where they originated. Maybe from her own mother, maybe her brothers of which there were about 5. Perhaps they were of common usage. I don't know. I do remember that mum and Lena would refrain from common talk in the presence of certain relatives who had a prudish streak. I was too young to recall all the personalities involved in our family's life but my cousins, Ellie and Don, would remember who was who and what they were like.

Although not apropos to Ethel and her ways, I'd like to mention the rellies. My first vivid and conscious memory was of Lena and my cousins. That happens to be the case because they baby-sat me when I was two while mum went to hospital to deliver Nancy. Lena was my mum for some days. Oh boy, did I hate the separation but how I loved Lena. Since she was running a deli-type shop, she could not attend to me as I wanted but she did her best. I can't recall if her husband, Fred Murphy, was still around. I recall the ultra steep steps that I had to navigate to the bedrooms and my cousins coming home from school and racing upstairs past me. I felt a bit of a nuisance to be honest. When much older and the Murphys lived with us, I saw the eldest, Don, as too old to have a relationship with but he and Joan seemed very close. Rob was my proxy brother, but only in my mind since he too was much older but I certainly looked up to him and had some desire to emulate his ways. He had a personality type that could get away with anything. Youngest brother, Frank, I had little to do with because he spent some years in a seminary. He left to become a playwright and producer and was killed in a traffic accident on his way to the premier of one of his plays. [I read that play and while it was a wonderful work, it would never go commercial because of its moral theme which supported the Divine Law]. Then there was Eleanor whom I had a crush on at some point but I eventually grew up and gave up on that idea. I still love her, but like a sister and to this day she is a most special person in my life. I have said these things and more in my other books so I won't elaborate further, except that Frank provides an example of what I am trying to impart about our style and way of life that contained both reverence for the holy along with many crude ways at the same time. Frank had a talent whereby he would intentionally walk through our kitchen - visitors or not - and fart to a tune. I think, on looking back, that I came from a people which did everything to avoid the impression of being elitist or 'stuck up'. Ethel would confirm that in many of her sayings .......

She thinks she's shit on a flagpole.

What a ponce he is!

He's got tickets on himself.

What a suckhole.

Ooh, look at Lady Muck.

Well, doesn't he think he's little Lord Fontelroy.

Who does he think he is?... King Farouk!

She likes to bung on side.

I think you get the picture that we were encouraged not to think we were above others in station. That we were ordinary folk yet took exception to being lorded over. Perhaps all that explains my anti-authoritarian attitude.


 

THE SISTERS. ETHEL & LENA.

 
JOAN, FRANK & ELLIE [at back]
NANCY & JOHN 

 
 .

 

-

CHAPTER 4


Let me not give the wrong impression with the above quotes which could appear that Mum was prone to derogatory remarks about others. She was a positive type of woman and not hesitant in dishing out praise.

In her playful teasing mood she would give a back-handed compliment such as the one I have given about being smart and "greasing my arse and slipping into the next world". But she could say the same thing in a way that her admiration was not in question. Thus .........

Too wise you are, too wise you be. I see you are too wise for me.

And that could be written thus.......

2 Y's U R

2 Y's U B

I C U R 

2 Y's 4 ME.

Praise came easy to Mum's lips. e.g. .........

She's a good old stick.

His blood's worth bottling.

He's a clever Dick. No flies on him. [but would often add ........ but you can see where they've been].

Good upon you, brainstrust !

While Aunty Lena was known to us for her even temperedness and comforting advice, Mum was known by others for cheering one up and looking on the bright side. At times it even annoyed my sisters and me when Mum seemed to make light of a situation that we felt to be serious. She might say any of the following ..........

Don't let your bottom lip hit the floor now. you might trip over it.

What's wrong with you, Grizzleguts? 

Put a smile on your dial.

Saying "I'm bored" or "I'm cold" would be met with: Hello cold - I'm your mother.

Wake up Australia, your country needs you.

 

Yes, a positive woman was Mum and dismissive of matters and people that didn't fall in her ambit of things worth worrying about at the same time. That brings me back to my title "Whatever". I recall now many quips from her that were the equivalent of "whatever". Consider these ............

Up your bum with chewing gum, and don't forget to grease it.

Whacko the didleeoh. Bully for you chum.

What do you want? A medal?

Bully for you with brass knobs and don't forget to brass them.

I couldn't give a continental.

You're giving me the Jimmy Britts.

She's as silly as a two bob watch.

He's like Berger paint ..... just keeps on keeping on.

Whatever tickles your fancy.

Bully, she cried, as she waved her wooden leg.

Your funeral, chum.

Stick it up your date. And don't be late.

That's a lot of hooey.

What a lot of Tommy rot.

She's a Miss Goody Goody Two Shoes.

So, that's quite a collection of dismissive remarks. I'll keep the title of "Whatever" for now.

 

..THESE PHOTOS ATTEMPT TO DEPICT JOAN, JOHN & NANCY DURING THE TIME FRAME OF THIS STORY. ..... From Joan pushing Nancy on a swing, to Nancy & I at horse riding i.e. 1949 to 1962.


CHAPTER 5

 Meals are a big thing in families and no less important for ours, especially pre-TV days. Along with meal times came a swathe of rules and customs, usually in the form once again of sayings and ditties. Since we lived in our grandparents' house until I was six, presumably so that Mum and Dad could act as carers, table rules were nanna's and pop's. We bought a house just up the street after they both passed peacefully around 1951. There's not a lot that I can remember but I recall that tea had to be served at the end of the meal and at the table. What was significant was the way the grandies drank it - the tea was poured into their saucers and sipped. They would both retire after their tea and grandad Jack [John Henry], would bring me a licorice allsort or a boiled sweet before he disappeared for the night. I have given their history in "The Sable Provenance" so won't go on further, except to say that I found it hard to eat the chicken that grandma had killed that day and that I had helped to clean. The stench of hot water, chicken flesh and guts does not evapourate readily. Once they had gone off for the night, Mum was want to recite, sotto voce  .........

