HERE IS ONE CURRENT WAY TO SOCIAL AND POLITICAL MADNESS

Semantic Gymnastics and the Buttigieg Matriarchy

It may seem tiresome to keep repeating truths in opposition to these lies, but we cannot afford to give up and give in. That would be canceling ourselves, and that way madness lies.

October 25, 2021 Robert R. Reilly The Dispatch 23Print

President-elect Joe Biden looks at his watch as former Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., arrives behind him to be announced as his nominee for secretary of transportation during a news conference in Wilmington, Del., Dec. 16, 2020. (CNS photo/Kevin Lamarque, Pool via Reuters)

I have been reading I Shall Bear Witness, Victor Klemperer’s diaries from 1933-45. Klemperer was a professor of philology and French literature in Dresden, Germany, until he was dismissed because of his Jewish heritage, even though he was a Christian. What saved him from the camps was the fact that his wife was a non-Jewish Christian. Therefore, he lived to tell the tale.

In a very granular way, his daily entries allow us to experience the seeping semantic infiltration through which the Nazis gradually succeeded in establishing a complete state of unreality, not only on the ground but in people’s minds. A day-to-day record of how this was done speaks to our own time. Klemperer’s post war book, titled The Language of the Third Reich, is about how the perversion of language perverted society – from the top down, exactly as it is happening here.

First, some broader context about the meaning of language is necessary. Aristotle said that words indicate the essences of the things they name. There is no difference between the name of a thing and the thing it names. There is an intrinsic connection between words and reality. Thomas Aquinas reaffirmed this relationship, using Genesis to do so. “Man named the animals,” he wrote, “But names should be adapted to the nature of things. Therefore, Adam knew the animals’ natures.” Naming is knowing.

All this changed when modern man decided that things no longer have essences; they are without natures. What, then, are names in relation to them? They are simply constructs that man impresses on natureless reality. There is no longer an intrinsic connection between words and the world. Reality becomes whatever we say it is. Naming is not knowing, but determining. In other words, since reality is nothing in itself, we get to make it up according to our druthers. We even get to make up ourselves. To give a metaphysical basis for this project, Jean-Paul Sartre insisted that existence precedes essence. We somehow are without being what we are. We are what-less creatures. What we become is the result of our will. Or to put it in current parlance, we self-identify as… (fill in the blank).

Does this sound familiar? It should, not only from the semantic gymnastics of the Nazis, but from our very own LGBTQ and transgender ideologies. Dave Chappelle, a comedian of whom I had never heard until the recent brouhaha over his Netflix special, said, “I know that trans people make up words to win arguments…This is a real thing.” Indeed, it is. The challenge from the trans folk seems to come straight out of the Marx Brothers movie Duck Soup, in which Chico is caught red-handed lying, and responds: “Who are you going to believe, me, or your lying eyes?” The trans version of this is: “Who are you going to believe, me, or my lying chromosomes?: The whole alphabet movement is a charade of made-up words. The word “homosexual”, for instance, was invented in the late nineteenth century precisely to promote the acceptance of sodomy. It took a while, but it worked.

We are the victims of semantic infiltration every bit as much as the Germans were during the Nazi period, although things have not quite progressed to that point yet. We can still resist. However, anyone who thinks that the denial of reality today is any less profound than it was in 1935 Germany is kidding themselves. Success for the LGBTQ-trans dream requires the obliteration of the real and the removal of those who continue to insist on the nature of reality. Does this statement sound too extreme? Then try this: publicly state that surgically disfiguring yourself so that you can pretend you are a person of the opposite sex is both futile and wrong; or proclaim that giving an underage child hormone blockers to skew their sexual orientation is child abuse and immoral – and see how long it takes for you to be canceled.

The purpose of semantic suppression and linguistic jujitsu is to transform reality, or rather to create an ersatz reality, in order to accommodate certain preferred disorders. We don’t want what we do wrong to be wrong in reality. In fact, it’s what we convince ourselves of when we freely do it. Very often, we recover with contrition, but not if we openly celebrate our transgressions. Then, we are lost. And then we must convince others that our wrong is right – in fact, make them accede to this inversion of reality. In response, the very least we ought to do is refuse to celebrate the harm they do to themselves.

Whether then or now, the strategy of attrition is the same: wear down through the repetition of the big lie or lies. It may seem tiresome to keep repeating truths in opposition to these lies, but we cannot afford to give up and give in. That would be canceling ourselves, and that way madness lies. We must insist on the integrity of language and its intrinsic relationship to reality, over and over again.

Let’s look at a recent example of current semantic absurdities, particularly in terms of the misappropriation of parental language.

Earlier this month, Politico reported that Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg had been on paid paternity leave since mid-August, an eight-week stretch. He and his “husband” James Glezman announced, “We are delighted to welcome Penelope Rose and Joseph August Buttigieg to our family.” The first thing to notice is that the last names of the infants indicate that the “family” is a matriarchy. Otherwise, why wouldn’t the children have the last name of their “father”?

Next comes the question as to how Buttigieg could be taking “paternity” leave since the dictionary definition of paternity is “the state of being someone’s father.” Yet since he is the “wife” in his relationship with Glezman, he must be the children’s “mother.” Therefore, strictly speaking, he should be on maternity leave, not paternity leave. The black-and-white photo officially introducing the couple’s new babies on social media shows Buttigieg and his “husband” lying in a hospital bed, each cradling one of the newborns. The optics of being photographed in a hospital bed is perfect for encouraging the delusion that one of them gave birth. However, as Dave Chappelle was so indelicate as to mention, “Every human being… on Earth had to pass through the legs of a woman to be on Earth. This is a fact.”

Which raises the subject of the missing person. Throughout all this, the real mother of the twins goes unmentioned. Did she get any maternity leave? Only by excluding the actual mother – by, so to speak, canceling her – can this pretend family displace the reality of motherhood so that Buttigieg can take it on himself. Who will explain to the twins as they are growing up where their mother is and through what ruse they were taken from her?

When criticized for being missing in action from his cabinet position for two months, Buttigieg became defensive: “Look, paid family leave is important. It’s important as a matter of family values. It’s important to our economy.” I’m scratching my head over how not working and still getting paid is important to the economy. That must be part of Bidenonmics, the $3.5 trillion budget that doesn’t cost anything. There is nothing wrong with stay-at-home moms, so long as they are not receiving government pay at the level of a cabinet officer, like the Secretary of Transportation, which is reportedly $221,400. Not bad work if you can get it.

Babies are cute and one’s sympathy naturally goes out to those who care for them. Buttigieg is counting on this misplaced compassion to get away with his hijacking of what families really are. He takes all this as being “pro-family.” The reason he’s been able to go AWOL for two months is that “what we have right now is an administration that’s actually pro-family.” If you are having trouble decoding this, simply remember that everything is actually its opposite.

To preserve our sanity, we need to keep in mind the magnitude of what has been lost in the great act of forgetting which our current culture is. The 1885 Murphy v. Ramsey Supreme Court ruling expressed what was once considered the “pro-family” common sense of mankind. It affirmed that

the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guarantee of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement.

We will need our own Walter Klemperer to parse all the semantic nonsense when this is over, so that we can understand how we got from Murphy to Buttigieg, and so that our words adhere to reality once again.


If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!

Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.


About Robert R. Reilly 16 ArticlesRobert R. Reilly was Senior Advisor for Information Strategy (2002-2006) for the US Secretary of Defense, after which he taught at National Defense University. He was the director of the Voice of America (2001-2002) and served in the White House as a Special Assistant to the President (1983-1985). A graduate of Georgetown University and the Claremont Graduate University, his books include The Closing of the Muslim MindMaking Gay Okay, and Surprised by Beauty: A Listener’s Guide to the Recovery of Modern Music. His most recent book, America on Trial: A Defense of the Founding, is published by Ignatius Press.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

ONE CANNOT HELP BUT ADMIRE, AND FEAR, THE WAY Opus Dei HAS GROWN TO BE A POWER IN THE CHURCH

THE CATHOLIC MONITOR

SEARCH

Is the Francis “Cheerlead[er]” Opus Dei Cult-like as well as Left-wing and Right-wing? 

The Traditionalist Catholic Remnant editor Michel Matt has shown his problems with “the ‘conservative’ ‘watchdog of orthodoxy’, Opus Dei” saying “Meanwhile, back at the Circle O (Opus Dei, that is), it’s business as usual… As long as they have their pristine place in the Church with tons of money and are left alone, they will cheerlead whatever The Argentinian [Francis] says.”:

Yes, that’s right– the “conservative” “watchdog of orthodoxy”, Opus Dei, our sentry at the gate, is still keeping the sheeple in the dark about what’s really going on here. As a friend recently noted, “They will not only go along with, but boldly champion whatever the man in white says, no matter what. They willfully ignore all problems–including heresy, approving adultery, banning death penalty, not answering credible sex abuse cover up allegations–the whole nine yards. As long as they have their pristine place in the Church with tons of money and are left alone, they will cheerlead whatever The Argentinian says.”[https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/headline-news-around-the-world/item/4095-opus-dei-promoting-pope-farrell-s-synod-on-young-people]

The popular Catholic blogger Laramie Hirsch said that Opus Dei is Cult-like and apparently its promoters such as Michael Voris and One Peter Five publisher Eric Sammons are refusing to look at the evidence that their beloved Francis may be an antipope because of possible Opus Dei monetary support (It appears that Opus Dei Promoter 1P5 Publisher Sammons would not let Hammer of Antipopes St. Bernard write for One Peter Five). Hirsch shows that their name calling appears to not be supported by the theological facts:

“Finally, one cannot consider as schismatics those who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they would hold his person suspect or, because of widespread rumors, doubtfully elected (as happened after the election of Urban VI), or who would resist him as a civil authority and not as pastor of the Church.”
(Wernz-Vidal, Ius Canonicum [Rome: Gregorian 1937], 7:398,)

Does Voris—or his Opus Dei cult mind-controllers—even care? 
[https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/10/wernz-vidal-one-cannot-consider-as.html]

Is Opus Dei cult-like?

The conservative Catholic Damian Thompson claims some commenters on the rich organization go too far in their attacks on its seemingly cult-like ways:

“It is nearly a decade since Michael Walsh’s excellent book The Secret World of Opus Dei revealed the true face of ‘the Work’, the time would seem ripe for a proper update. Sadly, Their Kingdom Come is nothing of the sort. Although it scores a few direct hits – quoting a Vatican archivist, for example, on the way Opus researchers dig their way into official records and rewrite them – most of its serious charges are supported by nothing more than innuendo. Robert Hutchison detects the hand of the Work in every financial scandal or political initiative involving the Vatican since the Second World War, but he is frustratingly unable to prove his points, stitching together a crude tapestry of allegations with phrases ‘said to be’ and ‘reportedly’.”

The biggest mistake Pope John Paul II has ever made, by Damian Thompson, The Daily Telegraph, 6 September 1997 [https://roberthutchison.ch/books/their-kingdom-come/their-kingdom-come-reviews/]

But, Thompson isn’t afraid to reveal its problematic ways:

– Damian Thompson@holysmoke·I often find it weird that outrageous behaviour from Rome goes unremarked. One factor: Opus Dei. Commentators who belong to it are not encouraged to criticise Francis. [https://twitter.com/holysmoke/status/1251627921174921216?lang=en] –  Escrivá: always keen to listen to visitors

With all this phone hacking around, I think it’s time electronic eavesdroppers had their own patron saint, don’t you? As it happens, I have the perfect candidate: St Josemaria Escrivá, founder of Opus Dei, who died as recently as 1975 and was canonised by Pope John Paul II in 2002.

A few years ago, I interviewed a distinguished priest who, as a young man, had been a member of Opus Dei and close associate of Escrivá. My jaw dropped when, half way through our conversation, he mentioned casually that “The Father” had installed bugs in Opus’s Rome headquarters in order to tape-record the conversations of visitors waiting to see him. I asked him how he knew.

“Because I helped him do it,” came the reply.

The Vatican refused to hear this priest’s testimony when Escrivá was being assessed for sainthood; conveniently, the role of Devil’s Advocate had been abolished. Of course, all saints had flaws. It’s just that you don’t expect them to share the same ones as Richard Nixon (a far more sympathetic character than Escrivá, in my book).

Anyway, the reason I’m bringing up Opus Dei is that this controversial organisation – comically misrepresented in The Da Vinci Code but still secretive and slippery – is planning to open two independent secondary schools in south-east England.

