In response to the first loaded question concerning Trump—“Donald Trump has just become the president of the US, and the whole world is tense because of it. What do you think about that?”—Bergoglio did not immediately lunge at the bait, professing a wait-and-see attitude: “I think that we must wait and see. I don’t like to get ahead of myself nor judge people prematurely. We will see how he acts, what he does, and then I will have an opinion.” This was followed immediately by a meandering, incongruous reference to the gnostic heresy and “spray religiousness, a non-specific religiousness. Yes, me, spirituality, the law... but nothing concrete. No, no way. We need specifics. And from the specific we can draw consequences. We lose sense of the concrete.”
The point, apparently, was that Bergoglio needed specifics before he could issue an opinion on Trump. One could pray for the miracle that he will keep his opinion to himself, but perhaps there are weightier petitions with spiritual priority, such as the merciful end of this pontificate. But of course Bergoglio will have an opinion, which he will of course trumpet to the world. Pope Bergoglio has an opinion on all manner of political subjects about which he knows little or nothing, including even the Scottish independence movement, which he opposed with dreary predictability, being a reliable ally of EU and globalist elites.
One might ask: What happened to Bergoglio’s declaration concerning his refusal to speak in opposition to the legalization of “homosexual unions” in Italy: that “the Pope does not place himself into the concrete politics of a country. Italy is not the first country to have this experience.” Experienced Bergoglio watchers know the answer to that question: his continuous public polemic is rife with expedient self-contradiction according to the rhetorical needs of the moment, precisely in the manner of a politician.
In this case, the self-contradiction came immediately during the same interview, when Bergoglio abandoned his pretense of a suspension of judgment regarding Trump in response to the next loaded question on the subject:
El Pais:Both in Europe and in America, the repercussions of the crisis that never ends, the growing inequalities, the absence of strong leadership are giving way to political groups that reflect on the citizens' malaise. Some of them —the so-called anti-system or populists— capitalize on the fears in face of an uncertain future in order to form a message full of xenophobia and hatred towards the foreigner. Trump’s case is the most noteworthy, but there are others such as Austria or Switzerland. Are you worried about this phenomenon?
Swallowing the bait along with the hook, the line, the sinker and the fishing rod, this time Bergoglio exceeded even his leading questioner’s expectations by explicitly likening the rise of Trump and other anti-NWO populists to the rise of Hitler:
Pope Francis:…. When I started to hear about populism in Europe I didn't know what to make of it, I got lost, until I realized that it had different meanings. Crises provoke fear, alarm. In my opinion, the most obvious example of European populism is Germany in 1933. After [Paul von] Hindenburg, after the crisis of 1930, Germany is broken, it needs to get up, to find its identity, a leader, someone capable of restoring its character, and there is a young man named Adolf Hitler who says: “I can, I can.”
And all Germans vote for Hitler. Hitler didn’t steal the power, his people voted for him, and then he destroyed his people. That is the risk. In times of crisis, we lack judgment, and that is a constant reference for me. Let’s look for a savior who gives us back our identity and lets defend ourselves with walls, barbed-wire, whatever, from other peoples that may rob us of our identity.
…. But the case of Germany in 1933 is typical, a people that was immersed in a crisis, that looked for its identity until this charismatic leader came and promised to give their identity back, and he gave them a distorted identity, and we all know what happened….
The man who lives safely in luxurious surroundings behind the high walls of the Vatican, surrounded 24/7 by armed guards, continued his belittlement of the common people who have to live with the effects of Muslim immigration, including mass murder, and who favor “erect[ing] walls, barbed-wire, whatever, from other people who may rob us of our identity.” It took a Protestant politician, Mike Huckabee, to remind Bergoglio that God Himself told Nehemiah to build a protective wall around Jerusalem to protect His people from invasion and a loss of identity in the midst of the Persian Empire. Portions of the very walls protecting Bergoglio and his collaborators from what Italy has to endure were built by Leo
IV for the very purpose of preventing another Muslim sack of Rome after the one in 846.
With characteristic self-contradiction, Bergoglio went on to say that “each country has the right to control its borders, who comes in and who goes out, and those countries at risk—from terrorism or such things—have even more of a right to control them, but no country has the right to deprive its citizens of the possibility to talk with their neighbors.” But how does a country control its borders without a physical barrier of some kind, like that behind which Bergoglio himself resides in the sovereign Vatican City State whose borders are impenetrable? And what does talking with one’s neighbors have to do with border control? Evidently conflating metaphor with reality, Francis proposes that border walls or fences literally prevent international conversation.
During the course of the interview, the reliable friend of communist and socialist dictators, as we see here, here and here, even went so far as to declare that in Communist China “the churches are packed. In China they can worship freely.” Pope Bergoglio thus blithely betrayed the persecuted members of his flock in China, who have been driven underground because they refuse to worship in the “packed” churches of the schismatic, government-controlled, pseudo-church called the “Patriotic Catholic Association.”
So, yet again, Bergoglian demagoguery blends seamlessly with the narrative of the globalist Left: the frightened, ignorant, “fundamentalist” Christian masses are being stirred up by radically nationalist, crypto-neo-Nazis who are inciting them to kick against the goad of the established order of state secularity, pluralism, multiculturalism, multilateralism, “free trade,” “open borders,” environmentalism and world government under the United Nations, with whom Bergoglio’s Vatican is intimately allied.
Bergoglio’s endless rhetorical assault upon his own subjects also helps pave the way for governmental persecution of their “fundamentalism” on grounds that it constitutes “hate speech.” A prominent recent example is the conviction of the Dutch politician Geert Wilders (raised a Catholic, though now lapsed) merely for advocating a restriction on Moroccan immigration in the Netherlands.
The El Pais interview also features the inevitable Bergoglian twisting of the Gospel into an anti-Gospel, this time with yet another false and misleading reference to the elder son in the Parable of the Prodigal Son: “So the eldest child syndrome is the syndrome of anyone who is too settled within the Church, the one who has clear ideas about everything, who knows what must be done and doesn’t want to listen to strange sermons. That is the explanation for our martyrs: they gave their lives for preaching something that was upsetting.”
So, according to Bergoglio, those who are actually defending today what the martyrs died for centuries ago—the truth of Christ, including the indissolubility of marriage—are to be condemned because they will not listen to “strange sermons” that contradict what the martyrs died for! In the mind of Bergoglio, then, the faith would seem to be an endless series of “strange sermons” based on the latest gnostic inspiration concerning what the Gospel means today as opposed to what it meant before.
Are we dealing with an increasingly addled octogenarian, a deluded visionary, a cunning change agent bent on willful destruction, or some combination of these? Who knows the mind and heart of the man? Only God knows. But this much we do know to a certainty: Seated in the Chair of Peter, Pope Bergoglio, unlike any Pope before him, has served as the ultimate useful dupe of the powers that be. And the more he speaks, the more apparent it becomes that his pontificate is a clear and present danger not only to the common good of the Church but also the common good of civil society, in whose affairs he selectively meddles with an effect that seems always to favor the movement of our once Christian civilization toward what Pope Leo XIII, in his encyclical on “evils of society,” called “final disaster.”