It's raining, it's pouring

The old man is snoring

He went to bed

And bumped his head,

and couldn't get up in the morning. 

There was a variation on the above for anyone named Dan, which went ........

Dan, Dan, the dirty old man

Washed his face in a frying pan,

Combed his hair with the leg of the chair

And bumped his head on the top of the bed

And couldn't get up in the morning. [Mum's version of an Irish kids' rhyme]

And, of course, one day Jack didn't get up, While Dad had few unique quips to mention, I can recall his comment about the tea, being: "That tea was as weak as gin's piss".[A gin was an Aboriginal woman].

..

 TOP: Nanna Mariah, baby Ethel, Uncle Les. This was their home in country Queensland, 1914, where Grandpa Jack and two eldest worked in mines. About eight of the family lived in this tiny home. [White privilege].

BOTTOM ; Mariah [nee Morris] & Jack [John Henry Riley at Lena's wedding].

 

And so, we come to the Namnik table. Prep was a thing, especially as Mum developed arthritis and I would lend a hand with grating and so on as I did every Saturday with wringing out the washing. It may be off topic to mention cooking but I do want to say something that I did not realize until my adult years, and that is how much trouble Mum went to to please us. For example, I was looking for a dim sim recipe recently and it was hard to find. But Mum - she had made dim sims all that time ago when Chinese foods barely were heard of. And she made them for me, specifically, and she would do that for others if their favorite food became known.

Imagine now, that I walk into the kitchen and Mum is cooking. She sees me. She wants to recite a ditty for my entertainment. She does ............

Mrs. Nichols made some pickles on a windy day. Mrs. Martin came in fartin' and blew them all away.

Now, remember we have visitors, so it's FLO. And don't put your elbows on the table. While you're here, pull your finger out and grate the spuds, but wash your finger first.

The code, FLO, stood for Family Lay Off the serving size in case there was not sufficient to go around. Joan was often at work or else at dancing lessons and Nancy was too young to help, but if she did come into the kitchen it was .......POQ young lady before I give you a BSA. That was: Piss off quick before Mum gives her a bloody sore arse.

If I asked if there would be ice cream, I would only get this ............You scream, they scream, we all scream for ice cream.

  Table rules: No elbows on the table. Visitors are served first. Never leave the table without permission. If finished, place your fork with the tongs down. Eat everything served up. If out for a meal, always say "thanks" and if offered more, say "No thank you, I have had elegant sufficiency". Mum wasn't good at accepting compliments, so to any remark in praise of the meal she would quip ..... Eat it here and die around the corner.

The niceties were reserved for visiting and for when we had visitors home. Rules of niceties were for the kids, not the adults. Should Mum have had "elegant sufficiency" she would not hesitate to declare ........ I'm as full as a family piss pot !

There were ditties for variously named people. The Dan Tucker ditty I quoted earlier [Dan, Dan, the dirty man] could be adapted to Sam or another short name. The ditty I hated that was also recited at me by my cousins was quoted previously ..... John, John, for the lord's sake John etc etc. There were others in the family. Cousin Rob often got - to his anger - Robin Adair with the cast iron affair ! When our first son, Andrew, came into the world Mum had a subject for this one.......... Andy Pandy, pompa laree jig, every man with a baldy head ought to wear a wig.

As the reader may have gathered, the family and extended family did not believe in holding in wind, and wind featured in so many ditties. A regular ditty from Ethel whenever a squeak was heard or a foul smell noticed, she would recite ............ Wherever you may be, let your wind go free, for that was the cause of the death of me. .............. or,.. Better out than in. 

 

 TOP: JOAN at home in Broome [Age aprox late 60's] R.I.P. dod 2018

BOTTOM: NANCY at home in Victoria. [Age aprox early 40's] R.I.P  dod 2002

.Aged 69. City Beach, W.A.

 

CHAPTER 6

There's a danger of misinterpreting Mum's character when her quips and her ways are condensed.  While the off-color quips were constant and many, she had lots of sage advice for her offspring - should they care to listen. But she was prone to filling in any lull or silence, unless she was tackling some housekeeping task. Then, she was head down bum up, working away intently. Even so, she would find time to sing, hum or whistle. If the right song was playing on the kitchen radio either I would grab her, or she would grab me, and we would dance to the tune. Unfortunately, I broke her ribs twice being silly buggers while cutting up the rug. But, she couldn't come into any room that I was in without some form of contact, either physical or verbal. Sometimes it was both as in a typical situation where I was in the kitchen alone, doing something at the sink, Mum would enter, poke me in the rear end and say .......... Up your date for one and eight - down again for two and ten. And what mischief are you getting up to m'lad?

I'd get you to help me with mixing up a cake but since you ate all the powdered milk and drank too much out of the condensed milk after school yesterday, then you'll have to go to the shop if you want dessert tonight. That was another thing about Ethel. We were latch key kids with both parents working and I, being of an age where no amount of food is enough, would steal a spoon of powdered milk, have a good sip of the condensed milk remainder, eat a spoonful of sugar, then find the biscuits she had hidden in her wardrobe, on coming home from school. No matter how well I washed up and hid the evidence, Mum knew. I was never chastised.