Or, to adopt the official party line, a group of parents, some of whom happen to belong to Opus Dei, are opening schools “inspired by the teachings” of St Josemaria. Hmm. Don’t get me wrong, Escrivá was undoubtedly holy, but he was also vain, a snob and a spiritual control freak. While some of his followers are exemplary Christians, the saturnine ethos of Opus bothers many Catholics, including some outstanding clergy.

A priest I know used to hear the confessions of primary school children at an Opus Dei school. “It was disturbing,” he told me. “I’d hear seven-year-olds riddled with adult scruples, worried that their disposition towards the sacrament wasn’t sufficiently pure and their sin wouldn’t be forgiven.”[https://opusfrei.org/show.php?id=360]

Wikipedia presents evidence that Opus Dei may be cult-like:

Opponents allege Opus Dei uses cult-like practices in recruitment. For instance, Jesuit priest and writer James Martin wrote that Opus Dei puts great emphasis on recruiting, and pointed to Escriva’s writings which say “You must kill yourselves for proselytism.”[55] David Clark, a consultant who specialises in helping people leave cults, claimed in 2006 that Opus Dei used a cult-like recruitment technique called “love bombing“, in which potential members are showered with flattery and admiration by members of the organization in order to entice them into joining.[56] The mother of a member at Harvard Universityclaimed the group separated her daughter from her family, and in 1991 founded Opus Dei Awareness Network, a group that aims to provide information and critique on the group’s practices. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_Opus_Dei]

The strange thing about supporters of the wealthy organization is that they come from both left-wing and right-wing Catholics such as Robert Royal and John Allen as well as others:

Messori, a journalist associated with Opus Dei, also identifies political ideology as the root of some controversies involving some Jesuits. After Vatican II certain sectors of the Church became politically and theologically “liberal,” including Jesuits in Latin America who were experimenting with “liberation theology.” In contrast, some Opus Dei laymen had been working for the far-right Franco regime in Spain and similar regimes in Latin America. Escrivá himself gave a spiritual retreat to Franco, and the numerary priest and bishop Juan Luis Cipriani Thorne was reportedly friendly with Peru’s president Fujimori and unsupportive of human rights advocates.[46][47][48] Messori emphasizes, however, that Opus Dei has also had members from left-wing parties such as the UK Labour Party (see Opus Dei and politics).

[… ] 

“Nothing attracts criticism like success,” says author Robert Royal, “In the seventy years since its founding, the Work has grown to almost eighty thousand members, over half in Europe, another third in the Americas, and the rest scattered throughout the world. As Vittorio Messori notes, this movement, which was once thought of as a pre-Vatican II fossil by progressives, has not only survived the heyday of progressive Catholic movements, but continues growing while the left in general, religious and lay, is shrinking.”

According to Time magazine, “church liberals, once riding high, have understood for decades that Rome does not incline their way. They feel abandoned, says John L. Allen Jr., ‘and whenever you feel that way, there’s a natural desire to find someone to blame.’” [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_Opus_Dei]
Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis’s Amoris Laetitia. 

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Stop for a moment of silence, ask Jesus Christ what He wants you to do now and next. In this silence remember God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost – Three Divine Persons yet One God, has an ordered universe where you can know truth and falsehood as well as never forget that He wants you to have eternal happiness with Him as his son or daughter by grace. Make this a practice. By doing this you are doing more good than reading anything here or anywhere else on the Internet.

Francis Notes:

– Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:

“[T]he Pope… WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.”
(The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)

Saint Robert Bellarmine, also, said “the Pope heretic is not deposed ipso facto, but must be declared deposed by the Church.”
[https://archive.org/stream/SilveiraImplicationsOfNewMissaeAndHereticPopes/Silveira%20Implications%20of%20New%20Missae%20and%20Heretic%20Popes_djvu.txt]

– “If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?”: http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2020/12/if-francis-is-heretic-what-should.html

– “Could Francis be a Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?”: http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2019/03/could-francis-be-antipope-even-though.html

 –  LifeSiteNews, “Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers,” December 4, 2017:

The AAS guidelines explicitly allows “sexually active adulterous couples facing ‘complex circumstances’ to ‘access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'”

–  On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:

“The AAS statement… establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense.”

– On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:

“Francis’ heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents.”

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church by the bishops by the grace of God.

Election Notes: 

– Intel Cryptanalyst-Mathematician on Biden Steal: “212Million Registered Voters & 66.2% Voting,140.344 M Voted…Trump got 74 M, that leaves only 66.344 M for Biden” [http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/intel-cryptanalyst-mathematician-on.html?m=1]

– Will US be Venezuela?: Ex-CIA Official told Epoch Times “Chávez started to Focus on [Smartmatic] Voting Machines to Ensure Victory as early as 2003”: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/will-us-be-venezuela-ex-cia-official.html– Tucker Carlson’s Conservatism Inc. Biden Steal Betrayal is explained by “One of the Greatest Columns ever Written” according to Rush: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/tucker-carlsons-conservatism-inc-biden.html?m=1 – A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020: 
http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/01/a-hour-which-will-live-in-infamy-1001pm.html?m=1 What is needed right now to save America from those who would destroy our God given rights is to pray at home or in church and if called to even go to outdoor prayer rallies in every town and city across the United States for God to pour out His grace on our country to save us from those who would use a Reichstag Fire-like incident to destroy our civil liberties. [Is the DC Capitol Incident Comparable to the Nazi Reichstag Fire Incident where the German People Lost their Civil Liberties?http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/is-dc-capital-incident-comparable-to.html?m=1 and Epoch Times Show Crossroads on Capitol Incident: “Anitfa ‘Agent Provocateurs‘”: 
http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/epoch-times-show-crossroads-on-capital.html?m=1
Pray an Our Father now for the grace to know God’s Will and to do it. SHARE

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The racialized civil strife of 2020-21, and indeed the entire woke and cancel-culture revolutions originated ultimately from campus fixtures who never suffer the real-life consequences of their abstractions. And meanwhile, China, the greatest threat that the United States has faced in 30 years, smiles at our universities’ importation of most of the bankrupt and suicidal ideas abroad, from Frankfurt School nihilism and Foucauldian postmodern relativism to Soviet sclerosis and Maoist cultural revolutionary suicide.

Ground Zero of Woke

Universities are making themselves not just disliked and

disreputable but ultimately irrelevant and replaceable.

By Victor Davis Hanson

American Greatness

October 24, 2021

(Emphasis added)

Many of our once revered and most hallowed institutions are failing us. To mention only the most significant ones: our top-ranking military echelon, the leadership of our federal investigatory and intelligence agencies, the government medical establishment—and of course the universities.

For too long American higher education’s reputation of global academic superiority has rested mostly on the sciences, mathematics, physics, technology, medicine, and engineering—in other words, not because of the humanities and social sciences, but despite them. The humanities have become too often anti-humanistic. And the social sciences are deductively anti-scientific. Both quasi-religious woke disciplines have eroded confidence in colleges and universities, infected even the STEM disciplines and professional schools, and torn apart the civic unity of the United States. Indeed, much of the current Jacobin revolution was birthed and fueled by American universities, despite their manifest hypocrisies and derelictions. 

Never in U.S. history have elite universities piled up such huge endowments, which soared during the lockdown. Harvard has $40 billion, Yale $30 billion, Stanford $28 billion, Princeton $25 billion and so on. The tax-free income from these huge sums ensures equally extravagant budgets that are somewhat insulated from market realities—at least in the sense that the larger endowments grew, the more likely university costs rose beyond the annual rate of inflation, and the greater aggregate student debt rose. 

Just as importantly, spending per pupil is rarely calibrated to whether graduating students leave better educated than when they arrived—the ostensible purpose of universities. 

There are certainly no “exit tests” for certification of the BA degree, in the manner of, say, a bar exam, that might set a minimum national standard for any acquisition of knowledge. Such standardized reassurance would rescue the BA degree from the growing general public perception that the campus has become politically warped, therapeutic, a poor measure of real knowledge, and is now largely a cattle brand of a sort that qualifies its holder for some sort of non-physical labor. 

The result over the last few years of this relatively new higher-education marriage of big money and radical ideas is a strange disconnect. On the one hand, never have elite (though often indebted) college students been so demanding of apartment-style dorm living, latte bars, and rock-climbing walls, while virtue signaling their compensatory proletariat bona fides.   

Never have universities been more able financially to subsidize and guarantee their own student loans. And yet they have outsourced that responsibility to federal guaranteed student loan programs. The result of that moral hazard of never being held accountable for rampant inflationary spikes in tuition, room, and board costs, is that universities over the last 30 years spent like drunken sailors on non-essentials: from diversity czars to in loco parentis therapeutic “centers” to Club Med accommodations—even as at the core test scores dived, grade inflation soared, and graduates increasingly did not impress employers. 

So, universities themselves are largely responsible for the current $1.7 trillion in aggregate student college debt. Such a staggering encumbrance is not just the concern of higher education, but affects the entire country in manifest ways, well aside from emboldening our global rivals and enemies. Even communist China is spending far more of their higher education budgets on the sciences, math, and liberal arts than therapeutics, social justice crusades, and diversity, equity, and inclusion audits.  

Students with tens of thousands of dollars in student loan obligations are likely to marry later, delay child rearing, cannot purchase a home in their 20s or even 30s, and more easily slide into prolonged adolescence. The country itself is experiencing a glut of the over- but not necessarily well-educated: history’s menu for radicalized and angry youth who feel they are properly credentialed with various letters after their names but suspect they lack the training and skills to enter the workforce, be productive, and earn commensurate good pay.  

There is also something terribly wrong about well-compensated tenured professors of the social sciences and humanities —whose own lives are conventionally materialist and bourgeoise — spooning out the usual radical race/class boilerplate to indebted students who in a sense have borrowed heavily to pay a large percentage of faculty salaries.  

Few of today’s woke 20-somethings will graduate with rigorous instruction in language, logic, and the inductive methods with a shared knowledge of literature, history, science, and math. At far less cost, they would likely find better online classes in those now ossified subjects than in the courses that they went into hock to finance. 

Never in U.S. history has the university been so at odds with not just the general pulse of America, but with its major traditions, institutions, and very Constitution. Most recently, Americans have been urged by university law schools and political science departments to eliminate the 233-year-old Electoral College, to pack the Supreme Court after 150 years of a nine-justice bench, to end the 180-year filibuster, to admit two new states to gain four progressive senators, and to question the constitutional cornerstone of two senators per state. 

It is chiefly the university that scolds Americans that their customs, traditions, and laws have little moral weight, that they are merely constructs reflecting “white supremacy,” detached from either a natural law common to all humans or customs carefully cross-examined and honed after decades and even centuries of use in the public square.  

Once abstract campus theorizing about open borders, hiring and admissions based on race, zero bail even for repeat felons, critical-legal-theory district attorneys, and Green New Deal energy policies have now all seeped out to warp the daily lives of Americans. 

Yet unlike free speech movements of the 1960s, in 2021 it is the university that now wars on the First Amendment, castigating unwelcome expression as “hate speech” if found inconvenient for its agendas.  

It is the university where the relevant amendments to the Constitution governing due process and confronting one’s accusers is jettisoned when the accused is of the wrong gender or race or both. It is the university that has renounced the legacy of the civil rights movement of the 1960s that once championed open housing, desegregation, and racially blind criteria.  

Instead, many colleges now allow students (at least those self-identified as “marginalized”) to pick their dormitory roommates on the basis of race, to declared certain areas of campus racially segregated “safe spaces,” and to discriminate in student admissions and faculty hiring. If Martin Luther King, Jr. were to return to Harvard, Yale, or Stanford and to repeat verbatim the speech I heard (at age 11) that he gave in 1965 at San Francisco’s Grace Cathedral, about equality, shared humanity, and the need to excel at whatever task one takes on, regardless of his station (“Be the best of whatever you are”), he would likely be jeered and derided as an integrationist and assimilationist. 

One final irony? From the university we hear calls to either end or reform radically our major institutions and cultural referents: recalibrate the First and Second Amendments, scrap the border, tear down that statue, rename this plaza, do away with existing classes of gender pronouns, heckle speakers, and destroy the lives of unwoke faculty. And yet from such critical faculty scolds, there is oddly zero self-criticism or indeed any self-reflection of their own shortcomings. 

ü Do academics ponder over why the reputations of their universities are eroding in the public mind? 

ü What exactly is the campus responsibility for graduating students with bleak job possibilities and unsustainable debt? 

ü Why is the clueless 21-year-old graduate now the stock joke of popular culture and comedy? 

ü How did the enlightened institutionalize a two-tier system of privileged tenured grandees resting on the backs of exploited contingent and part-time faculty?  

ü Why are critics of a supposedly non-transparent American society so secretive about their own admissions, hiring, and budgetary policies? 