Back to the sage advice - or should I say "sages". Were Dad and I not off at the footy, Saturday afternoon would see Mum and Lena sitting in the lounge with a bottle of Pimm's No.1 Cup and their smokes while Dad was either at work or else dodging the coppers at the SP bookies in a laneway opposite the Albion Pub. It was open session if any of us wanted to wander in to the lounge and talk about our little problems. While conversation was quite normal, it was the way of things that either or both wise owls would drop some saying or other to make a point. Examples ...............

Hell's bells and buckets of blood Et, there's not much left of the Pimm's

Still enough Leen to go a round or two for a pound or two.

Enter me, looking for where I might find a new roll of toilet paper [staring and not properly tucked in ].. .......

What are you staring at Johnathon?........ You know what they say: "Made you look, made you stare, made the barber cut your hair. He cut it long, he cut it short, he cut it so you couldn't talk". What's wrong my boy, with your shirt hanging out. Giddy giddy gout, your shirt's hanging out. Five miles in and five miles out?

Mum would have to chip in ........... John, John, John, for the lord's sake John, put yer troosers on!

"Where's the spare toilet paper?"

In days of olde, when Knights were bold and paper wasn't invented, they wiped their arse on blades of grass, and went away contented.

I think you'd better tell the poor boy, Et. John looks like he's got more than a Chinese bladder and wants to spend more than a penny. Looks like he hasn't got a month of Sundays to wait, jumping around there like a fart trying to get out of a bottle.

"C'mon Mum. I'm in a hurry" I say.

Mum gives a 'humph' at that and exclaims "Crikey Moses"!!!! And I think: "Oh no, please don't say the rest of that ditty. Pleeeze!' But she does ............

...........King of the Jews, sold his wife for a pair of shoes.

When the shoes began to wear, Crikey Moses began to swear.

When the swear began to stop, Crikey Moses bought a shop.

When the shop began to sell, Crikey Moses went to Hell.

While it could take a while to endure the banter that they indulged in when together, they were open to discussing anything and giving sensible advice. [Accompanied by the inevitable saying]. Take these situations, for example ..............

When someone had shot through ............ They've done a double bunk !

Describing a lucky person ......... He's as tinny as a piss pot. ..........Got the luck of the Irish ....... She must think all her Christmases have come at once.

About anyone who has good fortune that meant nothing to Et ..........Bully for him! ......Goody goody gumdrops .............She is welcome to it, with knobs on and don't forget to brass 'em. ....... Oh, she's just bunging on side........... Ignore him, he's just a blowhard.

The exclamation at some good event or beneficial thing ............. That's a humdinger! ........ What a bobby dazzler! ..........Whacko the didleeoh.......... No bout a doubt it! ........ Well, I'll go "he" ......... Strike me pink! ......... That's good as gold.

Anytime swimming or going to the beach was mentioned .............Mother may I go in for a swim? Yes you may my daughter. Hang your clothes on the mulberry bush, but don't go near the water.

Relating to fear ............ That'll put the wind up her! ................ He's a breezy arse!

Whenever milk is mentioned ............ Mary, go milk the bull. There's only one tit to pull, and that's in the middle so mind it don't piddle, but Mary go milk the bull.

 . LENA the Bride, circa 1930.

 

CHAPTER 7

  Whatever one may think having come this far, I hope the reader has come to know my mother and Aunty a little more. And that you have at least had a little giggle. I'm not going to wax philisophical on the nature of idioms, expletives, quips and expressions nor compare then to now. Suffice to say that I'm pleased to have recorded expressions which have disappeared only to be replaced by bland emotive vocalization of conformity and base, foul language, but there are several good books written which have preserved old expressions. Such expressions were quite an accurate depiction of attitudes and emotions that were acceptable [barely in some cases] as well as amusing, and there was variety. All that went towards making for interesting conversational exchanges. It's not considered cool to indulge in idiocentric language today, but it has largely disappeared anyway. Language is culture and the Aussie-Anglo uniqueness has become almost indistinguishable from the American, through conformity to the entertainment media. All that is left for me to record are some miscellaneous sayings that inhabited our childhood.

Whenever possible, normal conversational terms had to be messed with in Mum's world. The ordinary had to be made extraordinary or depart from the accepted. Approach Ethel with a request and she would give some variation to the standard: "What can I do for you?" No, it was:.... What can I do you for? And as per a previous example, she would not say: "No doubt about it"! No, she would say ....... No bout a doubt it! It wouldn't be a simple: "How are you?" No, it would be ........ How's your physical fum face segaciating? Often too, the expression would carry a double entendre. Thus, she would not say a goodbye as: "See you later". No, too banal. Et would say ........ See you when you've got nothing on.

Instead of simply demanding: "Hurry up", it would be ...... Get a wriggle on. Anything or anyone that drew today's response of being cool or great or fantastic, was ...........What a rip snorter! Clinking glasses drew the congenial wish, not of "cheers" or "down the hatch", for it was .......Here's mud in your eye. We would rarely get a straight answer to any question. There was a variety of responses. Take the simple question: "Where have you been?" or "Where are you going?" ......... There and back to see how far it is. ........... To see a man about a dog....... I'm going to Paw Punka to pick punkins.  If Et couldn't finish her meal, she wouldn't say she had had enough or that she was full. No, she'd say ........... My eyes are bigger than my belly. An overly confident person has .........Got more front than Foy and Gibson. A rich person wasn't wealthy but ....... living in clover.

A lot of sayings, indeed advice, revolved around money matters. Such sayings were ....... Be penny wise and pound foolish. ......... Look after the pennies. The pounds will look after themselves. ........ In for a penny, in for a pound. ........[ But to "spend a penny" meant to use the toilet]........ We're so broke at the moment, I can't afford a deposit on a knob of blue...... Money's a bit tight this week. It looks like I'll have to hawk my pearly! ......... We haven't got two pennies to rub together this week. ...... We're stoney broke this week.

Maybe this one applied more to us kids, but if you snitched on someone, you stood accused ........ Tell tale tit, your tongue will split and all the little dicky birds will have a bit.

Going to bed or told to go to bed ............ Be off to the blanket show.

Ask for a match, you'd be told ................Your face and my bum.

If we were in a mood or looked upset ........... Always remember - it's a good life if you don't weaken.

If there were words which could be altered, Mum would change them. She wouldn't ask not to be kept in suspense for an answer. No, she would say ........Don't keep me in suspenders. And that reminds me that we weren't allowed to refer to someone as "she", which I thought was impracticable. Every time we said it, we just heard .......... She's the cat's mother. Call her by name. It was much the same if we referred to "kids". Mum would recite the ditty:......Kids eat oats, and does eat oats, and little lambs eat ivy. Kids'll eat ivy too - wouldn't you?

Mum would say of slim people .......... She's as skinny as a match with the wood scraped off. ...........She's fading away to a shadow.

Anything on the creepy side ........ That gives me the heebie jeebies!

Random references when Mum couldn't think of the correct name: ........... Where's that dooverlacky? ..... or, Where's that thingamejig? ........... You know who I mean - Missus Kafoops.

Someone who wasn't all there had ........bats in the belfry. .....Silly as a two bob watch ..... He's gone gah gah.  Someone who was hearing impaired was .........deaf in one ear and can't hear out of the other.

If Mum gave you no choice ...........Like it or lump it, chum.

If Mum didn't know the answer to one of my questions .......... You tell me and we'll both know.

If we were a bit tardy ......... Get a wriggle on........ Shake a leg ......... No time for a bath, there's only time for a lick and a promise.

If we were caught poking our tongue ...........Careful, the wind might change and you'll stay like that forever.

Should one of us look a bit lonely or down, Mum would sing a song to which I can't remember more words than .............He's a lonely little petunia in the onion patch.

Should one of us get the chatters or talk too fast ......... Let me have a look in your mouth. I think you swallowed a gramaphone needle. ............. Going hammer and tongs you are. Come up for a breath.

 If we left a door open ...........Were you born in a tent?

When at that age: "Mum, one of my bottom teeth just fell out"................You haven't got teeth in your bottom, not unless someone bit you on the bum.

Her advice on being circumspect in all things ............Never let your left hand know what your right hand is doing.......... No need to kick up a stink ...........Cool your heels, chum......... Make sure your brain saves your legs............ Don't keep asking "why". Y is a crooked letter and X is no better.........Don't pick your nose or your brains will fall out.......... Don't scratch your bum in public unless you are picking your seat for the movies......... Think before you act and that'll make you a fart smeller.

When very young, two pence bought a bag of lollies. Every time I asked for tuppence, Mum would sing me the jingle ............ The little monkey wants two pence, to see the elephant jump the fence. The higher he goes, the more he shows - two black spots upon his nose.

Always out to lighten the mood, to relieve others' burdens, and to entertain, whenever someone sighed an "Oh dear" within earshot, Mum would finish a ditty that she knew .............

Oh dear, three old maids locked in the lavatory

They were there from Mondee 'til Sundee 

And nobody knew they were there.

That folks, brings me to the end. I will send this MS to dear Ellie for possible additions and corrections, following which I will tidy it up.

THANKS FOR THE MEMORIES, MUM & LENA.

You're welcome as the sun in May, chum.

 


 
         
                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                     

 ---------

Wednesday, 14 October 2020

COVID BIOWEAPON

 

--------

SOURCE: https://zenodo.org/record/4073131#.X4bWUu0RW01 

 Zenodo

Working paper Open Access

SARS-CoV-2 Is an Unrestricted Bioweapon: A Truth Revealed through Uncovering a Large-Scale, Organized Scientific Fraud

Yan, Li-Meng; Kang, Shu; Guan, Jie; Hu, Shanchang

Two possibilities should be considered for the origin of SARS-CoV-2: natural evolution or laboratory creation. In our earlier report titled “Unusual Features of the SARS-CoV-2 Genome Suggesting Sophisticated Laboratory Modification Rather Than Natural Evolution and Delineation of Its Probable Synthetic Route”, we disproved the possibility of SARS-CoV-2 arising naturally through evolution and instead proved that SARS-CoV-2 must have been a product of laboratory modification. Despite this and similar efforts, the laboratory creation theory continues to be downplayed or even diminished. This is fundamentally because the natural origin theory remains supported by several novel coronaviruses published after the start of the outbreak. These viruses (the RaTG13 bat coronavirus, a series of pangolin coronaviruses, and the RmYN02 bat coronavirus) reportedly share high sequence homology with SARS-CoV-2 and have altogether constructed a seemingly plausible pathway for the natural evolution of SARS-CoV-2. Here, however, we use in-depth analyses of the available data and literature to prove that these novel animal coronaviruses do not exist in nature and their sequences have been fabricated. In addition, we also offer our insights on the hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 may have originated naturally from a coronavirus that infected the Mojiang miners. 

Revelation of these virus fabrications renders the natural origin theory unfounded. It also strengthens our earlier assertion that SARS-CoV-2 is a product of laboratory modification, which can be created in approximately six months using a template virus owned by a laboratory of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). The fact that data fabrications were used to cover up the true origin of SARS-CoV-2 further implicates that the laboratory modification here is beyond simple gain-of-function research. 

The scale and the coordinated nature of this scientific fraud signifies the degree of corruption in the fields of academic research and public health. As a result of such corruption, damages have been made both to the reputation of the scientific community and to the well-being of the global community. 