ü And how did the locus of cheap anti-corporate boilerplate become so deeply reliant on siphoning corporate cash? 

The racialized civil strife of 2020-21, and indeed the entire woke and cancel-culture revolutions originated ultimately from campus fixtures who never suffer the real-life consequences of their abstractions. And meanwhile, China, the greatest threat that the United States has faced in 30 years, smiles at our universities’ importation of most of the bankrupt and suicidal ideas abroad, from Frankfurt School nihilism and Foucauldian postmodern relativism to Soviet sclerosis and Maoist cultural revolutionary suicide.

Unless the university itself is rebooted, its rejection of meritocracy, its partisan venom, its tribalism, its war with free speech and due process, and its inability to provide indebted students with competitive educations will all ensure that that it is not just disliked and disreputable but ultimately irrelevant and replaceable.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The nature of the current war in America and the world, being orchestrated by the reigning Technological and Pharmaceutical Oligarchies of the so-called New World Order is much different than previous wars we have fought. And the implications of failing to defeat the enemy are much greater because we are fighting the ultimate battle for God, family, and nation. 

 

Covid-19 and the Art of Brainwashing – Part I

 September 29, 2021  

By: Randy Engel 

Part IThe Dangers of Government Falsehoods: Background on Government Propaganda Machines 

Introduction

The danger of government lies, and the implications of official deception of whole peoples and nations, could not be more relevant than it is today when our God given natural rights and our Constitutional freedoms are systematically being ground into the dust under the guise of protecting the “public health” from Covid-19. 

In his 1928 classic Propaganda, Sigmund Freud’s nephew, Edward L. Bernays [1] explains approvingly of how governments, powerful corporations, and foundations are capable of manipulating and regimenting the public mind in all areas of life including war, politics, business, education, and medical science. 

According to Professor Mark Crispin Miller,[2] who wrote a new introduction to the Bernays masterpiece in 2004:

“Bernays (1891-1995) pioneered the scientific techniques of shaping and manipulating public opinion, which is called ‘engineering of consent.’ During World War I, he was an integral part – along with Walter Lippmann  of the U.S. Committee on Public Information (CPI), a powerful propaganda machine that advertised and sold the war to the American people as one that would ‘Make the World Safe for Democracy.’ The marketing strategies for all future wars would be based on the CPI model.”[3]   

The Existence of an Invisible Government

Writing in the 1920s, Bernays, an Austrian-American Jew, “the father of public relations,” gleefully acknowledged the reality of “invisible governors,” who rule the world and bring organization out of chaos to society:[4]

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. 

We are governed, our minds molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. …

Our invisible governors are, in many cases, unaware of the identity of their fellow members in the inner cabinet. 

They govern us by their qualities of natural leadership. Their ability to supply needed ideas, and by their key position in the social structure. …[5]

Of course, the most important factor Bernays initially leaves out is MONEY. After all, today’s contenders for domination in the New World Order – like Bill Gates or George Soros or Mark Zuckerberg – would be just another Tom, Dick, or Harry without their billions.

Later, however, Bernays does admit that “the invisible government tends to be concentrated in the hands of the few because of the expense of manipulating the social machinery which controls the opinions and habits of the masses.”[6]

WWI Created New Propaganda Techniques 

Bernays claims that: 

It was, of course, the astounding success of propaganda during the war that opened the eyes of the intelligent few in all departments of life to the possibilities of regimenting the public mind. The American government and numerous patriotic agencies developed a technique which, to most persons accustomed to bidding for public acceptance, was new. They not only appealed to the individual by means of every approach – visual, graphic, and auditory – to support the national endeavor, but they also secured the cooperation of the key men in every group – persons whose mere word carried authority to hundreds or thousands or hundreds of thousands of followers. They thus automatically gained the support of fraternal, religious, commercial, patriotic, social, and local groups whose members took their opinions from their accustomed leaders and spokesmen, or from the periodical publications which they were accustomed to read and believe. At the same time, the manipulators of patriotic opinion made use of the mental clichés and the emotional habits of the public to produce mass reactions against the alleged atrocities, the terror, and the tyranny of the enemy. IT WAS ONLY NATURAL, AFTER THE WAR ENDED, THAT INTELLIGENT PERSONS SHOULD ASK THEMSELVES WHETHER IT WAS POSSIBLE TO APPLY A SIMILAR TECHNIQUE TO THE PROBLEMS OF PEACE (emphasis added).[7]

Interestingly, Bernays states that the new dictatorship is not limited to government matters but embraces dictators in all fields of life including that of fashion. For example, he notes that Paris fashion leaders set the mode of the short skirt [worn by bob-haired flappers] for which, twenty years before, any woman would have simply been arrested and thrown into jail by the New York City police, and the entire women’s clothing industry, capitalized at hundreds of millions of dollars, must be reorganized to conform to their dictum.[8]

In his chapter, “The Psychology of Public Relations,” Bernays asks, “If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, is it not possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing about it?”[9]

Within certain limits and up to a certain point, Bernays answers in the affirmative. 

Citing the earlier studies of Wilfred Trotter and Gustave Le Bon on group psychology, which established that the “collective mind” differs from the “individual mind” or “consciousness,” Bernays affirms that “the group mind does not think in the strict sense of the word. In place of thoughts, it has impulses, habits, and emotions. In making up its mind, its first impulse is usually to follow the example of a trusted leader.”[10]

“But when the example of the leader is not at hand and the herd must think for itself, it does so by means of clichés, pat words, or images which stand for a whole group of ideas and experiences,” says Bernays.[11] “By playing upon an old cliché, or manipulating a new one, the propagandist can sometimes swing a whole mass of group emotions,” he says, adding that, “Usually, the individual mind will succumb to the will of the crowd.”[12]

Before Bernays moves on to explain how propaganda functions in specific departments of group activity including business, politics, education, social work, and the media, he states: 

I have tried to explain the place of propaganda in modern American life and something of the methods by which it operates – to tell the why, the what, the who and the how of the invisible government which dictates our thoughts, directs our feelings, and controls our actions.

A Different View of Government Propaganda

In war, Truth is the first casualty[13]

In 1928, the same year Bernays’ Propaganda was published, pacifist British MP, Arthur Ponsonby, issued his anti-propaganda classic Falsehood in War Time – Containing An Assortment of Lies Circulated Throughout The Nations During the Great War.[14] The modest-size book, available as a free PDF online, highlights major lies that were inflicted upon the hapless wartime civilian populations of the Allied Forces (Russia, France, Britain, and the United States) against the Central Powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Turkey, and Bulgaria) during the First World War. 

Ponsonby acknowledges in his introduction that falsehood is a recognized and extremely useful weapon in warfare, and every country used it quite deliberately including the Allied Forces and the Central Powers 1) to deceive its own people, 2) to attract neutrals 3) and to mislead the enemy. [15]

According to Ponsonby:

The ignorant and innocent masses in each country are unaware at the time that they are being misled, and when it is all over, only here and there are the falsehoods discovered and exposed. As it is all past history, and the desired effect has been produced by the stories and statements, no one troubles to investigate the facts and establish the truth.[16]

Ponsonby, however, does take the trouble to enumerate a number of British, French, American, and other Allied and Central Powers official wartime falsehoods including a number of atrocity fabrications like:

  • The Belgian Baby Without Hands  – That German soldiers were cutting off the hands of babies and children (and eating the parts), and impaling them on bayonets; and violating Belgium nuns, were popular themes of Allied propaganda.[17] When the reports were questioned by British members of Parliament, (and in the case of the violation of Catholic nuns investigated by the Vatican), no evidence was ever produced to support the charges against “the Huns.”  
  • The Crucifixion of a Canadian (or an American or a young naked girl) sometimes on a barn door – These reports were backed up by fellow soldiers even though there were no eyewitnesses. In the case of the Canadian officer said to be crucified near the Belgium town of Ypres, U.S. Army Commander General Peyton C. March later denied the story. However, on April 12, 1919, the U.S. magazine, Nation, published a letter from Royal West Kent Private E. Loader, who declared he had witnessed the crucifixion of the Canadian soldier. The letter was subsequently repudiated by Captain E. N. Bennett who wrote to the Nation, informing its editors that there was no such private on the rolls of the Royal West Kents, and that the 2nd Battalion was in India during the entire war.[18]
  • The Corpse Factory – On April 16, 1917, the British Times reported that Germany was chemically treating the dead bodies of its soldiers (and enemy soldiers) to 1) distill glycerin for the manufacture of munitions, 2) to provide fat for lubricating oils 3) and was grinding human bones into powder for mixing with pigs’ food and making fertilizer.[19]

To make sure the lie gained world-wide traction, the Crown and Parliament, both of which were well aware that the propaganda reports were ludicrous and absolutely false, remained silent, even when informed that the “Corpse Factories” were, in fact, factories for the disposal of dead carcasses of horses and other animals found on the battlefield.[20]

It was not until December of 1925 that the truth of the matter was finally admitted by Sir Austen Chamberlain KG[21], the half-brother of Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, who put the final nail in the propaganda coffin when he bluntly stated, “there was never any foundation for it [the rumour].”[22]

The Sinking of the Lusitania

Ponsonby’s report on the tragic sinking of the RMS Lusitania, a British ocean liner on route from New York City to Liverpool, England on May7, 1915, is especially instructive since the event provided “the necessary lever at last to bring America into the war.”[23] Americans were told that a German U-boat had torpedoed a defenseless passenger ship flying the American flag and bearing only civilian passengers and an ordinary cargo. 

Unfortunately, the “ordinary cargo,” consisted of thousands of cases of small arms ammunition, shrapnel shells, and brass percussion fuses weighing about 173 tons. The ship, which had been secretly financed by the British Admiralty and fitted for military service including gun mounts installed on her decks,[24] sank in a record 18 minutes killing 1,198 passengers and crew including 124 Americans. 

Had the Lusitania only carried “ordinary cargo,” it is estimated that time and circumstances would have permitted many of these victims to have survived and reach the Irish shore at Kinsale, instead of being blown to bits by the second ammunition explosion.[25]

However, the British and American propaganda Lusitania campaign that followed ensured that all the blame fell upon Germany, and on April 6, 1917, the United States declared war on Germany.

The reader will note that when Progressivist U.S. Senator Robert “Fighting Bob” La Follette (1906-1925) stated that the Lusitania carried munitions, he was threatened with expulsion from the U.S. Senate. The threat was withdrawn when Mr. Dudley Field Malone, collector at the port of NYC, confirmed that the ship carried a large munition cargo consigned to the British Government, saying he would testify in favor of Senator La Follette.[26] However, the Wilson administration refused to permit the publication of the facts.[27]  

U.S. Government Opens Propaganda Office 

As noted earlier, the U.S. Committee on Public Information (CPI) patterned itself after the British Crewe House propaganda machine headed by Alfred C.W. Harmsworth, later Alfred Lord Northcliffe, a British journalist and legendary newspaper magnate.[28]

The CPI, also known as the Creel Committee, named after its chairman, journalist George Creel, was the United States Government’s first official Office of Wartime Propaganda Machine.

“The frenzy with which the whole propaganda was conducted in America surpassed anything we experienced here [Britain],” Ponsonby says.[29]

Some atrocity fabrications, like the Germans giving poisoned candy to children to eat and live hand-grenades to play with, were so outrageous that General John Pershing, General of the Armies, who served as Commander of the American Expeditionary Forces on the Western Front during the Great War, issued a cablegram that instructed the U.S. War Department to  publicly disavow these stories which had no basis in fact.[30]

Similarly, Admiral William S. Sims, Commander of all U.S. Naval Forces in Europe, repudiated hideous U.S. news stories and movies promoted by the CPI against German submarine commanders. In a statement published by the New York Tribune in April 1923, Sims stated that “There exists no authentic report of cruelties ever having been committed by the commander or the crew of a German submarine. The Press reports about cruelties were only meant for propaganda purposes.”[31]

WWI War Ends, But Government Propaganda Machine Continues 

Unfortunately, as Bernays points out, why should Government kill a good thing for itself? 