Importantly, while SARS-CoV-2 meets the criteria of a bioweapon specified by the PLA, its impact is well beyond what is conceived for a typical bioweapon. In addition, records indicate that the unleashing of this weaponized pathogen should have been intentional rather than accidental. We therefore define SARS-CoV-2 as an Unrestricted Bioweapon and the current pandemic a result of Unrestricted Biowarfare. We further suggest that investigations should be carried out on the suspected government and individuals and the responsible ones be held accountable for this brutal attack on the global community. 

[The 33 page Report is available by clicking link[s] below, or on the source url at the top]

Files (6.9 MB)
Name Size
The 2nd Yan Report.pdf
md5:7589f68760c79b75a635c475d9df6a10
6.9 MB

.. 

COVID COVER UP

 

-------

Opinions about the Covid pandemic vary greatly. This post relates to the line of thought that the Covid-19 virus does not exist. Among those claiming this is Jon Rappoport who has scores of blog posts on his web site. This, below, is merely his latest, and I post it since it is not merely supposition but refers to the CDC official site itself. First, there is a video on what Jon has picked up [click on the facebook link shown]. Second, there is Jon's own post.
0:02 / 7:45

https://www.facebook.com/kgalalae/posts/3415359811915428

 

Yet another case of the missing virus; they lied and locked down the world

ANOTHER key architect of the COVID PCR test had no coronavirus; the whole fake COVID house is falling down.

“We know exactly what we’re doing, but we have no virus available.”

by Jon Rappoport

October 13, 2020


I’ve been exposing the fact that the CDC, in July of this year, admitted, in a document, that…

They didn’t have the SARS-CoV-2 virus. It wasn’t “available.”

This means they couldn’t obtain an isolated specimen of the virus. There is only one reason why.

The virus hasn’t been isolated. And THAT means no one has proved it exists.

And now, I’ve discovered ANOTHER key document. This one apparently formed the basis for the first PCR test aimed at detecting the COVID virus all over the world.

READ WHAT THIS STUDY SAYS. These quotes should be engraved in stone above the entrance to a museum dedicated to the history of medical fraud.

“We aimed to develop and deploy robust diagnostic methodology for use in public health laboratory settings without having virus material available.”

TRANSLATION: We want to develop a test to detect the new COVID virus without having the virus.

“Here we present a validated diagnostic workflow for 2019-nCoV, its design relying on close genetic relatedness of 2019-nCoV with SARS coronavirus, making use of synthetic nucleic acid technology.”

TRANSLATION: We HAVE developed a diagnostic test to detect the new COVID virus. We ASSUME this new virus is closely related to an older coronavirus. We ASSUME we know HOW it is related. We ASSUME, because we don’t have the new COVID virus. Therefore, all our assumptions are made out of nothing. Actually, we have no proof there is a new coronavirus.

“The workflow reliably detects 2019-nCoV, and further discriminates 2019-nCoV from SARS-CoV.”

TRANSLATION: Our new test to detect the new virus? We don’t have the new virus. We’ve never observed it. We can’t study it directly. There is no proof it exists. But we will use the test to detect it.

The study is titled, “Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR.” [Euro Surveill. 2020 Jan;25(3):2000045. doi: 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.3.2000045.]

Those quotes from the study are astounding. A diagnostic test for the virus, but there is no virus. No standard against which to compare the reliability of the test.

The authors blithely assume they can somehow infer that the virus exists in the first place, without having an isolated specimen.

Then they assume they can understand the structure of the virus that isn’t there.

The virus isn’t there. It has NOT been isolated. It has NOT been separated out from other material. Therefore, it has not been observed and its existence has not been proved.

And yet, the test which these authors have developed is launched, all over the world, to detect that virus; to promote the unproven notion that there is a pandemic; to form the basis for counting COVID case numbers; and ultimately to justify all the lockdowns which have crashed the global economy and destroyed millions upon millions of lives.

A great deal of confusion has been created, because scientists are now talking about the “new virus” as if they understand its structure and sequence. No. They’ve INTERPRETED that genetic structure. And once they’ve made their interpretations, they gibber about what it means.

It’s like this. A man has a very thick steel vault. He clams there is a pile of treasure inside. But no one can open the door to the vault. People show up with all sorts of fancy instruments, and they make indirect measurements. They then issue very authoritative-sounding statements about what is inside the vault.

But no one can get in there. This is a magic vault, you see. You can’t drill into it. You can’t blow it up. But in its vicinity, all sorts of hustlers are gathered. And they PONTIFICATE. They BLOVIATE. They wave their credentials. Reporters interview them. Governments follow their recommendations.

And that’s all it is. It’s that kind of party.

There is also confusion about what the word “isolate” means, when it comes to viruses. SAYING you have isolated a virus doesn’t mean you have.

It may mean you THINK you have the virus inside a mess of material which contains many different genetic sequences and all manner of cellular debris and who knows what.

Some scientists will claim “a lesser amount of mess” entitles them to state they’ve “isolated” the virus.

Other scientists will claim that because they can grow, in a dish, what they BELIEVE to be the virus, this is “proof” that the virus exists.

They’re wrong.

Still other scientists will say that, in a dish in a lab, they “have the virus growing”, and they know it, because the virus is destroying certain cells in the soup in the dish. But in this soup, there are various added chemicals, and those chemicals could easily be doing the cell-killing.

So they are wrong, too.

As the late independent researcher David Crowe has written: “And the word ‘isolation’ has been so debased by virologists it means nothing (e.g. adding impure materials to a cell culture and seeing cell death is [as] ‘isolation’).”

This is why something called real-world experiments were introduced into science. Experiments that were forced out of the lab into the arena where actual humans live.

In my last article, I described exactly the kind of experiment that should have been initiated five minutes after scientists claimed there was an “outbreak in China.” It’s a large scale study involving humans who were diagnosed with the “epidemic illness.” Tissue samples would be taken from 500 of these patients and correctly analyzed via electron microscope photography.