And Ponsonby prophetically states, “… of course, we know that such clever propagandists are equally clever in dealing with us after the event as in dealing with the enemy at the time.”[32]

The CPI’s successor in WWII was the Office of War Information (OWI) promulgated by Executive Order 9182 under the Franklin D. Roosevelt Administration on June 13, 1942. The various propaganda departments of the OWI included the Foreign Information Service, Bureau of Intelligence, Psychological Warfare Branch, Book and Magazine Bureau, Extensive Surveys Division, Bureau of Public Inquiries, Bureau of Motion Pictures, and the Propaganda Intelligence Section, etc.[33]

The OWI was officially terminated on September 15, 1945, but was succeeded through the years till the present day by a litany of federal propaganda departments including the United States Information Service, the Office of Strategic Services, and the Central Intelligence Agency.[34]

Ponsonby’s final observations that:

War is fought in this fog of falsehood, a great deal of it undiscovered and accepted as truth. The fog arises from fear and is fed by panic (bold added). Any attempt to doubt or deny even the most fantastic story has to be condemned at once as unpatriotic, if not traitorous. This allows a free field for the rapid spread of lies.[35]

In wartime, failure to lie is negligence, the doubting of a lie a misdemeanor, the declaration of the truth a crime (bold added).[36]

In future wars we have now to look forward to a new and far more efficient instrument of propaganda – the Government control of broadcasting. Whereas, therefore, in the past we have used the word “broadcast” symbolically as meaning the efforts of the Press and individual reporters, in the future, we must use the word literally, since falsehood can now be circulated UNIVERSALLY, SCIENTIFICALLY, AND AUTHORITATIVELY (caps and bold added).[37]

There are some who object to war because of immorality, there are some who shrink from the arbitrament of arms because of its increased cruelty and barbarity; there are a growing number who protest this method, at the outset known to be unsuccessful, of attempting to settle international disputes because of its imbecility and futility. But there is not a living soul in any country who does not deeply resent having his passions roused, his indignation inflamed, his patriotism exploited, and his highest ideals desecrated by CONCEALMENT, SUBTERFUGE, FRAUD, FALSEHOOD, TRICKERY, AND DELIBERATE LYING ON THE PART OF THOSE IN WHOM HE IS TAUGHT TO REPOSE CONFIDENCE AND TO WHOM HE IS ENJOINED TO PAY RESPECT (caps and bold added).[38]

The Current Battle for Our Humanity

I don’t think the reader can find a better description of the current Government debacle surrounding the Coronavirus (Covid-19) “pandemic” than Ponsonby’s warning made almost 100 years ago.

The nature of the current war in America and the world, being orchestrated by the reigning Technological and Pharmaceutical Oligarchies of the so-called New World Order is much different than previous wars we have fought. And the implications of failing to defeat the enemy are much greater because we are fighting the ultimate battle for God, family, and nation. 

Indeed, what is at stake is what it means to be HUMAN! 

(To be Continued)


[1] Edward Bernays, Propaganda,  Horace Liveright Publishing,  NY., 1928. Original copy available online at https://archive.org/details/BernaysPropaganda/mode/2up

[2] Mark Crispin Miller is Professor of Media, Culture and Communication at New York University. See https://markcrispinmiller.com. The 2004 edition of Propaganda with Miller’s introduction, which this writer used,  is available at Amazon.com. As Miller notes, “Propaganda mainly tells us that Bernays’ true métier [job or occupation] was to help giant players with their various sales and image problems.” 

[3] Bernays, Propaganda,  commentary by Miller on back cover

[4] Ibid., p. 17.

[5] Ibid., p. 37.

[6] Ibid., p. 63.

[7] Ibid., p. 54-55.

[8] Ibid., p..61.

[9] Ibid., p. 71.

[10] Ibid., p. 73.

[11] Ibid., p. 74.

[12] Ibid.

[13] See In war, truth is the first casualty. – Quote (yourdictionary.com).

[14] PDF available at Falsehood In Wartime (World War 1) : Arthur Ponsonby : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive. This article uses the 1928 E.P. Dutton & Co., Inc., New York edition.

[15] Ibid., p.13

[16] Ibid.

[17] Ibid., pp. 78-82

[18] Ibid., pp. 91-93. 

[19] Ibid., pp. 102-113.

[20] Ibid., p. 105.

[21] The oldest British Order of Chivalry

[22] Ibid., pp.111-112.

[23] Ibid., pp. 121-125.

[24] See Remember the Lusitania: 3 pieces of World War I propaganda | National Museum of American History.

[25] Ponsonby, pp. 102-113.

[26] Ibid., pp. 122-123.

[27] Ibid., p. 122.

[28] See Secrets of Crewe House – Wikisource, the free online library.

[29] Ponsonby, p. 183

[30] Ibid., p.183

[31] Ibid., p. 185

[32] Ibid., p.17.

[33] See United States Office of War Information – Wikipedia.

[34] Ibid.

[35] Ponsonby, p.25-26.

[36] Ibid., p.27.

[37] Ibid., pp. 27-28.

[38] Ibid., p. 29.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

VACCINE FACTS THE MEDIA IGNORES, YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS !!!!

BuildingtheTruth.org Presents the founders weekly article.
COVID-19 Vaccine Facts Media IgnoresPart 4
         There are some very suspicious actions being done by government agencies and the media for such a long time that I have come to the point where I very rarely believe anything they say especially when it comes to the almighty vaxx. There are people that are in excellent health that get the ‘vaccine’ because they are forced to choose between feeding their families and protecting their health or their job. The side effects of this fake vaccine have been deadly for over 200,000 people1 which is surprising because after 50 people die from a vaccine, they stop using the vaccine. This ‘vaccine’ has killed more people than ALL deaths from all vaccines in our history combined. We’re not talking about a modest increase in death reports, something we might chat about in concerned voices over Chai tea and bagels at a company mixer. We’re talking about a huge and unprecedented increase—so massive that in the last 4 months alone, VAERS has received over 40% of all death reports it has ever received in its entire 30+year history. So massive it’s literally “off the chart.” The first chart in the pair below shows VAERS death reports from 2014 thru 2020. If you tried to add the 2021 data to it, it would be way, way off the chart. The second chart shows how much detail was lost when the 2021 data was squeezed in.2  But that number is only what they are willing to report. There was an article on the net a week ago that stated the CDC won’t count deaths of vaccinated as ‘vaccine deaths’ if they died after 14 days but that article has disappeared. Surprise, surprise.If the ‘vaccine’ is supposed to protect us then why do we have more deaths from the ‘vaccine’ than from the actual disease? In a span of one week, the number of deaths due to COVID-19 vaccines reported to the government’s database outnumbered the official count of deaths due to the virus.The government’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS, contains voluntary, unverified reports of adverse events following immunization with U.S.-licensed vaccines. But it’s estimated that only between 1% and 10% of the adverse events that occur are reported to VAERS.The Gateway Pundit noted VAERS reported 2,043 vaccine deaths in the week prior to July 7 compared to 1,505 COVID-19 deaths3We are seeing healthcare workers fired because they refuse to get the ‘vaccine’ and that has to get your attention. If the ‘vaccine’ was effective and worked, why wouldn’t they get the ‘vaccine’. The statistics I stated earlier are the reason. The ‘vaccine’ is more of a threat than the virus itself.  Jennifer Bridges loved her job as a nurse at Houston Methodist Hospital, where she worked for eight years, but she chose to get fired rather than inoculated against COVID-19, believing that the vaccine was more of a threat than the deadly virus.Bridges was among about 150 employees who were fired or resigned rather than comply with the requirement at Methodist, which was the country’s first large health system to mandate vaccinations. About 25,000 other employees at the hospital system complied.“I have never felt so strong about anything,” said Bridges, 39, who lives in Houston. She was terminated from her $70,000 per year post on June 21, the deadline for employees to get a jab. “I did not feel there was proper research in this shot. It had been developed very quickly.”4 When the healthcare workers won’t take the jab I’m sure not going to. By the way, have you noticed that there are no commercials for ‘vaccine’? The reason for that is in America you have to list the side effects. Death isn’t one of the best-selling points for a product. Add to that the fact that the CDC Director has even stated that the ‘vaccine’ will not prevent you from getting COVID even though that is supposed to be the purpose of a vaccine. CDC Director Rochelle Walensky said the COVID vaccine cannot prevent transmission during an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer:“So if you’re going home to someone who is not vaccinated…I would suggest you wear a mask in public indoor settings.”This is a bombshell because it raises the question of why there are vaccine mandates if the vaccine can’t prevent transmission. Why is the COVID vaccine being mandated for jobs or school? 5There are other sources for the results of this ‘vaccine’ that the media refuses to report on that prove that the ‘cure’ is worse than the disease. When this information comes out Big Tech bans it, takes it down, restricts access to it because it ‘violates community standards’. What it really does is exposes people to the truth. As the data continues to come in regarding the experimental COVID-19 shots, it is abundantly clear now that pretty much EVERYTHING the FDA and the CDC have told the public about these shots is a LIE!Dr. Gérard Delépine from France, whom we have featured often here at Health Impact News over the years, has just published a study based on public data from the countries with the highest vaccination rates that clearly shows that the COVID-19 shots are hospitalizing people and killing people at higher rates than countries who have adopted early treatment protocols without the use of vaccines.This is the biggest scam and cover-up in the history of the human race. The voices of the millions who have suffered injuries and deaths of loved ones are being censored in the corporate media and in Big Tech social media sites.Google this week purged many YouTube channels that contained much of this information that goes contrary to the corporate media, where channels that have been published for years just vanished overnight, including The National Vaccine Information Center, Dr. Joseph Mercola, Dr. Ron Paul, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and many others.The video of a well-known Trinidad Pastor, Marva Paschier, has gone viral this week as she mourns the death of her son just hours after he took the shot. She is crying and you can hear someone in the background also mourning and wailing.Facebook took down her video, but locally doctors and health officials are allegedly looking into the boy’s death.6With all the information that I have presented in this series, it is impossible to believe that what the government is doing is in ‘the best interest of the people’. It is for one thing only and that is to gain as much control over the American people as they can. You’ll notice that only the blue states and the states run by RINOs still demand masks, vaccine passports and are willing to go to lockdowns again. The red stats have the lowest number of covid cases and the better economies. I read the other day “Some say “If you just wear a mask, the state could open up sooner”. I say “If you just voted Republican, it wouldn’t be closed”. This exercise in socialism/communism is for attaining absolute control of us. They demand we get the ‘vaccine’, stay away from large gatherings, and don’t gather at church or sing if we do.  Democrat candidate for Governor of Virginia, Terry McAuliffe has stated that parents have no right to determine what their children are taught in public schools. Democrats want indoctrination, not education.It is time to stand up and demand ENOUGH! This is our country, our freedoms, and they are supposed to represent us not lord over us like they are trying to do. The balls in our court. We must decide which direction we will take America. Freedom or communism.Foot Notes1.    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/10/11/cnn-takes-another-stab-at-my-book.aspx2.   https://peckford42.wordpress.com/2021/05/27/the-deadly-covid-19-vaccine-coverup/3.   https://www.citizensjournal.us/report-more-vaccine-deaths-last-week-than-covid-19-deaths/  4.   https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2021/10/04/634961.htm5.   https://100percentfedup.com/cdc-director-drops-bombshell-vaccine-cant-prevent-transmission-why-have-mandates-video/  6.   https://vaccineimpact.com/2021/study-covid-19-vaccines-increase-deaths-and-hospitalizations-from-covid-19-based-on-analysis-of-most-vaccinated-countries/
©Roger Anghis
Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

THE POET ASKED THE THEOLOGIAN, ” ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT I SHOULD TAKE HOLY COMMUNION LIKE AN ASPIRIN?” THE THEOLOGIAN REPLIED, “YES, LIKE AN ASPIRIN!”

Taste and See that the Lord is Sweet: The Marvelous Effects of Holy Communion

 Nishant XavierOctober 22, 20210 Comments

Holy Communion is the Bread of Life, the Medicine of Immortality, the eternal pledge of God’s Infinite Love. The whole visible creation is as nothing at all compared to Jesus’ Real Presence among us in His Eucharist, which is truly and substantially His Body and His Blood, united to His Soul and His Divinity.

Holy Communion is the Fruit of the Tree of Life which is the Cross of Christ. In the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Heaven comes to Earth, the gates of Paradise are open to us, and the Sacrifice of Calvary is offered on our Altars. And the most precious Fruit of that adorable Sacrifice is the Holy Body and Precious Blood of Jesus Christ. By devoutly eating of the Fruit of this Tree, we inherit eternal Life.https://11c2ddb163ed7aabe24aa0a330da4ba4.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-38/html/container.html

Holy Communion devoutly received has three principal effects (1) the infusion of grace and corresponding increase in merit, (2) the remission of venial sins and a preservation from future mortal sin, and (3) the restoration of a deeper abiding union between Christ and our souls, that prepares us for everlasting union with Christ.

The First Effect of Holy Communion:
Increased Merit and Sanctifying Grace

For My flesh is meat indeed: and My blood is drink indeed. He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, abideth in Me, and I in him (Jn 6:55).