But studies of that dimension and precision don’t interest scientists who live in the lab. Such studies are too dangerous. There is every chance that, in the harsh glare of sunlight, all their warnings about a vast pandemic will be shown to be false. False and ridiculous. Absurd. And insane.

These “experts” don’t want to take that chance.

So they fiddle and diddle in their labs, and they make wild claims based on nothing, on NO VIRUS.

For them, there is no such thing as NO VIRUS. There must always be a virus. They will build strings of thought that circle around and meet up and shake hands and justify themselves, BY DEFINITION.

When all is said and done, that is what they are playing at. “We make all the definitions, and therefore we can conclude anything we want to conclude. And call it science.”

That’s what’s going on.

I see the con and I’m pointing out the con.

I’m telling scientists who are honest to call it a con, too.

Empty out the house of modern virology; open the windows and let the fresh air in; and then we’ll be living in a far better world.

And, oh yes, prosecute these researchers who devised a test for the virus they never found. Prosecute them for crimes against humanity, and send them to prison.

Thursday, 23 April 2020

NEW VIGANO INTERVIEW


Wednesday, April 22, 2020

"They Are Trying to Establish a 'Neo-Church'" -- New Interview of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò


In a new interview, Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano criticizes the fact that a connubium of modernists and Freemasonry wants to create a "neo-church".

(Rome) Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano has been one of the most internationally renowned Church representatives since his sharp criticism of Pope Francis in the McCarrick case. In an interview published yesterday, he spoke about the attempt to replace the Church of Jesus Christ with a "neo-church" and about the Third Mystery of Fatima.

Cardinal McCarrick had risen to become the most influential cardinal in the United States under Pope Francis. Although in June 2013, in his capacity as Apostolic Nuncio to the United States, Archbishop Vigano had informed the Pope in detail about Cardinal McCarrick's homosexual double life and his corruption of priests and seminarians, Francis remained inactive.

It wasn't until the New York Times published McCarrick's legacy in July 2018 that Francis stripped him of cardinalship. But when the head of the church declared that he knew nothing of all that he had otherwise acted earlier, it was too much for Archbishop Vigano. He accused Francis of in fact covering up McCarrick's machinations for more than five years and making him his adviser. The archbishop accused Francis not only of cover-up and omission, but also of lying, and called on him to resign. Francis declined to comment.

Archbishop Vigano, on the other hand, has been living in secret "for fear of retribution" ever since and only goes public in writing. An exception was the Acies ordinata against the "Synodal Way" of the German Episcopal Conference, which took place in Munich last January. Archbishop Vigano surprisingly mingled with the participants.

Yesterday he gave an interview to the Portuguese newspaper Dies Irae in which he also commented on the Third Secret of Fatima.

DIes Irae: Excellency, thank you for giving us this interview. We are in the midst of the COVID-19 epidemic that has affected the lives of millions of people in recent months and has even caused the deaths of many of them. In view of this situation, the Church, through the Episcopal Conferences, has decided to close virtually all churches and to deprive the faithful of access to the sacraments. On March 27, In front of an empty St. Peter's Square, Pope Francis led a hypothetical prayer for humanity in an apparently media-friendly manner. There have been many reactions to the way in which the Pope carried out this moment, one of which tried to link the lonely presence of Francis with the message of Fatima, that is, with the Third Mystery. Do you agree?

Archbishop Vigano: First of all, allow me to say that it is a pleasure for me to give this interview to the faithful of Portugal, to whom the Blessed Virgin has promised to keep it in the Faith even in these times of great trial. You are a people with great responsibility, because you may soon have to preserve the holy fire of religion, while other nations refuse to recognize Christ as their king and the blessed Mary as their queen.

The third part of the message, which Our Lady entrusted to the shepherd children of Fatima so that they may deliver it to the Holy Father, is still secret. Our Lady asked for it to be revealed in 1960, but John XXIII issued a press release on 8 February of that year declaring that the Church "does not want to assume the responsibility of guaranteeing the truthfulness of the words which the shepherd children say the Virgin Mary addressed to them." With this distancing from the message of the Queen of Heaven, a cover-up operation began, apparently because the content of the message would have revealed the terrible conspiracy against the Church of Christ by its enemies. Until a few decades ago, it would have seemed unthinkable that one would go so far as to silence even Our Lady. In recent years, however, we have even experienced attempts to censor the Gospel, the word of her divine Son.

In 2000, during the pontificate of John Paul II, the Secretary of State, Cardinal Sodano [1990–2006], presented his own version as the Third Secret, which, due to some elements, clearly seemed incomplete. It is not surprising that the new Secretary of State, Cardinal Bertone [2006–2013], tried to draw attention to an event from the past, only to make the people of God believe that the words of the Virgin had nothing to do with the Church crisis and with the interaction of modernists and Freemasonry behind the scenes of the Second Vatican Council. Antonio Socci, who has carefully examined the Third Secret, exposed this deliberate behaviour of Cardinal Bertone. At the same time, it was Bertone himself who strongly discredited and censored the tears of Tears of Our Lady of Civitavecchia, whose message perfectly matches what she had said in Fatima.

Let us not forget the unnoticed appeal of Our Lady to the Pope encouraging all bishops to consecrate Russia to her Immaculate Heart in order to defeat Communism and atheist materialism: not to consecrate "the world, not that nation that you want us to consecrate to you ", but "Russia". Did it cost too much to do that?

Obviously yes for those who have no view of the supernatural. One preferred the path of détente with the Soviet regime that Roncalli had taken, without understanding that peace is not possible without God. 