Our Lord promised us that we who are given the heavenly privilege to eat of His flesh or drink of His blood grow in Grace into an abiding, lasting union with Him.

In Fr. Michael Mueller’s must-read work, Blessed Eucharist: Our Greatest Treasure, Father explains the priceless value of the slightest degree of sanctifying Grace. If only we knew and appreciated the Treasure first Sacrificed to God, and then offered to us as the living Victim on our Altars! All the wealth of all the world is as a little dust before the Lamb of God in One Holy Communion!

The Holy Eucharist, then, differs from the other Sacraments in this, that while the other Sacraments bestow upon us one or another of the fruits of Christ’s merits, this gives us the grace and merits of our Saviour in their source. The soul, therefore, receives an immense increase of Sanctifying Grace at each Communion. Dear Christian, let us reflect upon this for a moment… St. Thomas tells us that the lowest degree of Sanctifying Grace is worth more than all the riches of the world. Think, then, of all the riches of this world! The mines of gold, of precious stones, the forests of costly wood, and all the hidden stores of wealth, for the least of which treasures the children of this world are willing to toil and struggle and sin for a whole lifetime. Again, consider that the lowest grace which a humble Catholic Christian receives at the rails of the sanctuary at dawn of day, before the great world is astir, outweighs all those riches.

But why do I draw my comparison from the things of this world?

St. Teresa, after her death, appeared to one of her sisters in religion and told her that all the Saints in Heaven, without exception, would be willing to come back to this world and to remain here till the End of Time, suffering all the miseries to which our mortal state is subject, only to gain one more degree of Sanctifying Grace and the eternal glory corresponding to it.(!)

The Divine Liturgy of St. James prays:

Let all mortal flesh be silent, and stand with fear and trembling, and meditate nothing earthly within itself:—For the King of kings and Lord of lords, Christ our God, comes forward to be sacrificed, and to be given for food to the faithful; and the bands of angels go before Him with every power and dominion, the many-eyed cherubim, and the six-winged seraphim, covering their faces, and crying aloud the hymn, Alleluia, Alleluia, Alleluia.

Let the example of the Angels inspire in us greater zeal and more rapt devotion when we assist at the Holy Sacrifice of the Altar before receiving Holy Communion

The Second Effect of Holy Communion:
The Remission of Venial Sins and Preservation

As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth Me, the same also shall live by Me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever (Jn 6:58-59).

Our Lord seems to connect regularly eating of His Flesh with overcoming sin, obtaining its remission and finally departing in the state of Grace. This is because, as the Council of Trent teaches us, as cited in a decree of Pope St. Pius X encouraging frequent Communion,

The desire of Jesus Christ and of the Church that all the faithful should daily approach the sacred banquet is directed chiefly to this end, that the faithful, being united to God by means of the Sacrament, may thence derive strength to resist their sensual passions, to cleanse themselves from the stains of daily faults, and to avoid these graver sins to which human frailty is liable… Hence the Holy Council calls the Eucharist ‘the antidote whereby we may be freed from daily faults and be preserved from mortal sin.’

Holy Communion is that Daily and Super-Substantial Bread [see Mt. 6:11, compared to Lk. 11:3 – panem nostrum supersubstantialem in the Vulgate] which Mother Church desires us to strive to live in such a way so as to receive daily. The Catechism of the Council of Trent cites St. Augustine in this regard, ‘St. Augustine, however, lays down a most certain norm: Live in such a manner as to be able to receive every day.’ …The words of St. Augustine, ‘Thou sinnest daily, receive daily,’ express not his opinion only, but that of all the Fathers who have written on the subject, as anyone may easily discover who will carefully read them. That there was a time when the faithful approached Holy Communion every day we learn from the Acts of the Apostles. All who then professed the faith of Christ burned with such true and sincere charity that, devoting themselves to prayer and other works of piety, they were found prepared to communicate daily.

And in the same Catechism, the remission of venial sins is mentioned as one of the proper effects of the Eucharist,

It cannot be doubted that by the Eucharist are remitted and pardoned lighter sins, commonly called venial. Whatever the soul has lost through the fire of passion, by falling into some slight offence, all this the Eucharist, cancelling those lesser faults, repairs, in the same way (­­not to depart from the illustration already adduced) as natural food gradually restores and repairs the daily waste caused by the force of the vital heat within us. Justly, therefore, has St. Ambrose said of this heavenly Sacrament: ‘That daily bread is taken as a remedy for daily infirmity. But these things are to be understood of those sins for which no actual affection is retained.’ It is of the utmost importance that they who purpose and resolve to love and be devoted to Jesus Christ in His Sacrament of Infinite Love aim, at least by degrees, to give up all attachment to sinful living.

The Most Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist therefore, received devoutly, infuses graces, remits venial sins, and gives strength to overcome future mortal sins.

The Third Effect of Holy Communion:
Deeper Union with Christ

Our Lord goes so far as to threaten us that eating of His Flesh is necessary for salvation, and that therefore they who neglect this have no good hope of eternal Life.

Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day (Jn. 6:54-55).

On the contrary, he who regularly – and reverently (i.e. kneeling and on the tongue) – receives the Body of Jesus Christ is virtually assured of obtaining final perseverance, complete sanctification and full Theosis, and thus, everlasting Life.

St. Alphonsus tells us,

The Communion is called the bread of heaven; because as the body cannot live without earthly food, so the soul cannot live without this celestial bread. Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you (John, vi, 54). But on the other hand, to those who frequently eat this bread, is promised eternal life. If any man eat of this bread he shall live forever (John, vi, 52). Hence the Council of Trent calls the Communion a medicine which delivers us from venial, and preserves us from mortal sins (Sess. 13, cap. 2).

There is no safer, surer, sweeter and shorter path to Heaven than frequent Communion! Only, we must take the utmost care, to confess our sins regularly, and immediately upon being conscious of mortal sin; to approach the Heavenly Altar with the utmost reverence, with holy fear and trembling, and infinite gratitude.

Let us remember to spend some time, at least half an hour after Mass, in thanksgiving. All of eternity is not enough to thank the God Who has loved us so much, that being a Prisoner of His Infinite Goodness, He wishes to remain with us forever, in the Most Blessed Sacrament of His Eucharist. The word Eucharist literally means Thanksgiving. Let us give thanks for It!

Art by Michael HarrisonSubscribe to receive this calendar for the whole family.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

SEDEVANCANTISM IS A POTENT VIRUS, GUARD AGAINST IT

OnePeterFive

Rebuilding Catholic Culture. Restoring Catholic Tradition.

I was a Sedevacantist and an Enthusiast

 Jeremiah Bannister

October 23, 2021

If Monsignor Ronald Knox is correct, as I contend he is, then, “there is a recurrent situation in Church history—using the word ‘church’ in the widest sense—where an excess of charity threatens unity.” It’s the classic double-edged sword of otherwise good folks taking an otherwise pious proposition or practice a tad too far. To his great merit, Knox goes to great pains (in his 591-page magnum opus, Enthusiasm: A Chapter in the History of the Church) to show how this often cuts both ways. “More and more, by a kind of fatality, you see [the enthusiast] draw apart from their co-religionists, a hive ready to swarm.” Sadly, subsequent provocations occur.

On the one part, cheap jokes at the expense of over-godliness, acts of stupid repression by unsympathetic authorities; on the other, contempt of the half-Christian, ominous references to old wine and new bottles, to the kernel and the husk. Then, while you hold your breath and turn away your eyes in fear, the break comes; condemnation or secession, what difference does it make? A fresh name has been added to the list of Christianities.

It’s as if the only thing both sides could agree on was that the stroll toward schism should be super-charged into a full-blown arms race, transforming disagreements into divisions… and divisions into All Out War!

As Knox rightly notes, this pattern is recurrent, playing itself out time and time again, always running its course like a sort of simulation. Such was true of the Montanists, the Quakers, the Jansenists, and the Quietists, even of modern revivalists, as well as the madmen reveling in the creative destruction of the schisms that so plagued the underbelly of medieval history. But it’s not as though there weren’t any warning signs, and we never lacked saints, pleading, “Please, Stop! DANGER ZONE Ahead!” It’s true, cautionary tales may have been few and far between for the folks in First Century Corinth, but antinomianism ain’t nothin’ new. And while Luther may have drawn his detestable line at Worms, discontents & rigoristas have had Worms in the brain and enthusiasm in their veins ever since Eve was beguiled in the Garden. It’s tempting, I suppose, to see oneself as a dime-store prophet, weeping over a world being whisked away in a handbasket on the fast-track to the fires of hell—and all the more (as luck – or convenience – would always seem to have it) when you happen to be safe and sound on holy ground, enjoying the celestial company of the saints and martyrs.

What happens, though, when that “world” includes Holy Mother Church? Such has been the charge of many a naysayer decrying doctrinal and disciplinary development, but I contend that this temperament and tendency holds no less true today than it did in the times of the traditores. Daring to dance where others dread to forge ahead, I claim that, if he were still alive today, Msgr. Knox would feel compelled to add a few new chapters to his tome, not least of which would be the sensational drama of the schismatic system of sedevacantism.

After all, sedevacantism has the mixings, bearing the hallmarks of a moment made into a movement, and movement made into a mood, and a mood gone mad by enthusiasm. Its adherents have said and done the darndest things, advancing propositions and enacting positions that would have incurred the (incontrovertibly traditional) ire of inquisitors. And lest I be accused of misreading or misunderstanding the movement, grant me an indulgence permitting me to both give and take credit where it’s due.

Long ago, in a place far, far away, I was a sedevacantist. It was during the heyday of dinosaurs like Xanga & Myspace, and YouTube was still years away from witnessing the advent of Dr. Taylor Marshall and Steve Skojec. Plus, neither universities nor now-popular lay apostolates had a significant presence on the platform, so the landscape was fertile for folks like me, already cranking out vlogs and blogs, highlight videos from my local TV show, and segments from my AM/FM radio program, PaleoRadio. I didn’t begin as a sedevacantist—no one ever does—but as a Protestant-pastor-turned-Catholic-lay-apologist, I had a story. And by the time I became a contributing editor at Distributist Review, I’d already established a burgeoning brand. So it was startling, even scandalous when I announced (on Ash Wednesday, with a crux smudged across my forehead) that I had embraced sedevacantism. The reaction was intense, and it didn’t take long before the views on my videos (both for and against sedevacantism) were rivaled only by the likes of the incorrigible Dimond Brothers and the now-notorious Most Holy Family Monastery.

It was doubly tragic, too, since certain saintly men and women tried so hard to stop me. They cared for me, followed my work for years, and they had fallen in love with my family, but they weren’t blind, and they saw the writing on the walls, worrying that it wouldn’t be long before we’d turn and walk away, maybe never to be seen again. One of these, my priest at St. Mary’s in Kalamazoo, Michigan, went so far as to pull me aside, inviting me into the sacristy, where he handed me a big yellow book.

“This is my copy,” he said, “and I know some of it might feel obscure…” Then he paused, looked at me, and with love in his heart and worry in his eyes, he said, “… but I think you need to read this, Jeremiah.”

Suffice it to say, I was too far gone to hear him that day, so that big yellow book just sat there, collecting dust in my office library.

The year that followed was one of fervent fanaticism. First, my family started attending The Most Holy Rosary Catholic Church in Middleville, Michigan. It was small, belonged to the CMRI, and it was populated by only a few faithful families, but they were sedevacantist, and it was only about an hour drive from our home in Battle Creek. There was something nostalgic, too, about the experience. It was quaint, which was comforting, especially since the people there could relate to having endured the grind resulting from one’s decision to quit communion with the so-called Conciliar (aka Counterfeit) Church. We lost friends, and family members were turned off by our quirky radicalism – a few of them even wondered whether we’d lost our minds. Honestly, they might have been right, but I lost much more than my mind! My YouTube followers were heading for the hills, TV viewers were turning the channel, and readers were flipping to other pages. I even resigned from my post at Distributist Review, and speaking opportunities were now a thing of the past. All those years… all that work… all that progress… gone. But we made the call, took our stand, and we were determined to stay the course.

Things weren’t as they appeared, though. It wasn’t that the people were bad—they were our friends!—but there was something mysterious, even cryptic, underlying all the antiquarianism. Without wishing to press the parallel too far, there existed a kind of underbelly, and the feeling of its presence reminded me of the opening sequence of David Lynch’s Blue Velvet, where, deep beneath its plush green grass, white picket fence, and rows of red roses, lay a world of chaos and creeping things. That’s a director’s trick, though, and people aren’t born with x-ray vision, so this sort of thing doesn’t just appear all at once, especially when you’re bedazzled by the spectacle (and paralyzing passions) of the sede scene. Still, it was there and, bit by bit, we began to see the fallacies – and the reality of schism – that lay beneath the surface of the system.