Today, with a President of the Russian Federation who is certainly a Christian, this request of the Virgin could be fulfilled in order to avert further catastrophes for the Church and the world.

Benedict XVI also confirmed the topicality of the message of the Virgin Mary, although according to the interpretation spread by the Vatican, it is to be regarded as complete. Those who have read the Third Secret said in all clarity that it concerns the apostasy of the Church, which began at the very beginning of the 1960s and has now reached such an obvious stage that it is recognized even by inexperienced observers. This almost compulsive insistence on issues that the Church has always condemned, such as relativism and religious indifferentism, false ecumenism, Malthusian ecology, homoheresy and mass immigration, has found in the Abu Dhabi Declaration the fulfilment of a plan conceived by secret sects for more than two centuries.

DIes Irae: In the middle of Holy Week and after the Synod of Amazons, the Pope decided to set up a commission to discuss and study the women's diaconate in the Catholic Church. Do you think that this has the purpose of paving the way for the clericalization of women, or, in other words, an attempt to manipulate the priesthood that our Lord Jesus Christ instituted on Holy Thursday?

Archbishop Vigano: The Sacrament of Holy Orders can and will never be changed in its nature. The attack on the priesthood has always been at the heart of the actions of the heretics and their inspirer, and it is understandable that attacking the priesthood means destroying Holy Mass and the Most holy Eucharist, as well as the entire sacramental structure. Among the conspiratorial enemies of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, there was, of course, no shortage of modernists who, since the 19th century, have theorized a Church without priests or with priests and priestesses. These delusions, anticipated by some representatives of modernism in France, subtly resurfaced at the Second Vatican Council in an attempt to imply a certain equivalence between the official priesthood resulting from the Sacrament of Holy Orders and the general priesthood of the faithful emerging from baptism. It is significant that it is precisely through the play with this deliberate misunderstanding, the reformed liturgy [Novus Ordo] is also affected by the doctrinal error of Lumen gentium, going so far as to reduce the consecration to mere presiding in a meeting of [general] priests. The priest is in reality an old Christ, not because the people appoint him, but through the ontological alignment with the high priest Jesus Christ, whom he has to imitate in the holiness of life and in the absolute devotion, which is also represented by celibacy.

The next step therefore had to be necessarily followed, if not by the extinguishing of the priesthood, then at least by making it ineffective by extending it to women who cannot be consecrated. It is precisely what has happened in the Protestant and Anglican sects, which today are also experiencing the embarrassing situation of having lesbian bishops in the so-called Church of England. It is obvious that the ecumenical "pretext" – that is, the approach to deviating communities, even by accepting the latest errors – is based on Satan's hatred of the priesthood and would inevitably ruin the Church of Christ. At the same time,  ecclesiastical celibacy is also the target of the same attacks, because it belongs unmistakably to the Catholic Church and is a valuable protection for the priesthood, which tradition it has kept vigorously throughout the centuries.

The attempt to introduce a form of consecrated women's ministry in the Church, despite the repeated declarations of the Magisterium, is not new. John Paul II, too, clearly defined, with all the canonical requirements of an infallible ex-Cathedra declaration, that it is absolutely impossible to question the doctrine on this subject. But just as one has put one's hand on the Catechism to declare the death penalty "not in conformity with the Gospel", which is unprecedented and heretical, so today one tries ex novo to invent some form of female diaconate – propaedeutic, of course, for the future introduction of the women's priesthood.

The first Commission set up by Bergoglio years ago issued a negative opinion and confirmed what could not even have been discussed. Because a commission was unwilling to obey Francis' wishes, this does not mean that another commission whose members he chooses could not be more "docile" and more willing to destroy another pillar of the Catholic faith. I have no doubt that Bergoglio has convincing methods and that he can put pressure on the Theological Commission. But I am equally sure that in the unfortunate event that this consultative body should give a favourable opinion, it will not necessarily need an official statement by the Pope to see the introduction of deaconesses in the dioceses of Germany or Holland – while Rome is silent on this. This method is well known and makes it possible, on the one hand, to attack the priesthood and, on the other hand, to provide a pleasant alibi for those within the ecclesial structures who thus claim at all times that "the Pope has not allowed anything new". This is exactly what they have done by authorizing the Episcopal Conferences to allow autonomous hand-Communion, which was enacted by abuse and has now become a worldwide practice.

We should remember that this approach to the dogmas of the Church confirms an undeniable fact: Bergoglio has adopted the so-called situation theology, whose loci theologici, theological places, random facts or themes are: the world, nature, the feminine, young people... This is a theology which does not focus on the immutable and eternal truth of God, but on the contrary starts from observing the imperative urgency of phenomena in order to give answers that correspond to the expectations of today's world.

Dies Irae: According to renowned historians, the Second Vatican Council was a break between the Church and tradition. Hence the appearance of ways of thinking, which they want to transform into a mere humanitarian association that embraces the world and embraces its globalist utopia. How do you see this serious problem?

Archbishop Vigano: A church that presents itself as new in contrast to the Church of Christ is simply not the Church of Christ! The Mosaic religion, that is, the "Church of the Old Law", which was wanted by God to lead His people to the coming of the Messiah, has found its fulfillment and completion in the New Covenant and was finally revoked on Calvary by the sacrifice of Christ. From his open side came the New and Eternal Covenant, which replaced the synagogue. It seems that the post-Conciliar, modernist and Freemason Church also aims to transform, overcome, and replace the Church of Christ with a "neo-church", a disfigured and monstrous creature that does not come from God.