It wasn’t the weird debates over whether Star Wars was a means for George Lucas to peddle New Age nonsense or whether Catholics should listen to anything other than chant and classical music. And it wasn’t the weirdos contending that Twilight wasn’t just poorly-written fiction, it also crossed an age-old line regarding the “true nature and activities” of actual vampires. Heck, it wasn’t even the fact that our priest worried that the Vatican had possibly sent shills to infiltrate our assemblies. Sure, that stuff got pretty wacky, and there was an air of conspiracy about the joint, but we were living on the fringe, so it’s sorta par for the course. No, it was the fact that sedevacantism had, as many -isms do, metamorphosed. It wasn’t really about an argument over vacant chairs. That was how it started, but time happened, systems emerged, and sectarianism ensued…

In short: “… fresh names had been added to the list of Christianities.”

I wouldn’t read Knox’s book for another 10 years, seven of which were spent as an apostate in the cesspool of secular atheism, but I saw what Knox spoke of, and I understood what he meant. I didn’t just understand it, I believed it. More than that, I lived it… and insofar as I lived it, I killed my faith. And if that wasn’t bad enough, my decision resulted in starving my wife and children of the sacraments.

Believe me, then, when I say that, whatever else one may think of the sedes and their thesis, faithful Catholics in communion with Rome would be remiss not to note Knox’s hallmarks of enthusiasm, all of which are at play for the sedes and their system:

  1. Otherwise decent people* taking otherwise good things too far…
  2. More and more, they’re drawn apart from co-religionists…
  3. Provocations begin to happen on both sides…
  4. Condemnation or secession/schism…
  5. For the sect, the Church “unchurched” itself…
  6. This leads to End Times speculation – they’re the remnant…
  7. Leaders arise, divisions begin, resulting in schism after schism…
  8. Inter-sectarian efforts to “Unite!” arise…
  9. Inevitably fail, paralyzed by presuppositions…
  10. The sect continues unabated—failure becomes them…
  11. Laypeople leave, cynical, crushed by the Herculean Sede System…

*I avoid including clerics because enthusiastic sects are almost always hyper-laicized, bordering on a fully-leveled order. This is equally true – no pun intended – of sedevacantists, who tend to be low- to moderately-educated lower-middle-class laypeople. Granted, many of them become rabid autodidacts, but they almost always exhibit a tremendous lack of (and even disdain for) balance. This is par for the course of enthusiasm… and it’s predictable as the morning sun.

Together, these form a system, a system of underlying presuppositions, presuppositions that comprise a paradigm, and a paradigm doomed to the life- and death-cycles of creative destruction, both within and without the confines of the cult: as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, schism without end. This is why I’m so pessimistic about traditional methods often employed in apologetic endeavors aimed to dissuade the potential defector, and it’s why I believe so many people struggle to persuade the petulant sede stuck in the rut of trolling trads on Twitter. It’s not an exercise in vanity per se, but the same could be said of running around in circles. But I don’t think it has to be this way, not if we learn from the likes of St. Francis de Sales, who tended to prefer uprooting systems by their roots than to play the game of piecemeal apologetics, scampering around like Edward Scissorhands, trimming trees of heresy, going claim-by-claim, clipping twigs and pruning fruit.

Unsurprisingly, Knox refers to St. Francis de Sales time and time again throughout the book, finding in his temperament and gentle admonitions a kind of salve able to soothe the beast of enthusiasm. I go even further, though, contending that de Sales’ apologetic method in The Catholic Controversy: A Defense of the Faith, provides a blueprint for the most effective means of dealing with discontents like the sedevacantists. I know, it was written for Catholics-turned-Calvinist in 16th Century Geneva, but his efforts to re-evangelize prodigals resulted in nearly 72,000 schismatics returning to Rome sweet home. Something is fitting, too, isn’t there, about this method being found in a book, entitled, The Catholic Controversy: A Defense of the Faith? And, hey, just playing by the numbers, 72,000 might be more than that total number of sedes on the planet.

So, then, how should St. Francis de Sales’ Defense of the Faith influence our New Re-Evangelization efforts toward the sedevacantists? Well, that will be the focus of my follow-up to this article…

Photo by Jean Vella on Unsplash.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Jeremiah Bannister

Jeremiah Bannister is a writer, YouTuber, and public speaker. After serving in the U.S. Navy, he earned a degree in Journalism & Mass Communication, with a minor in Political Science, from Olivet College (Michigan), where he was awarded the school’s top-honor in three specialties: creative writing, political science, and public speaking. Since then, he has hosted a local TV show, served as a contributing editor for the Distributist Review, and hosted a live AM/FM talk radio program (PaleoRadio). Jeremiah has presented before audiences at Michigan State University, Ferris State University, and Campellsville University. He currently hosts Paleocrat Diaries LIVE on Meaning of Catholic, which airs every Wednesday and Friday morning at 10 a.m. EST on MoC’s YouTube channel. To learn more about his work or to schedule an interview/event, contact him at PaleocratDiaries@gmail.com.

  • 61Shares
  • 61
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

GOD SAVE AMERICA FROM THE MACHINATIONS OF THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS





Subject:  ILLEGAL SAFE HOUSE ILLEGAL SAFE HOUSE A disturbing discovery was recently made in Scottsdale, Arizona.

A reporter for The Gateway Pundit (TGP) received an interesting tip-off. Here’s what he found.
On Monday night, TGP’s Jordan Conradson investigated the Homewood Suites in Scottsdale, Arizonaafter receiving a tip that it was an illegal immigrant safe house. The hotel is located at 9880 N Scottsdale Rd.  When Conradson arrived at the hotel, every entrance was barricaded, and he had to park down the street. He walked up to the hotel and greeted some officers.
This is incredible. There’s a safe house for illegal immigrants being secretly maintained without our knowledge – until now.
Conradson did some digging.
Conradson: what’s going on here?
LES Officer: You actually need to leave the property it’s actually a closed hotel.
Conradson: Oh, so what’s going on?
LES Officer: This is a private property man.
Conradson: But what’s going on?
LES Officer:  If you want to get information for that you need to go to endeavors.org.
Conradson: I heard that they were harboring illegal immigrants here. Is that true?
LES Officer: You can go to the endeavors.org website and they’ll give you as much information as they can.
Conradson: Who do you work for?
LES Officer: I’m contracted with LES, it’s a law enforcement contract service company.
Conradson: Why aren’t people allowed on the premises?
LES Officer: You can go to endeavors.org to get information for that other than that this is closed this is private property from the company that’s here.

Guess what the story behind Endeavors is…
ENDEAVORS.ORG is the website for Family Endeavors, a San Antonio nonprofit tied to the Biden administration. They received an $87 million no-bid contract in March to clothe and shelter illegal immigrants. They then received ANOTHER contract for $530 MILLION shortly after.

It’s all been masterminded by the Biden Administration right under the noses of Americans living in Scottsdale.
But there’s more.
A Selrico Services food van pulled out of the parking lot.  Selrico is a food service company that is also based in San Antonio. They must be contracted to provide food for those in this country illegally.

So not only are these illegal aliens being housed at taxpayer expense, they’re being fed at our expense too!
They get all this free and then we’re sent the bill through taxation. 
Conradson wanted to find out who specifically was organizing all this Note the parts in bold.
Conradson called the local police station since he could not get any answers from the representatives at the hotel.
Conradson: I would like to know what is going on at the Homewood Suites on Scottsdale Rd. and Mountainview. Do you have any information about what’s going on there?
Dispatcher: Nothing outside of the fact that it’s being monitored by ICE and that we have police presence there from other agencies 24/7.
Conradson: Who is managing the hotel?
Dispatcher: I don’t have that information exactly
Conradson: But ICE is in there 24/7?
Dispatcher: Yeah, it’s being monitored by them and outside agencies.
Conradson: Do you know what the outside agencies are?
Dispatcher: I think it’s just a mix of all Arizona state agencies.
Conradson: Are they communicating with you on how many people they’re bringing into Scottsdale, into the hotel?
Dispatcher: I don’t have any specifics on it
Conradson: Where do I find more information?
Dispatcher: You could try to look up any of the ICE numbers online and see if they give any further.
Conradson: Do you have any information on exactly what’s going on? I mean obviously, they’re harboring illegal immigrants, but do you know anything else?
Dispatcher: No we don’t have any further.

The Deep State inside Arizona is a part of this, and so is ICE and the police. It’s all one unified effort to keep this a secret from the American people. Here’s exactly what is at stake.
This is atrocious. Over 600 MILLION DOLLARS are funding this operation to flood red counties with illegal residents and brand new Democrat voters, and it’s costing the taxpayers money and it’s putting the American people in DANGER. Instead of protecting American citizens, officers are being paid by our tax dollars to protect non-citizens who are invading our communities.

The globalist elites who govern this country are attempting to change the population so that it votes in the way that they prefer. They don’t care about any of the Americans currently living here, they just want to replace them with people from other countries. And they’re doing their best to keep it under wraps.
So SHARE THIS ARTICLE FAR AND WIDE TO  RAISE AWARENESS ABOUT WHAT THEY’RE DOING AND LET’S HOPE WE CAN PUT A STOP TO THIS!   I hope you read this article completely. These are our tax dollars going to waste…so the Democrats can get more votes

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

IF IT IS TRUE THAT ONLY GOD CAN JUDGE A POPE , PRAY TO GOD THAT HE JUDGE Jorge Bergolio SOON

THE CATHOLIC MONITOR

SEARCH

Flashback: “Cautious” Voris’ Opinion vs. Two Doctors of the Church & an Medieval French King 

Shameful: Church Militant Continues To Falsely Defame Buffalo Priest

Church Militant Michael Voris’ opinion is: 

“No member of the laity can sit in judgment over a pope. Only God judges the pope. And then when the man who was pope dies and is no longer pope, a future pope can judge him and declare him an anti-pope. If others want to venture into those waters ahead of a future pope, you go right ahead, but I would greatly caution you spiritually.” [https://www.churchmilitant.com/video/episode/vortex-enemies-of-the-pope]

Is Voris’ opinion true? 

Cardinal Raymond Burke showed in an 2016 interview with the Catholic World Report that he knew the teaching of Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales:

[T]he Pope… when he is explicitly a heretic… falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.”
(The Catholic Controversy by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)

Cardinal Raymond Burke in the interview responded to the Voris opinion. 

In the interview, Burke said: 



“CWR: Can the pope legitimately be declared in schism or heresy?”

“Cardinal Burke: ‘If a Pope would formally profess heresy he would cease, by that act, to be the Pope. It’s automatic. And so, that could happen… ‘”

“… CWR: Who is competent to declare him to be in heresy?”

“Cardinal Burke: ‘It would have to be members of the College of Cardinals.'”
(Catholic World Report, “No, I am not saying that Pope Francis is in heresy,” December 19, 2016)

Is Francis possibly in “explicit”  heresy?It appears to me that Francis explicitly “contradict[ed] traditional Catholic teaching on divorce and remarriage” when he in a “official act as the pope” placed the Argentine letter in the the Acts of the Apostolic See (AAS)  in which he said of the Buenos Aires region episcopal guidelines:

“There is no other interpretations.”
The guidelines explicitly allows according to LifeSiteNews “sexuality active adulterous couples facing ‘complex circumstances’ to ‘access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'”(LifeSiteNews, “Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers, December 4, 2017)
In a article on OnePeterFive, specialist in Magisterial authority Dr. John Joy said “It means that it is an official act of the pope.” 
Moreover, the article said:
“Dr. Joy pointed out that adding the letter to the AAS could, in fact, damage the credibility of Amoris Laetitia by potentially removing the possibility that it could be intercepted in an orthodox way, via its publication in the official acts of the Apostolic See, that the unorthodox interpretation is the official one.”(OnePeterFive, “Pope’s Letter on Argentinian Communion Guidelines for Remarriage Given Official Status,” December 2, 2017)
The “official act of” Francis is a “unorthodox interpretation.”
It doesn’t just seem to contradict traditional Catholic teaching.
The “official act of the pope” is a “unorthodox interpretation” which means it contradicts traditional Catholic teaching which is just another way of saying by “official act the pope” is teaching heresy.
Now, let us quote, one of the intellectual giants in the Church in the United States, philosopher Edward Feser:
“(1) Adulterous sexual acts are in some special circumstances morally permissible… these propositions flatly contradict irreformable Catholic teaching. Proposition (1) contradicts not only the perennial moral teaching of the Church, but the teaching of scripture itself.”(Edwardfeser.blogspot, “Denial flows into the Tiber,” December 18, 2016) 
 Moreover, the Medieval Pope John XXII when he taught heresy on a relatively minor point on when people received the beatific vision (unlike what appears to be quite a major sacrilegious heresy of Communion for adulterers) was issued a correction and warning by a lay French king.