The purpose of this neo-church is not to get the chosen people to recognize the Messiah, just as it is not the purpose for the synagogue to convert and save all peoples from the second coming of Christ, which is the purpose of the Catholic Church. Its purpose is rather to constitute itself as the spiritual arm of the New World Order and to promote the One World Religion. In this sense, the Council Revolution first had to destroy the heritage of the Church, its thousand-year-old tradition from which it drew its vitality and authority as the mystical body of Christ. Then it was a matter of getting rid of the representative of the old hierarchy, and only recently she began to show herself to be what she wants to be, without pretense or camouflage.

What you call utopia is in fact a dystopia, because it represents the concreteization of the plan of Freemasonry and prepares the appearance of the Antichrist.

I am also convinced that the majority of my confreres, and especially almost all priests and believers, are not fully aware of this hellish plan, and that recent events have opened the eyes of many. Their faith will enable our Lord to gather the pusillus grex, the small flock, before the final confrontation around the true shepherd.

Dies Irae: In order to restore the ancient splendour of the Church, it will be necessary to question many aspects of the Council's teaching. What points of the Second Vatican Council would you question?

Archbishop Vigano: I believe that there is no shortage of important personalities who have already expressed the critical points of the Council better than I have. There are those who believe that it would be less complicated and certainly wiser to follow the practice of the Church and the Popes as it was used in the Synod of Pistoia. It also contained good things, but the errors it claimed were considered sufficient to make them forgotten.

This Irae: Is the current pontificate the culmination of a process that begins with the Second Vatican Council and was longed for in the so-called "Catacomb Pact", or is it still an intermediate phase?

Archbishop Vigano: As with any revolution, the heroes of the first hour often fall victim to their own system, as was the case with Robespierre. Those who were regarded yesterday as the flag bearers of the Council Spirit now appear almost as conservatives: the examples of this are visible before all eyes. There are already those who, in the intellectual circles of progressivism (such as those frequented by a haughty Massimo Faggioli), begin to dispel doubts here and there about Bergoglio's real abilities, to make "courageous decisions" – for example, to abolish celibacy, to allow women to the priesthood, or to legitimize the Communicatio in sacris with heretics – almost as if he were hoping that he would step down in order to elect a pope who was even more obedient to the elites who had their most unscrupulous and determined followers in the Catacomb Pact and in the Mafia of St. Gallen.

This Irae: Our Excellency, we Catholics today often feel isolated from the Church and almost abandoned by our shepherds. What can you say to the hierarchs and believers who, despite the confusion and error that are spreading in the Church, are trying to persevere in this tough struggle to maintain the integrity of our faith?

Archbishop Vigano: My words would certainly be inadequate. I confine myself to repeating the words of our Lord, the eternal word of the Father: "Be sure, I am with you all the days until the end of the world." Of course, we feel isolated: but did the Apostles not feel that way, and all Christians? Didn't even Our Lord feel abandoned in Gethsemane? These are times of trial, perhaps of the last trial: we must drink the bitter cup, and even if it is human emanating from the Lord to let him pass by us, we must repeat with confidence: "But not as I will, but as you will" and remember His words of consolation: "In the world you are in affliction; but have courage: I have conquered the world."

After trial, however hard and painful it may be, the eternal reward will be prepared for us that no one can take away from us. The Church will once again radiate the glory of her Lord after this terrible and long-lasting Easter triduum.

Although prayer is undoubtedly indispensable, we must not relent on fighting the good struggle, but should make everyone witnesses of a courageous spirit of struggle under the banner of the Cross of Christ. Let us not allow the finger to be pointed at us, as the maid did in the court of the high priest with Saint Peter: "You also were one of his disciples," and then he denied Christ. Let us not be intimidated! Let us not allow the gag of tolerance to be applied to those who wish to proclaim the truth! Let us ask the Blessed Virgin and Our Lady Mary that our tongue can courageously proclaim the kingdom of God and Hs righteousness. May the miracle of Lapa be renewed, where the blessed Mary gave back the voice to little Joana, who was born dumb. May she also give us a voice, her children, who have remained silent for too long.

Our Lady of Fatima, Queen of Victories, ora pro nobis.


Introduction/translation: Giuseppe
Nardi Picture: Corrispondenza Romana
Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com

AMDG

Monday, 24 February 2020

NEW AGE: Fiona Barnett Blog



Addicted to the Occult: A Book Review

Welcome to Fiona’s Book Club.
I recently had to sever ties with an old and dear friend, due to her addiction to the occult. A decade ago, my friend (‘Alison’) began paying a guru/witch (‘WitchyD’) for past life regression ‘therapy’, aura reading and manipulation, and kinesiology. Under WitchyD’s influence, Alison’s brain and life slowly turned to shit. My friend became vague and started making poor decisions (which landed her in court on a serious gun charge). Alison abandoned responsibility for her own behaviour and blamed her issues on either other people, or her ‘past life’ experiences that WitchyD implanted in her mind, via suggestion.
Several years ago, Alison began divorce proceedings against her ex-husband. Her primary approach to this procedure consisted of gathering with WitchyD and another coven participant, to summon her ex’s aura, to command her ex’s aura into giving her what she desired out of their financial settlement. When Alison divulged this, I urged my friend to, “Get a divorce lawyer!” However, Alison ignored all of my free practical advice in favour of her paid esoteric charmer. Consequently, my friend got totally screwed over and her cunning ex won everything.
Alison had engaged in witchcraft. I define witchcraft as intentional manipulation of the elements in order to achieve one’s will. Alison had in fact dabbled in black witchcraft – without having been instructed on the consequences of such, or how witches protect themselves against the inevitable backlash. Witchcraft carries its own set of rules, and if one wants to play with witchcraft, one must abide by its rules. My friend failed to do this.

READ THE REST AT .....

https://austroz.blogspot.com.knightslite.com/2020/02/new-age-fiona-barnett-blog.html