The French King Philippe de Valois, a “member of the laity,” not being cautious and timid like Voris wasn’t afraid to issue a correction against heresy with a warning:

“Philippe de Valois… threatened  John XXII with burning at the stake, as a heretic.”
(On History: Introduction to the History (1831),  By Jules Michelet, Page 126)

If King de Valois were alive today would he with a correction have “threatened” Francis for his Communion for adulterers heresy “with burning at the stake, as a heretic” unlike the cautious Voris? Next, is Voris right that only a “future pope can judge… him [Francis] an anti-pope”?
Is it possible for someone to be an antipope even though the majority of cardinals claim he is pope according to Doctor of the Church St. Bernard?

The case of Antipope Anacletus II proves that it is possible for a majority of cardinals to claim a man is pope while he, in reality, is a antipope.
In 1130, a majority of cardinals voted for Cardinal Peter Pierleone to be pope. He called himself Anacletus II. He was proclaimed pope and ruled Rome for eight years by vote and consent of a absolute majority of the cardinals despite the fact he was a antipope.

In 1130, just prior to the election of antipope Anacletus, a small minority of cardinals elected the real pope: Pope Innocent II.

How is this possible?

Doctor of the Church St. Bernard of Clairvaux  said “the ‘sanior pars’ (the wiser portion)… declared in favor of Innocent II. By this he probably meant a majority of the cardinal-bishops.”(St. Bernard of Clairvaux by Leon Christiani, Page 72)
Again, how is this possible when the absolute majority of cardinals voted for Anacletus?

Catholic historian Warren Carroll explains:
“[C]anon law does not bind a Pope arranging for his successor… [Papal Chancellor] Haimeric proposed that… a commission of eight cardinals should be selected to choose the next Pope… strong evidence [shows] that the Pope [Honorius] endorsed what Haimeric was doing, including the establishment of the electoral commission [of eight cardinals].”(The Glory of Christendom, Pages 36-37)
The majority or “sanior pars,” five cardinals out of eight of “the electoral commission,” elected Pope Innocent II as St. Bernard said and as evidence shows was the will of the previous pope in what we can call a constitution for the election of his successor.

In the same way, is it possible that Francis was not elected pope even though he received a absolute majority of cardinals votes and is now as in the case of Anacletus proclaimed pope by the same absolute majority?

As with the case of Anacletus, it is possible Francis is a antipope if his election contradicted or violated the constitution promulgated by Pope John Paul II for electing his successor. Renown historian Carroll explicitly says that what matters in a valid papal election is not how many cardinals claim a person is the pope. What is essential for determining if someone is pope or antipope is the “election procedures… [as] governed by the prescription of the last Pope”:

“Papal election procedures are governed by the prescription of the last Pope who provided for them (that is, any Pope can change them, but they remain in effect until they are changed by a duly elected Pope).” 

“During the first thousand years of the history of the Papacy the electors were the clergy of Rome (priests and deacons); during the second thousand years we have had the College of Cardinals.”

“But each Pope, having unlimited sovereign power as head of the Church, can prescribe any method for the election of his successor(s) that he chooses. These methods must then be followed in the next election after the death of the Pope who prescribed it, and thereafter until they are changed. A Papal claimant not following these methods is also an Antipope.”

“Since Antipopes by definition base their claims on defiance of proper Church authority, all have been harmful to the Church, though a few have later reformed after giving up their claims.” 
[http://www.ewtn.com/library/homelibr/antipope.txt]   Finally, is there evidence that a “a campaign beforehand” might have invalidated the “[Francis] conclave”?

Patrick Coffin on his YouTube show asked Cardinal Raymond Burke is it possible that evidence might invalidate the “[Francis] conclave”:

“I was wondering rather if those rules [of the 2013 conclave that elected Francis] were violated and rather or not the whole election of Francis may be invalid. Is there any foundation for that speculation?”

Cardinal Burke answered:

“The only grounds that could be used for calling into question the validity of the election would be were the election organized by a campaign beforehand which is strictly forbidden and that would be difficult to demonstrate…”

“… If these persons [the gay lobby St. Gallen Mafia cardinals] engaged in a active campaign first to undermined Pope Benedict XVI and at the same time to engineer the election of someone [Francis] then that could be a argument. I don’t think I have the facts, and there have to be facts, to prove that. That’s all I have to say about that.”
(Patrick Coffin show, “141: Dubia Cardinal Goes on the Record – Raymond Cardinal Burke (Free Version),” Premiered 13 hours ago, 19:55 to 21:46)

Coffin about a minute later said “Bishop Henry Rene Gracida… has written a Open Letter to the cardinals saying only a imperfect synod could be called and resolve this.”

My question to Cardinal Burke is:

Why would proving that the gay lobby St. Gallen Mafia “undermined Pope Benedict XVI and at the same time engineer[ed] the election of someone [Francis]” be “very difficult to demonstrate”?

The leftist Fittipaldi who considers Francis a man of “courage” says the Vatican gay lobby is “often composed” of “conservatives” who apparently “campaigned” to cause Pope Benedict XVI to resign with the “war of documents” that was Vatileaks:

“The story of the gay lobby has… importance in the Vatileaks and the dismissal of Pope Ratzinger… He destroyed the careers of those who were with them. To stop this group, a group of supporters of Ratzinger began to issue a series of documents, which was called Vatileaks. [Para travar este grupo, um grupo de apoiantes de Ratzinger começou a fazer sair uma série de documentos, a que se chamou Vatileaks 1.] I can say this shock, this war of [Vatileaks] documents led to the end of Ratzinger.”

“… [T]hey [the gay lobby] are often composed of the most conservative men in the Church. It is a paradox, but it is so. Certainly the doctrine [against homosexuality] has not been changed because the conservative homosexual and heterosexual world is in the majority. Francis, from this point of view, is considered a heretic. In this I very much support the courage of Francis, a visionary courage, because if the Church does not change and does not open to the world, it risks entering into an irreversible crisis.” 

“… Ratzinger made… war against pedophilia… [h]e just started and resigned.”
 (Comunidadeculturaearte.com, “Emiliano Fittipaldi: For Francis paedophilia is a secondary issue,” October 20, 2017) [[https://www.comunidadeculturaearte.com/emiliano-fittipaldi-para-francisco-a-pedofilia-e-uma-questao-secundaria/]

[https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2020/08/timid-rabbit-voris-opinion-vs-two.html: 

Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis’s Amoris Laetitia. 

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Stop for a moment of silence, ask Jesus Christ what He wants you to do now and next. In this silence remember God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost – Three Divine Persons yet One God, has an ordered universe where you can know truth and falsehood as well as never forget that He wants you to have eternal happiness with Him as his son or daughter by grace. Make this a practice. By doing this you are doing more good than reading anything here or anywhere else on the Internet.

Francis Notes:

– Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:

“[T]he Pope… WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.”
(The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)

Saint Robert Bellarmine, also, said “the Pope heretic is not deposed ipso facto, but must be declared deposed by the Church.”
[https://archive.org/stream/SilveiraImplicationsOfNewMissaeAndHereticPopes/Silveira%20Implications%20of%20New%20Missae%20and%20Heretic%20Popes_djvu.txt]

– “If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?”: http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2020/12/if-francis-is-heretic-what-should.html

– “Could Francis be a Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?”: http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2019/03/could-francis-be-antipope-even-though.html

 –  LifeSiteNews, “Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers,” December 4, 2017:

The AAS guidelines explicitly allows “sexually active adulterous couples facing ‘complex circumstances’ to ‘access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'”

–  On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:

“The AAS statement… establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense.”

– On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:

“Francis’ heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents.”

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church by the bishops by the grace of God.

Election Notes: 

– Intel Cryptanalyst-Mathematician on Biden Steal: “212Million Registered Voters & 66.2% Voting,140.344 M Voted…Trump got 74 M, that leaves only 66.344 M for Biden” [http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/intel-cryptanalyst-mathematician-on.html?m=1]

– Will US be Venezuela?: Ex-CIA Official told Epoch Times “Chávez started to Focus on [Smartmatic] Voting Machines to Ensure Victory as early as 2003”: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/will-us-be-venezuela-ex-cia-official.html– Tucker Carlson’s Conservatism Inc. Biden Steal Betrayal is explained by “One of the Greatest Columns ever Written” according to Rush: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/tucker-carlsons-conservatism-inc-biden.html?m=1 – A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020: 
http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/01/a-hour-which-will-live-in-infamy-1001pm.html?m=1 What is needed right now to save America from those who would destroy our God given rights is to pray at home or in church and if called to even go to outdoor prayer rallies in every town and city across the United States for God to pour out His grace on our country to save us from those who would use a Reichstag Fire-like incident to destroy our civil liberties. [Is the DC Capitol Incident Comparable to the Nazi Reichstag Fire Incident where the German People Lost their Civil Liberties?http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/is-dc-capital-incident-comparable-to.html?m=1 and Epoch Times Show Crossroads on Capitol Incident: “Anitfa ‘Agent Provocateurs‘”: 
http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/epoch-times-show-crossroads-on-capital.html?m=1
Pray an Our Father now for the grace to know God’s Will and to do it. Pray an Our Father now for America. Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.SHARE

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

POPE BENEDICT’S RESIGNATION

New post on Roma Locuta Est
Benedict’s Resignation: A Theory of the Case (Part 1 of 2)by Steven O’ReillyOctober 25, 2021 (Steven O’Reilly) – Along with many Catholics, Roma Locuta Est has watched this pontificate proceed from one horror to the next.  Amoris Laetitia. Pachamama. The Scalfari interviews. The Abu Dhabi statement. Ted McCarrick. Betrayal of the Church in China to the Chinese Communist Party. The synod on synodality. Etc. Etc. Etc.Some have tried to defend this pontificate from any and all of the criticisms leveled against it. Such are the likes of the sycophantic, ‘papolatrous’ Francis-apologists. On the other side, there are those who maintain that Francis is definitively not the pope. The main theory that claims this is the “Benedict is (still) pope” theory; or BiP theory as I have named it. This theory claims the wording of Benedict XVI’s Declaratio was in some way deficient. Roma Locuta Est has argued against this particular BiP theory in the Summa Contra BiP. Frankly, in our opinion, this Declaratio-based theory is a shiny-object distraction.So, is it our position that Francis is definitely pope? No. Not quite. It is our position, as stated in the past, that from all out outward appearances of form and procedure, etc, that Francis is the putative pope, albeit one who — where and when necessary — must be resisted on certain issues. He must be considered pope, putatively at least, unless and until definitive evidence is found and or a definitive judgment of a future pope declares otherwise.[1]  Personally, I do not exclude that some future pope might very well declare, for example, the election of Francis to be invalid. For example, I have researched one theory brought to me from within the Jesuit order which suggests Cardinal Bergoglio’s acceptance of his election was invalid (see Curiouser and Curiouser: Who Dispensed Jorge Bergoglio SJ from his vows?). Archbishop Viganò seems to have alluded to this question about Bergoglio’s Jesuit vows in a recent interview (see Vigano: A Jesuit on the Throne of Peter “in violation of the rule established by St. Ignatius of Loyola”). I also agree the Open Letter submitted by a number scholars should be considered by cardinals and bishops (see here).As said, I don’t exclude the possibility Francis might be one day declared to not have been pope. Again, this requires evidence. Definitive evidence has yet to be produced, which is not to say it might not one day be produced, e.g., perhaps conspirators might come forward to reveal previously unknown information. While I reject standard BiP theories which are based on the wording of the Declaratio, there is one BiP scenario that, I think, remains a possibility — although more evidence is required.I touched upon such a scenario in a past article (see The “we” in “We did it!” — and what they did) which took a look at a Patrick Coffin interview with Cardinal Burke from August 2019. In that interview, Coffin brought up various concerns surrounding the 2013 conclave involving the activities of the “St. Gallen mafia” and McCarrick’s “influential Italian gentleman” (see here). In that interview, Cardinal Raymond Burke, speaking in the hypothetical, seemed to suggest there “could be” an argument to invalidate the conclave if two things were demonstrated:(1) that the St. Gallen mafia engaged in an active campaign to undermine the pontificate of Benedict XVIand…(2) that the St. Gallen mafia, at the same time, engineered the election of someone to their liking (see Coffin interview here, especially at 20:39-21:33)Roma Locuta Est has put forth evidence and circumstance that addresses the second condition given above, i.e., which suggests the election of Bergoglio was engineered (see The Conclave Chronicles). In this current two-part series, we would now like to examine more closely than we have before whether there are grounds for suspicion that Benedict’s pontificate was potentially undermined in order to clear the way for Bergoglio’s election. We will do this by taking a look at: (1) whether any in the St. Gallen mafia suggested to Francis he should resign, and under what conditions; (2) whether there is any indication the Vatileaks scandal might have been a wider conspiracy intended to bring down Benedict, and if so; (3) who might be a leading suspect with the ability and means to have organized it, and did he have any known links to Bergoglio’s election; and (4) is there anything in Bergoglio’s past or suspicious behavior to suggest there might have been a plot, or had knowledge of it.Martini lays the Predicate:  Ratizinger, if elected pope, should resign if he cannot reform curiaDuring the 2005 conclave, reports indicate that Cardinal Martini, founder of the St. Gallen mafia, threw his own support and votes behind Ratzinger’s election. Apparently hoping to reach a tacit agreement with the future Pope Benedict XVI, Martini suggested to then Cardinal Ratzinger that if Ratzinger failed to reform the curia as pope, then Benedict should resign at some future point. According to reporting based on the account of Fr. Silvano Fausti, a close associate of Cardinal Martini:…Martini apparently handed his votes over to Ratzinger in order to avoid “foul play” which attempted to eliminate both in order to elect “a thoroughly obsequious member of the Curia, who didn’t make it”. According to Fausti, Ratzinger and Martini “had more votes, Martini a few more” than Ratzinger. There had apparently been a scheme to elect a Curia cardinal. “Once the ploy had been unveiled, Martini went to Ratzinger in the evening and said to him: tomorrow, you agree to become Pope with my votes… He said to him: you accept, you have been in the Curia for 30 years and you are intelligent and honest: if you manage to reform the Curia great, if not, you step down.” (Source: Martini: Benedict XVI’s resignation and the 2005 Conclave)Above we see that Cardinal Martini offered a tacit agreement, suggesting in effect that ‘I will throw my support to your election as pope on the condition you reform the corrupt curia…but if you fail, you are to resign.’As events would turn out, seven years later, the Vatileaks scandal erupted. This scandal further exposed the corruption of the Roman Curia, as well as Pope Benedict XVI’s seeming inability to competently govern the Vatican. It was then, at the height of the scandal, that Cardinal Martini — something like a Rumplestilskin — met with Pope Benedict XVI in June 2012. The reform of the curia evidently unaccomplished, Martini solemnly suggested it was now time for Benedict to resign. As the La Stampa article reports on Fr. Fausti’s account (emphasis added):The Jesuit cardinal, who was seriously ill with Parkinson’s (he died three months later), met Ratzinger in the archbishop’s residence in the early afternoon.During that meeting, according to Fausti’s version of events, Martini told Benedict XVI that the time had come for him to resign because the Roman Curia seemed irreformable: “it’s right now, one cannot do anything here.” Fr. Fausti is a primary source given the relationship he had with Martini. It also widely known that Ratzinger and Martini esteem each other, despite their different positions. There is no doubt that during that painful period the Holy See was going through, with the Vatileaks scandal in full swing, the Archbishop of Milan spoke frankly to Benedict XVI suggesting he resign. (Source: Martini: Benedict XVI’s resignation and the 2005 Conclave)It is already known that Benedict appeared to be intent on resigning the papacy at some point having witnessed the prolonged decline of his predecessor, John Paul II. According to the La Stampa article, both Cardinal Bertone and Archbishop Ganswein had learned of Benedict’s decision to resign in mid-2012 (see here), about the time of Benedict’s meeting with Martini, or shortly thereafter. Other accounts place the final decision in December 2012, after Benedict received the dossier which revealed details regarding the homosexual ‘mafia’ in the Vatican. However, given that the Vatileaks court case was not completed until the fall of 2012, it could just be that Benedict waited until the court case and dossier were done so as not to hand an ongoing, unresolved scandal onto his successor.It is remarkable that Cardinal Martini of the St. Gallen mafia had been so prescient in 2005 as to suggest that Ratzinger resign if the curia could not be reformed, and then, voila, lo and behold, the Vatileaks scandal erupts making clear it had not been — thus activating Martini’s if-then condition, and his subsequent call for Benedict’s resignation.So, as we see above, the founder of the St. Gallen mafia asked Benedict to resign because of the Vatileaks scandal. If there was a St. Gallen conspiracy, I believe we need to look much more closely at the Vatileaks scandal to see if there is smoke here. The question then is, what was the Vatileaks scandal, who was it really targeted against, and if a potential conspiracy — who might really been behind it?Did Martini, Bergoglio, and the St. Gallen mafia really care about the reform of the curia?However, before getting in the Vatileaks scandal in greater detail, it is important to first consider whether the interest in the “reform of the curia” professed by Cardinal Martini, Cardinal Bergoglio, and the St. Gallen mafia — can be taken seriously. Was the call for the “reform of the curia” a sincere goal, or simply a cynical ploy.The reform of the curia had been one of the supposed goals of Cardinal Martini and of the St. Gallen mafia.  However, no one can seriously argue that St. Gallen’s pope of choice — Cardinal Bergoglio — has done much on the subject. His record on corruption is worse than spotty. For example, Pope Francis lifted the sanctions on ex-cardinal McCarrick, despite the horrendous nature of the accusations against him; accusations of which he was undoubtedly made aware by Archbishop Vigano….that is if Pope Francis had not already been aware of them.There were the Pope’s dubious appointments of Bishop Zanchetta to the Administration of the Patrimony of the Apostolic See (see here), and of Archbishop Edgar Pena Parra as an assistant Secretary of State at the Vatican (see here). We also recall that the Pope halted an investigation into sexual abuse accusations against the aforementioned Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor (see here). Third parties were said to have interfered with CDF sexual abuse investigations, and Pope Francis dismissed two priests involved in such investigations at the CDF under Cardinal Mueller, then prefect of the CDF (see here). There have been additional sexual scandals, such as the orgy — by some accounts, presided over by a cardinal close to Francis (see here). Without going into great detail here, it is enough to note that financial reform has fared no better (e.g., here and here).Then there is the interesting case of Cardinal Becciu.  His case is discussed in the recent Forbes article (see The Pope’s Corruption Problems). Francis was seemingly forced by public revelations involving a shady London real estate deal to finally intervene in the question of Cardinal Becciu, and stripping him in 2020 of his privileges as a cardinal. What is curious is that Francis apparently had been given sufficient reason five years ago to have had Becciu investigated on another, unrelated matter, as the Forbes article reports (emphasis added):  And it’s not so simple for Pope Francis to distance himself from Cardinal Becciu despite having removed him from his post and stripped him of his rights as a cardinal a year ago. According to a former Vatican official in a position to know what transpired, Pope Francis directly received a secret dossier some five years ago that supposedly set out “incontrovertible” proof about Cardinal Becciu diverting more than $2 million in church funds. “His Holiness closed the file; that was the end of it,” the ex-official told Forbes. The information, that source says, was never passed to the Vatican’s version of a public prosecutor, the Promoter of Justice. And Becciu then continued overseeing the day-to-day operations of the Vatican.Francis, in spite of having “incontrovertible” proof against Becciu, allowed him to continue in his position. Why would Francis have not acted against Becciu five years before if he had such information? One might well wonder, did Becciu hold some information over the pope’s head? If so, what was it?We will return to this question involving Becciu later on in part two of this series. It suffices for the moment merely to point out the obvious. “Reform of the curia“, at least in terms of moral and financial corruption does not appear to have ever been a real goal of Martini, Bergoglio, or the St. Gallen mafia, as suggested by Martini to Ratzinger in 2005.  Events have demonstrated over the last eight years that this professed interest in the “reform of the curia” appears to have been little more than a cynical, disingenuous ploy.The St. Gallen group wanted “drastic reform” and “modernization” of the Church—not reform of the Vatican Curia—and it opposed Ratzinger. The evidence on its face suggests Cardinal Martini as a member of the Saint Gallen group was duplicitous on both occasions when he spoke of Ratzinger’s resignation. It appears Martini played his Machiavellian best with his losing hand in the 2005 conclave (to appear magnanimous in throwing his votes to Ratzinger!) and thereby setting up a plausible pretext (i.e., “reform of the curia”) to push Benedict XVI to resign in 2012 when he had failed to do so.Vatileaks:  A Weaponized Scandal to Bring Down Benedict?In 2012, Martini was dying of Parkinson’s disease. His heir apparent, Cardinal Bergoglio, the St. Gallen mafia’s best hope to win the papacy, was approaching 75 years of age when he would be required to submit his resignation. Time was running out for St. Gallen’s and Bergoglio’s dream of a Bergoglian papacy. It was now, or never.Certainly in retrospect, the Vatileaks scandal contributed to the timing of Benedict’s resignation. It clearly disheartened the Pope, and could only suggest to Benedict he was indeed unable to effectively govern the affairs in the Vatican. Absent the scandal, Bergoglio may not have ever become Pope Francis. As such, the Vatileaks scandal seemed a made to the order scandal for Bergoglio and St. Gallen. If we ask Cui Bono, or “who benefited” from Vatileaks ultimately — it is clear it was Bergoglio.It was in January of 2012 that the Vatileaks scandal broke when Italian journalist Gianluigi Nuzzi aired on television the contents of certain secret Vatican documents he had obtained. The leaks continued through to May 2012 when Nuzzi then published a book (His Holiness: The Secret Papers of Benedict XVI) that revealed still more secret Vatican documents. By May 2012, the Vatican police had investigated and arrested Pope Benedict XVI’s own butler, Paolo Gabriele, as the culprit who had leaked the documents to Nuzzi. However, given other documents were leaked to other press outlets, it was clear additional leakers were out there beyond Gabriele the butler. One of these turned out to be Claudio Sciarpelletti (see Vatileaks, the case of the butler).The butler confessed his role in the scandal explaining that he intended the leaks to helpPope Benedict. While this appears to be the butler’s actual motive it is clear that the revelations in the secret document had the opposite effect than what was intended by the butler. Rather, as might be more reasonably expected, the scandal hurt both Pope Benedict and Cardinal Bertone (see here).  That the butler could really believe, incredibly, that leaking this information could help Benedict, only reveals his naivete. Consequently, this has led to the reasonable hypothesis that Gabriele was simply a naive pawn used by others for their own more devious ends; one that were quite different from Gabriele’s. It is a fact that Gabriele did not act alone. Aside from Gabriele and Sciarpelletti, as is obvious in Nuzzi’s other book (Ratzinger was Afraid: The Secret Documents, the Money, and the Scandals that overwhelmed the Pope), Vatileaks was a far broader conspiracy involving a great deal of organization, and many people. At the time, there were speculations in the Italian press that one or more Cardinals were ultimately behind the scandal (e.g., here).Thus, the theory the butler was, in the end, no more than a “scapegoat” (see here and here) is a reasonable hypothesis. Unfortunately, Gabriele died at the young age of 54 in November 2020. Unfortunately, he can no longer be interviewed on the topic. Dead men tell no tales, they say. Still, the question lingers: was Benedict’s butler no more than a puppet whose strings were pulled by one or more Cardinals who were the real puppet masters behind the scandal (see here)?In Part 2 of this series we will examine the hypothetical question above, and then offer a speculation as to which Cardinal would seemingly be the likely candidate to have been the potential “puppet master” who organized Vatileaks, having motive, means, and an interest in Cardinal Bergoglio’s election.Steven O’Reilly is a graduate of the University of Dallas and the Georgia Institute of Technology. A former intelligence officer, he and his wife, Margaret, live near Atlanta with their family. He has written apologetic articles and is author of Book I of the Pia Fidelis trilogy, The Two Kingdoms. (Follow on twitter at @fidelispia for updates). He asks for your prayers for his intentions.  He can be contacted at StevenOReilly@AOL.com  or StevenOReilly@ProtonMail.com (or follow on Twitter: @S_OReilly_USA or on GETTR, Parler, or Gab: @StevenOReilly).NotesFrancis has not yet contradicted a strict reading of the Vatican I’s Pastor Aeturnus. His pontificate, should its validity be upheld, will be reckoned in my opinion, as the worst in the history of the Catholic Church, embodying all the worst aspects of the bad popes up to this moment in history (e.g., John XXII, Honorius, Liberius, Vigilius, etc).Steven O’Reilly | October 24, 2021 at 7:53 pm | Categories: Uncategorized | URL: https://wp.me/p7YMML-6Wc

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment