THE CATHOLIC MONITOR

SEARCH

Francis, “The Mass Experimentation” Covid Brave New World, “Skillful Psychologi­cal Manipulation” & the Vaxx Side Effects

November 13, 2021

Priests who do not comply with the provisions of the Ordinary will be 
deprived of their priestly faculties and means of subsistence. Consequently, 
many churches will be closed, with very serious damage to the salus animarum, 
due to the lack of clerics who can replace those who will not be injected with 
the experimental gene serum. From what is known, there are not a few pastors 
of souls who will oppose, as is in their full right as American citizens and 
Catholics, a clear refusal to sacrilegious and illegitimate provisions, which are

void and which expose those concerned to the concrete immediate dangerous 
serious side effects, including the risk of death. Without mentioning the moral 
implications of accepting the inoculation of a drug for the production of 
which fetal cell lines from abortions are used. 

The subservience of the [Francis] Bergoglian Hierarchy to the pandemic farce and the 
imposition of the so-called vaccination has transformed the Ministers of God 
into pandemic gurus, the Bishops into salesmen of experimental serum and 
the entire ecclesial body into the victim of mass experimentation. This 
constitutes an unprecedented betrayal of the divine mission of the Church of 
Christ, of the power of pastors and of the mandate of priests, in a process of 
replacing the revealed religion with a pseudoscientific cult that borders on 
idolatry. – Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop 
former Apostolic Nuncio in the United States [https://www.canceledpriests.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/FILE_516442.pdf]

Experimentation on condemned men is assumed to have been a common practice in ancient Alexandria, but disappeared in Rome and during the Middle Ages. Sporadic cases were documented in the Renaissance and afterward, involving experiments both before and immediately after execution. The advent of the guillotine raised the question of possible persistence of consciousness after execution and that spurred much electrophysiological study of freshly decapitated heads and bodies. In 19th-century Europe, interest focused on cardiac function immediately after beheading. In the early 20th century, many condemned men in the Philippines were used by American physicians for their research on plague and beriberi.

Briefly discussed is the relevance of the practice of human sacrifice in Homeric Greece and Mayan Yucatan, as well as experiments on black slaves in America. The Nazi medical crimes of World War II encompass a totally different morality, and are not really comparable to the matter at hand. They have, however, so stirred emotions as to discredit the general concept of experimentation associated with capital punishment. Even within the framework of our system of jurisprudence, the altruistic desires of many now languishing on death row are being ignored. – Journal of the National Medical Association [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2561859/]

The “[f]lu has disappeared” thanks to the COVID and apparently also due to “fatal flaws” in statistical methods “relied on by scientists, economists, governments, and regulatory agencies everywhere”:

 Here is the WHO’s global flu tracker. Flu has disappeared. It’s a miracle!

– Renowned statistician and humorist Dr. William Briggs, who is a consultant and adjunct Professor of Statistics at Cornell University with specialties in medicine and philosophy of science [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2020/10/renowned-statistician-here-is-whos.html]

“The cognitive [the power of the mind to associate] becomes habituated. So every time they  see that [COVID “Be safe” soundbite or image on the media] they have an automatic emotional response. This is called conditioning… This is exactly what is going on in television. They are literally brainwashing people.” (19:34-21:08, Watch “What is Fear and Confusion ~ Fr. Chad Ripperger” on YouTube: https://youtu.be/Ep6cBEWaoDk)

It appears that “the mass experimentation” Covid Brave New World brainwashing-like worldwide Covid propaganda is similar to what was written by Aldous Huxley in Brave New World Revisited in chapter VIIBrainwashing :

The effectiveness of political and religious propa­ganda depends upon the methods employed, not upon the doctrines taught. These doctrines may be true or false, wholesome or pernicious — it makes little or no difference. If the indoctrination is given in the right way at the proper stage of nervous exhaustion, it will work. Under favorable conditions, practically every­body can be converted to practically anything…

         … Similar but rather less drastic methods were used during the Korean War on military prisoners. In their Chinese camps the young Western captives were systematically subjected to stress. Thus, for the most trivial breaches of the rules, offenders would be sum­moned to the commandant’s office, there to be ques­tioned, browbeaten and publicly humiliated. And the process would be repeated, again and again, at any hour of the day or night. This continuous harassment produced in its victims a sense of bewilderment and chronic anxiety. To intensify their sense of guilt, pris­oners were made to write and rewrite, in ever more intimate detail, long autobiographical accounts of their shortcomings. And after having confessed their own sins, they were required to confess the sins of their companions. The aim was to create within the camp a nightmarish society, in which everybody was spying on, and informing against, everyone else. To these mental stresses were added the physical stresses of malnutrition, discomfort and illness. The increased suggestibility thus induced was skillfully exploited by the Chinese, who poured into these abnormally recep­tive minds large doses of pro-Communist and anti-capi­talist literature. These Pavlovian techniques were re­markably successful. One out of every seven American prisoners was guilty, we are officially told, of grave collaboration with the Chinese authorities, one out of three of technical collaboration.

        It must not be supposed that this kind of treatment is reserved by the Communists exclusively for their enemies. The young field workers, whose business it was, during the first years of the new regime, to act as Communist missionaries and organizers in China’s in­numerable towns and villages were made to take a course of indoctrination far more intense than that to which any prisoner of war was ever subjected. In his China under Communism R. L. Walker describes the methods by which the party leaders are able to fabri­cate out of ordinary men and women the thousands of selfless fanatics required for spreading the Communist gospel and for enforcing Communist policies… 

        … Brainwashing, as it is now practiced, is a hybrid technique, depending for its effectiveness partly on the systematic use of violence, partly on skillful psychologi­cal manipulation. It represents the tradition of 1984 on its way to becoming the tradition of Brave New World. [https://www.huxley.net/bnw-revisited/#brainwashing]

Might Francis’s Vatican be involved in this “skillful psychologi­cal manipulation” as the following quote suggests?

“We need a total, I might say ‘brain washing.'”

in 2017, then Governor Jerry Brown made the above quote on climate change inside the Vatican.

He was invited by Francis’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences. (The Sacramento Bee, November 4, 2017, “World needs ‘brain washing’ on climate change, Jerry Brown says at Vatican”)

Are Pope Francis and his inner circle at the Vatican applying a type of cognitive re-definition management manipulation called brainwashing and sometimes in popular culture called gaslighting?

Brainwashing and thought reform are other labels for this type of management manipulation.

Richard J. Ofshe, Ph.D., gives a overview of the cognitive re-definition manipulation:

“Coercive persuasion and thought reform are alternate names for programs of social influence capable of producing substantial behavior and attitude change through the use of coercive tactics, persuasion, and/or interpersonal and group-based influence manipulations (Schein 1961; Lifton 1961). Such programs have also been labeled ‘brainwashing’ (Hunter 1951).”[https://culteducation.com/group/798-abusive-controlling-relationships/3260-coercive-persuasion-and-attitude-changes.html] 

The very respected management scholar Edgar H. Schein of MIT Sloan School of Management, who Ofshe considers very important in thought reform or brainwashing research, explains the pressuring procedure in Organizational Learning as Cognitive Re-definition: Coercive Persuasion Revisited: 

“It may seem absurd to the reader to draw an analogy between the coercive persuasion in political prisons and a new leader announcing that he or she is going ‘to change the culture.’ 

“However, if the leader really means it, if the change will really affect fundamental assumptions and values, one can anticipate levels of anxiety and resistance quite comparable to those one would see in prisons. The coercive element is not as strong. More people will simply leave before they change their cognitive structures, but if they have a financial stake or a career investment in the organization, they face the same pressure to ‘convert’ that the prisoner did. … Consider, for example, what it means to impose a ‘culture of teamwork’ based on ‘openness and mutual trust’ in an individualistic society.” 

This is a process the Covid hysteria manufacturing media elite, some corporate executives and gay ideology leftists, such as Francis appointee Fr. James Martin, with media marketing ability learned they could use to create massive peer pressure – some would call it a “mob mentality,” which changes the worldview of people with weak morals and weak faith. [More on brainwashing at this link: https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2017/11/brainwashing-pope-francis-fr-weinandy.html]

Finally, are there side effects in “the mass experimentation” Covid Brave New World’s vaccine besides “skillful psychologi­cal manipulation”?

Dr. William Briggs, who is a consultant and adjunct Professor of Statistics at Cornell University with specialties in medicine and philosophy of science reported on the different vaccine side effects versus actually getting the Covid:

1. Covid: the disease itself. Nothing confers better future immunity than having had it. Some have already successfully sued to count prior acquired immunity. Press this. It is only Expert hubris of the rankest degree to insist a vaccine—as you’re about to see—is better than the virus. You can catch covid anywhere, and most of you probably already had it, even without knowing. If they insist on a mandate, have an antibody test and see. Some have already sued or pressed the case, and won. Few people recall that even CDC in prior guidance allowed prior infection to count for international travel, as proven by an antibody test.
2. Valenva: an inactivated vax; i.e. a traditional one. Flu vax is usually inactivated, for example. Idea is to inactivate (disable to an extent) the live virus with formaldehyde or a substance called BPL. One work says BPL is better in some senses, because formaldehyde allows some live viruses to make it into the mix. This accounts for how some people get flu right after vaccination. Valenva, I believe, used a form of formaldehyde. In their last reported trial, the side effects were lower than AZ’s vax, and “No unsolicited treatment-related serious adverse events (SAE) [were] reported.” In any case, that it is a traditional inactivated vax puts this one high up on the list. Unlike the mRNA vaccines, which make your own body attack itself over a period of time that’s not well known. Here, there are two shots, but the only attack comes from what’s in syringe, and nothing else. Valneva is not yet “approved”. France has it.
3. Novavax: a nanoparticle vaccine. A nanoparticle is a way to get the important bits of the vax to just the cells where it needs to go, and so provoke an immune response. Or so the idea is. There is still a lot of uncertainty about the widespread applicability of these. They may cause almost no side effects, or they could kill you. An important chapter on nanonparticle vaccines can be read. However, in their Phase III trials, side effects were trivial (well, it’s all relative). It seems—only seems—that if it doesn’t kill you first, there’s unlikely to be long-term side effects. Only part of the spike protein is glued to the nanoparticle, unlike the full thing in mRNAs. Again, the damage is caused only by what’s in the syringe. Your body won’t turn against itself. Nanos also improve over the pathogenicity sometimes caused by inactivated vaxs. I read the Novavax Lancet papers and didn’t see any red flags, and no p-value worship. Novavax is not yet “approved”, but it should be close. Its rivals curiously are helpful. It’s a USA product.
4. Sinovac: an inactivated vaccine. Also called CoronaVac. They use formalin (same as above, I think) to inactivate. Yes, this is China. You will say, “We can’t trust Chinese numbers”, and you will get no argument from me. But we can also say, with just as much emphasis, “You can’t trust USA numbers.” My reason is subjective. The Chinese made the coroandoom, they also made Sinovac, and they’re very patriotic. Thus I don’t believe they’ll intentionally—now, anyway; before, yes—kill off their own people. My guess is escape of the gain-of-lethality bug we helped create surprised them. And now they want to recover. But you can feel free to guess elsewise. Papers in Lancetshow a standard side effect profile, one which is temporary, too. Actual practice is reportedly similar. It’s not all smiling pandas, though. It’s clear I favor any non-replicating vaccine, which limits side effects. You can’t get Sinovac in the States. But you can in Mexico. You might get away with it.
5. Medigen: protein subunit vaccine. This takes pieces of the virus, part of the spike protein, and injects them. They cannot reproduce. Makers of these things in general boast they are “Suitable for people with compromised immune systems.” Good for people with allergies. This is Taiwan plus the USA, which produces the adjuvant of the vaccine, the same (they say) as for whooping cough and hepatitis B vaccines. Taiwan has published, even in the press, VAERS-like data. The USA has not. Side effects seem in line, but not perfect. This site has a table of deaths/serious side effects of various vaccines (current as of the 24th), and Medigen stacks up okay. Moderna and AZ are worst. Pfizer is best. But recall all these are short-term SEs. You can only get this vax in Taiwan, so lots of luck; and the USA, so far, doesn’t count it.
6. BBIBP-CorV: another inactivated vax. This seems to be mostly a Chinese export product. It’s not clear how different chemically it is from Sinovac. In a Phase III trial (JAMA) side effects withing 7 days were about the same as the alum-placebo. Since this is inactivated, side effects are even more unlikely after a week. This paper looked at two vaxes, Sinopharm’s HB02 and the WIV04 (which is BBIBP-CorV; the names these guys come up with…). Both were about the same for side effects. No deaths, nothing seriously serious. Good news if you’re a haemodialysis patient: no interesting clinical sequalae. Can’t get either in the States, but both are in Mexico.
7. Covaxin: an inactivated vax. Indian product. Reports are iffy on this one. Seems authorities might have shot some people up without their knowledge—hey, this is India. Their not-so-calming press release says no real side effects in Phase III trials. Earlier published results, in small studies, found no serious side effects. Remember, these are gun-to-your-head scenarios. I’d take this over any mRNA or adenovirus vax. Can only get in India. And our old friend Mexico.
8. Others: any inactivated, protein subunit, or nanoparticle. There are some in Iran (no thanks), Cuba (again), Russia (eh), and even Kazakhstan. Gun-to-the-head in Russia, go for an inactivated. Canadian firm Medicago is working on a Phase III plant-based adjuvant vaccine. “Plant-based” sounds soothing, but you can get arsenic from some plants, too. Baylor has a Phase III adjuvanted protein subunit vaccine called Corbevax that I’d watch. There are many more, in various stages. Be careful, though. Even if you’re a guinea pig in a trial, thinking this could count for the immoral mandate, idiot bureaucrats might not count it, as has already happened in the UK with Valneva and Novavax trial participants. Remember: bureaucrats care only about process, not results.

WORST LIST (worst worst to better worst): Last update: 28 October 2021.

1. Janssen a.k.a. J&J: non-replicating viral vector. This takes a modified form of the bug and puts instructions into your cells to manufacture antigens. In other words, it’s as if you’ve been infected with something like the coronadoom. This is the first of many vaccines that turns your body against itself, by making you be the bad guy. None of these are vaccines, either; they have been rightly called gene therapy. Maybe they didn’t go with that name because it sounds scary. It’s true Janssen has fewer deaths in Open VAERS than others, but this isn’t normalized by shot number. CDC says about 243M Pfizer doses, 155M Moderna, and 15M Janssen. Open VAERS deaths: 11569 Pfizer, 4236 Moderna, 1270 Janssen. Rates (all 10^-6): 17 Pfizer, 27 Moderna, 85 Janssen. So Pfizer is best here; Janssen by far the worst. J&J has been taken off the market in several locales for various side effects. Even the woke NYT admits clotting. It is only one shot, though. But you can get it in the USA.
2. AstraZenca: adenovirus vaccine. It might help to learn that the biggest “successes” so far for adenovirus vaccines are HIV and ebola. This gives you a modified virus, not the doom itself but a monkeyed adenovirus, hoping to stimulate an immunoresponse that would match the response for coronadoom. It’s a purposeful infection, supposedly less dangerous than the doom itself, which you have to fight off. It’s said to be replication-deficient, meaning it’s difficult for the manmade virus to duplicate. But you know how it is. From the main source: “Very rare side effects have been reported after some individuals have taken the AstraZeneca vaccine, including blood clotting issues (TTS syndrome), thrombotic events, capillary leak syndrome, immune thrombocytopenia, and Guillain-Barre syndrome.” And, as we saw above, death. Here’s a comparison with Sinovac for side effects; not in AZ’s favor. We’ve already seen many countries stop AZ shots for side effects. Some restored the drug. Not sure if you can get it in the USA, but you can in Mexico. 
3. Moderna: mRNA-based vaccine. This vax is in a wrapper so that it only goes where directed; or that’s the idea. Reports are that it is found all over the body, once injected. Allergic reactions to the wrapper are common. It turns your cells into spike protein factories. It’s the spike protein that causes all the damage from the doom. Contrary to some reports, the mRNA does break down over time, and it doesn’t (they say) alter your DNA. Still, for a while, your body is doing nasty things to itself. I list them above Pfizer because the company is a little too hungry. In my mind they are tied with AZ. Maybe AZ is worse: I can’t trust any country that touts Andrew Ferguson. Side effects appear to concentrate in the young. Myocarditis is a real possibility, especially for those under 50 (here’s one teen dead right after). Sweden, Finland, and Denmark “limited” Moderna because of side effects. The real worry is long-term effects. See our friend on this. So You can get Moderna in the USA. 
4. Comirnaty, an mRNA vax. Pfizer wins for stupidest vax name. I put it best worst because it has been given the most, and it if were a true horror we would have known by now. That doesn’t make it good for those under, say, 65. But least worst. The wrapper of the mRNA causes severe allergic reactions in some. India once halted Pfizer. Pfizer is also a little too happy about all this. Who can trust them completely? You can get it nearly everywhere.
5. Others? None so far. And we have to be careful. We’re noticing side effects in these adenovirus and mRNA vaccines because, in part, so many shots have been given. The sample size is large compared to the inactivateds. Yet it remains true these “ground breaking” vaccines turn your own body against itself. And, given the evidence we have, the chance for long-term side effects is real, though the extent is as yet unknown. 

Again, neither of these lists say word one about efficacy. But I’ll give you one word: fourth boosters. Okay, that’s two words. Here’s more words: “Moderna says COVID booster, like flu vaccine, could be yearly.” Thus another conspiracy theory comes true. [https://wmbriggs.com/post/37927/]

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. 

History Will Grind Out the Truth

As the second-century A.D. skeptic philosopher Sextus Empricus noted, eventually the truth emerges, and cosmic justice is rendered: “The millstones of the gods grind late, but they grind fine.”

By Victor Davis Hanson

American Greatness

November 10, 2021

“History will figure that out on its own.” That is what Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) recently replied to Dr. Anthony Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.  

In a heated congressional exchange, Fauci derided the idea that the COVID-19 pandemic was due to the leak of a dangerous virus, engineered in the Chinese Wuhan virology lab—and in part funded by U.S. health agencies, on the prompt of Fauci himself.  

Fauci offered arguments from authority by citing his own expertise, as well as that of “card-carrying” specialists. 

But in truth, there is little evidence that any animal species has been found infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus or a close relative that causes COVID-19 or a similar illness.  

Many federal health experts increasingly believe the virus was man-made. A number argue that it was likely a product of gain-of-function research that was funded in part by a U.S. government grant.  

Others concede that Fauci and Dr. Peter Daszak—who was involved in gain-of-function research, often in cooperation with the Chinese—were not candid about the full extent of their ties to the Wuhan lab. But despite Chinese resistance to releasing pertinent data, history eventually will sort the truth out—as it does with most controversies of the moment.  

Five years ago, the New York Times, the Washington Post, most of the mainstream media, and the majority of bipartisan Washington. D.C. political and government establishments insisted that Donald Trump had colluded with Russia to rig the 2016 election.  

In support of such conspiracy theories, they fixated on the so-called Steele dossier. It was a supposedly independent research effort detailing “proof” of Trump-Russian cooperation to rob Hillary Clinton of the election.  

That supposed evidence was the unspoken groundswell for a 22-month, $40-million, special counsel investigation of Trump conducted by former FBI head Robert Mueller.  

For over 650 days, the country was consumed with “Russian collusion.” Cable news outlets, public television, and radio pundits, along with high-ranking Democratic politicians, almost daily announced the impending end of the colluding Trump Administration. 

They peddled rumors of Trump’s supposed obscene activity in Moscow. They spun tales of mysterious meetings between Trump’s family and Russian operatives, and Trump surrogates’ supposed trips to meet with Russian colluding officials.  

Christopher Steele, the architect of the “dossier,” had not been to Russia in decades. He was a rank partisan in the pay of the Clinton campaign—and for a time the FBI itself.  

Five years later, history has almost sorted out the fable that the most powerful, wealthy, and influential Americans in the nation once foisted upon the public.  

Special prosecutor John Durham seems to be slowly indicting the promulgators of the hoax. The earlier lengthy internal audit by Inspector General Michael Horowitz cited wrongdoing on the part of the FBI and Department of Justice.  

The Mueller investigation failed to find any proof of Russian-Trump collusion. The 2018 majority report of the House Intelligence Committee came to the same conclusion.   

The admission of false statements by former FBI interim director Andrew McCabe, along with the felonious altering of a court document by FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith, were other elements of the warped and unprofessional behavior of the FBI.  

Both Mueller and former FBI Director James Comey were unable to answer fundamental questions while under oath about the dossier and the role of its authors in spreading the collusion hoax. Mueller’s legal team and Comey himself habitually leaked rumors that fed the collusion hoax. 

History, however, is slowly sorting it out—despite the approved narrative of the well-connected who misled the country to pursue their own political agendas.  

Someday historians of public health will unravel the full costs of locking down most of America in reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic. What are now near-taboo topics—the vigorous natural immunity offered from prior infection, and the terrible damage done by the quarantines—earn cancel culture damnation, employment suspension, and media calumny. But soon they likely will become matter-of-factly accepted as truth. 

The same will be said of the hysterical myths that surround the unfortunate January 6 riot at the Capitol. Five years from now history will show that there was no conspiracy, no pre-planned “insurrection”—as the FBI has already concluded.  

The late Capitol police officer Brian Sicknick was not murdered as was alleged. Those “armed” inside the Capitol did not carry—much less use—guns. The one violent death, that of Ashli Babbitt, was of an unarmed female who was lethally shot by an officer for attempting to enter through a broken window.  

The solitary confinement, indefinite incarceration, and inhumane jail conditions accorded some of the accused will be shown contrary to the Constitution of the United States of America. 

In other words, history eventually will sort it all out.  

Or as the second-century A.D. skeptic philosopher Sextus Empricus noted, eventually the truth emerges, and cosmic justice is rendered: “The millstones of the gods grind late, but they grind fine.”

___________________________________________________

    ”Furthermore, the technological revolution, impressive achievements in artificial intelligence, electronics, communications, genetics, bioengineering, and medicine open up enormous opportunities, but at the same time, in practical terms, they raise philosophical, moral and spiritual questions that were until recently the exclusive domain of science fiction writers. What will happen if machines surpass humans in the ability to think? Where is the limit of interference in the human body beyond which a person ceases being himself and turns into some other entity? What are the general ethical limits in the world where the potential of science and machines are becoming almost boundless?“—Russian President Vladimir Putin, in an address at the Valdai Club meeting in Russia on October 21, 2021. Putin’s remarks were widely viewed as “statesmanlike” and worthy of attention from those who seek to understand the direction Putin plans to lead Russia in the years ahead     ”The Western domination of international affairs, which began several centuries ago and, for a short period, was almost absolute in the late 20th century, is giving way to a much more diverse system.” —Ibid.    ”Some people in the West believe that an aggressive elimination of entire pages from their own history… and the demand to give up the traditional notions of mother, father, family and even gender, they believe that all of these are the mileposts on the path towards social renewal. Listen, I would like to point out once again that they have a right to do this, we are keeping out of this. But we would like to ask them to keep out of our business as well. We have a different viewpoint, at least the overwhelming majority of Russian society – it would be more correct to put it this way – has a different opinion on this matter. We believe we must rely on our own spiritual values, our historical tradition…“—Ibid.    ”In Hollywood memos are distributed about proper storytelling and how many characters of what colour or gender should be in a movie. This is even worse than the agitprop department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.” —Ibid.    ”Not to mention some truly monstrous things when children are taught from an early age that a boy can easily become a girl and vice versa… They do not even bother to consult with child psychologists – is a child at this age even capable of making a decision of this kind? Calling a spade a spade, this verges on a crime against humanity, and it is being done in the name and under the banner of progress.” —Ibid.    ”We must wrap up, it is already after 9 o’clock.” —Vladimir Putin, after nearly three hours of conversation. The session was so long that it is hard to get through it (see below), but Putin got through it answering every question that was posed to him for hours    Letter #143, 2021, Friday, November 12: Putin    I send the following account of a talk (link) that Russian President Vladimir Putin gave on October 21, now more than three weeks ago, at the 18th annual meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club in Sochi in southern Russia, a kind of Russian equivalent of the Aspen Institute or Davos, Switzerland, meetings (link).    The talk is so detailed and candid and in some ways surprising — including Putin’s praise of Dr. Martin Luther King — that it has begun to go viral on the internet.     The talk is being described by many as “important” for understanding Putin’s mind and the direction he wishes to lead Russia in the years ahead, and for understanding his views of social and cultural developments in the West, including the increasing influence of gender ideology, which Putin criticized as dangerous for human freedom.    For this reason, I thought it would be well worth sending the text to you, prefaced by a brief analysis written by Stefano Gennarini for C-Fam, The Center for Family and Human Rights, a Catholic group that closely follows the debates at the United Nations in New York City. (link)    This Putin text is very long, but you may find it worth reading in its entirety, if you have an hour of time… —RM     Putin Compares Gender Ideology to Bolshevik Revolution (link)    By Stefano Gennarini, J.D. | November 11, 2021    NEW YORK, November 12 (C-Fam) “Beware of going where the Bolsheviks once planned to go,” Vladimir Putin warned Western countries in a landmark speech [Note: at the Valdai meeting on October 21]. “One more step and you will be there.”    The Russian President candidly warned Western countries of the totalitarian danger of gender ideology, calling it a “perfect phantasmagoria” in a rare, and perhaps unprecedented, public examination of conscience of Russia’s turbulent past.    Putin sounded the alarm on gender ideology’s attempts to change the way we speak about men and women in society and compared it to Bolshevik attempts to change language and rewrite history to manipulate how people think.    He said teaching children that a boy can become a girl, and vice versa, is a “monstrous thing” and that it is “bordering on a crime against humanity.”    “We look in amazement at the processes underway in the countries which have been traditionally looked at as the standard-bearers of progress,” Putin said.    “Some people in the West believe that an aggressive elimination of entire pages from their own history, reverse discrimination against the majority in the interests of a minority, and the demand to give up the traditional notions of mother, father, family and even gender, they believe that all of these are the mileposts on the path towards social renewal,” he explained.    “Anyone who dares mention that men and women actually exist, which is a biological fact, risk being ostracized,” he said.    Putin warned that “this is nothing new.”    “In the 1920s, the so-called Soviet Kulturtraegers (culture influencers) also invented some newspeak believing they were creating a new consciousness and changing values that way. And, as I have already said, they made such a mess it still makes one shudder at times,” Putin said.    Putin called on the world to avoid extremes and to chart a course of conservativism in the face of multiple global challenges. He promised to stay out of other countries’ business, but he said no one country or group should attempt to impose universal solutions. He said this was a hard lesson learned from Russia’s “difficult and sometimes tragic history.”    “Any attempts to force one’s values on others with an uncertain and unpredictable outcome can only further complicate a dramatic situation and usually produce the opposite reaction and an opposite from the intended result,” he explained.    “It is easier to destroy than to create, as we all know. We in Russia know this very well, regrettably, from our own experience,” he said.    “The cost of ill-conceived social experiments is sometimes beyond estimation. Such actions can destroy not only the material, but also the spiritual foundations of human existence, leaving behind moral wreckage where nothing can be built to replace it for a long time,” he explained.    According to Putin, had it not been for the Bolshevik revolution, Russia could have dealt with its problems “in a civilized manner” and while remaining a great power.    “These examples from our history allow us to say that revolutions are not a way to settle a crisis but a way to aggravate it. No revolution was worth the damage it did to the human potential.”    Putin’s speech was addressed to Russia’s political, economic, and media elite at the Valdai Club conference—an annual event widely anticipated in Russian society where Putin outlines his vision for the country and the world.  Donate Now to Support The Moynihan Letters    Nonprofits like our own Urbi et Orbi Communications need help weathering the current storms. We do this work in partnership with you… (continued below)    We ask you to support Urbi et Orbi Communications with a small or large contribution, at this difficult time, in order…    (1) to keep Inside the Vatican Magazine (which we have published since its founding in 1993, 27 years ago) independent and comprehensive… a unique lens into the Church and the World. Now available to you digitally as well as in print!    (2) to ensure that Inside the Vatican Pilgrimages can keep creating encounters for you with the Heart of the Churches, the homes of the Saints, and the Living Stones — the people — of whom the Church is built. Now offering you virtual pilgrimages from your home computer! (see below for more information)    (3) to help bring the Churches closer together by “Building Bridges” to heal the schisms of the Church — East and West — through our non-profit Urbi et Orbi Communications.    (4) to sustain our occasional news and editorial emails, The Moynihan Letters, bringing the latest valuable information and insight like no other source to thousands of readers around the worldYour Donation is Appreciated   The Complete Text of Putin’s Talk  This year’s theme is “Global Shake-up in the 21st Century: The Individual, Values and the State.” The four-day programme includes over 15 in-person and online sessions.  President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Ladies and gentlemen,  To begin with, I would like to thank you for coming to Russia and taking part in the Valdai Club events.  As always, during these meetings you raise pressing issues and hold comprehensive discussions of these issues that, without exaggeration, matter for people around the world.  Once again, the key theme of the forum was put in a straightforward, I would even say, point-blank manner: “Global Shake-up in the 21st Century: The Individual, Values and the State.”  Indeed, we are living in an era of great change. If I may, by tradition, I will offer my views with regard to the agenda that you have come up with.  In general, this phrase, “to live in an era of great change,” may seem trite since we use it so often. Also, this era of change began quite a long time ago, and changes have become part of everyday life. Hence, the question: are they worth focusing on? I agree with those who made the agenda for these meetings; of course they are.  In recent decades, many people have cited a Chinese proverb.  The Chinese people are wise, and they have many thinkers and valuable thoughts that we can still use today.  One of them, as you may know, says, “God forbid living in a time of change.”  But we are already living in it, whether we like it or not, and these changes are becoming deeper and more fundamental.  But let us consider another Chinese wisdom: the word “crisis” consists of two hieroglyphs – there are probably representatives of the People’s Republic of China in the audience, and they will correct me if I have it wrong – but, two hieroglyphs, “danger” and “opportunity.”  And as we say here in Russia, “fight difficulties with your mind, and fight dangers with your experience.”  Of course, we must be aware of the danger and be ready to counter it, and not just one threat but many diverse threats that can arise in this era of change.  However, it is no less important to recall a second component of the crisis – opportunities that must not be missed, all the more so since the crisis we are facing is conceptual and even civilisation-related.  This is basically a crisis of approaches and principles that determine the very existence of humans on Earth, but we will have to seriously revise them in any event.  The question is where to move, what to give up, what to revise or adjust. In saying this, I am convinced that it is necessary to fight for real values, upholding them in every way.  Humanity entered into a new era about three decades ago when the main conditions were created for ending military-political and ideological confrontation. I am sure you have talked a lot about this in this discussion club. Our Foreign Minister also talked about it, but nevertheless I would like to repeat several things.  A search for a new balance, sustainable relations in the social, political, economic, cultural and military areas and support for the world system was launched at that time.  We were looking for this support but must say that we did not find it, at least so far.  Meanwhile, those who felt like the winners after the end of the Cold War (we have also spoken about this many times) and thought they climbed Mount Olympus soon discovered that the ground was falling away underneath even there, and this time it was their turn, and nobody could “stop this fleeting moment” no matter how fair it seemed.  In general, it must have seemed that we adjusted to this continuous inconstancy, unpredictability and permanent state of transition, but this did not happen either.  I would like to add that the transformation that we are seeing and are part of is of a different calibre than the changes that repeatedly occurred in human history, at least those we know about.  This is not simply a shift in the balance of forces or scientific and technological breakthroughs, though both are also taking place.  Today, we are facing systemic changes in all directions – from the increasingly complicated geophysical condition of our planet to a more paradoxical interpretation of what a human is and what the reasons for his existence are.  Let us look around. And I will say this again: I will allow myself to express a few thoughts that I sign on to.  ***  Firstly, climate change and environmental degradation are so obvious that even the most careless people can no longer dismiss them.  One can continue to engage in scientific debates about the mechanisms behind the ongoing processes, but it is impossible to deny that these processes are getting worse, and something needs to be done.  Natural disasters such as droughts, floods, hurricanes, and tsunamis have almost become the new normal, and we are getting used to them.  Suffice it to recall the devastating, tragic floods in Europe last summer, the fires in Siberia – there are a lot of examples.  Not only in Siberia – our neighbours in Turkey have also had wildfires, and the United States, and other places on the American continent.  It sometimes seems that any geopolitical, scientific and technical, or ideological rivalry becomes pointless in this context, if the winners will have not enough air to breathe or nothing to drink.  The coronavirus pandemic has become another reminder of how fragile our community is, how vulnerable it is, and our most important task is to ensure humanity a safe existence and resilience.  To increase our chance of survival in the face of cataclysms, we absolutely need to rethink how we go about our lives, how we run our households, how cities develop or how they should develop; we need to reconsider economic development priorities of entire states.  I repeat, safety is one of our main imperatives, in any case it has become obvious now, and anyone who tries to deny this will have to later explain why they were wrong and why they were unprepared for the crises and shocks whole nations are facing.  ***  Second. The socioeconomic problems facing humankind have worsened to the point where, in the past, they would trigger worldwide shocks, such as world wars or bloody social cataclysms.  Everyone is saying that the current model of capitalism which underlies the social structure in the overwhelming majority of countries, has run its course and no longer offers a solution to a host of increasingly tangled differences.  Everywhere, even in the richest countries and regions, the uneven distribution of material wealth has exacerbated inequality, primarily, inequality of opportunities both within individual societies and at the international level. I mentioned this formidable challenge in my remarks at the Davos Forum earlier this year. No doubt, these problems threaten us with major and deep social divisions.  Furthermore, a number of countries and even entire regions are regularly hit by food crises. We will probably discuss this later, but there is every reason to believe that this crisis will become worse in the near future and may reach extreme forms. There are also shortages of water and electricity (we will probably cover this today as well), not to mention poverty, high unemployment rates or lack of adequate healthcare.  Lagging countries are fully aware of that and are losing faith in the prospects of ever catching up with the leaders.  Disappointment spurs aggression and pushes people to join the ranks of extremists.  People in these countries have a growing sense of unfulfilled and failed expectations and the lack of any opportunities not only for themselves, but for their children, as well.  This is what makes them look for better lives and results in uncontrolled migration, which, in turn, creates fertile ground for social discontent in more prosperous countries.  I do not need to explain anything to you, since you can see everything with your own eyes and are, probably, versed on these matters even better than I.  As I noted earlier, prosperous leading powers have other pressing social problems, challenges and risks in ample supply, and many among them are no longer interested in fighting for influence since, as they say, they already have enough on their plates.  The fact that society and young people in many countries have overreacted in a harsh and even aggressive manner to measures to combat the coronavirus showed – and I want to emphasise this, I hope someone has already mentioned this before me at other venues – so, I think that this reaction showed that the pandemic was just a pretext: the causes for social irritation and frustration run much deeper.  ***  I have another important point to make.  The pandemic, which, in theory, was supposed to rally the people in the fight against this massive common threat, has instead become a divisive rather than a unifying factor.  There are many reasons for that, but one of the main ones is that they started looking for solutions to problems among the usual approaches – a variety of them, but still the old ones, but they just do not work.  Or, to be more precise, they do work, but often and oddly enough, they worsen the existing state of affairs.  By the way, Russia has repeatedly called for, and I will repeat this, stopping these inappropriate ambitions and for working together. We will probably talk about this later but it is clear what I have in mind.  We are talking about the need to counter the coronavirus infection together. But nothing changes; everything remains the same despite the humanitarian considerations.  I am not referring to Russia now, let’s leave the sanctions against Russia for now; I mean the sanctions that remain in place against those states that badly need international assistance.  Where are the humanitarian fundamentals of Western political thought? It appears there is nothing there, just idle talk. Do you understand? This is what seems to be on the surface.  ***  Furthermore, the technological revolution, impressive achievements in artificial intelligence, electronics, communications, genetics, bioengineering, and medicine open up enormous opportunities, but at the same time, in practical terms, they raise philosophical, moral and spiritual questions that were until recently the exclusive domain of science fiction writers.  What will happen if machines surpass humans in the ability to think? Where is the limit of interference in the human body beyond which a person ceases being himself and turns into some other entity? What are the general ethical limits in the world where the potential of science and machines are becoming almost boundless? What will this mean for each of us, for our descendants, our nearest descendants – our children and grandchildren?  These changes are gaining momentum, and they certainly cannot be stopped because they are objective as a rule. All of us will have to deal with the consequences regardless of our political systems, economic condition or prevailing ideology.  Verbally, all states talk about their commitment to the ideals of cooperation and a willingness to work together for resolving common problems but, unfortunately, these are just words.  In reality, the opposite is happening, and the pandemic has served to fuel the negative trends that emerged long ago and are now only getting worse.  The approach based on the proverb, “your own shirt is closer to the body,” has finally become common and is now no longer even concealed.  Moreover, this is often even a matter of boasting and brandishing. Egotistic interests prevail over the notion of the common good.  Of course, the problem is not just the ill will of certain states and notorious elites. It is more complicated than that, in my opinion. In general, life is seldom divided into black and white. Every government, every leader is primarily responsible to his own compatriots, obviously.  The main goal is to ensure their security, peace and prosperity.  So, international, transnational issues will never be as important for a national leadership as domestic stability. In general, this is normal and correct.  We need to face the fact the global governance institutions are not always effective and their capabilities are not always up to the challenge posed by the dynamics of global processes.  In this sense, the pandemic could help – it clearly showed which institutions have what it takes and which need fine-tuning.  The re-alignment of the balance of power presupposes a redistribution of shares in favour of rising and developing countries that until now felt left out.  To put it bluntly, the Western domination of international affairs, which began several centuries ago and, for a short period, was almost absolute in the late 20th century, is giving way to a much more diverse system.  ***  This transformation is not a mechanical process and, in its own way, one might even say, is unparalleled.  Arguably, political history has no examples of a stable world order being established without a big war and its outcomes as the basis, as was the case after World War II.  So, we have a chance to create an extremely favourable precedent.  The attempt to create it after the end of the Cold War on the basis of Western domination failed, as we see.  The current state of international affairs is a product of that very failure, and we must learn from this.  Some may wonder, what have we arrived at?  We have arrived somewhere paradoxical.  Just an example: for two decades, the most powerful nation in the world has been conducting military campaigns in two countries that it cannot be compared to by any standard.  But in the end, it had to wind down operations without achieving a single goal that it had set for itself going in 20 years ago, and to withdraw from these countries causing considerable damage to others and itself. In fact, the situation has worsened dramatically.  But that is not the point.  Previously, a war lost by one side meant victory for the other side, which took responsibility for what was happening.  For example, the defeat of the United States in the Vietnam War, for example, did not make Vietnam a “black hole.”  On the contrary, a successfully developing state arose there, which, admittedly, relied on the support of a strong ally.  Things are different now: no matter who takes the upper hand, the war does not stop, but just changes form.  As a rule, the hypothetical winner is reluctant or unable to ensure peaceful post-war recovery, and only worsens the chaos and the vacuum posing a danger to the world.  ***  Colleagues,  What do you think are the starting points of this complex realignment process? Let me try to summarise the talking points.  First, the coronavirus pandemic has clearly shown that the international order is structured around nation states.  By the way, recent developments have shown that global digital platforms – with all their might, which we could see from the internal political processes in the United States – have failed to usurp political or state functions. These attempts proved ephemeral.  The US authorities, as I said, have immediately put the owners of these platforms in their place, which is exactly what is being done in Europe, if you just look at the size of the fines imposed on them and the demonopolisation measures being taken. You are aware of that.  In recent decades, many have tossed around fancy concepts claiming that the role of the state was outdated and outgoing.  Globalisation supposedly made national borders an anachronism, and sovereignty an obstacle to prosperity.  You know, I said it before and I will say it again.  This is also what was said by those who attempted to open up other countries’ borders for the benefit of their own competitive advantages.  This is what actually happened.  And as soon as it transpired that someone somewhere is achieving great results, they immediately returned to closing borders in general and, first of all, their own customs borders and what have you, and started building walls.  Well, were we supposed to not notice, or what? Everyone sees everything and everyone understands everything perfectly well. Of course, they do.  There is no point in disputing it anymore.  It is obvious.    But events, when we spoke about the need to open up borders, events, as I said, went in the opposite direction.  Only sovereign states can effectively respond to the challenges of the times and the demands of the citizens.  Accordingly, any effective international order should take into account the interests and capabilities of the state and proceed on that basis, and not try to prove that they should not exist.  Furthermore, it is impossible to impose anything on anyone, be it the principles underlying the sociopolitical structure or values that someone, for their own reasons, has called universal.  After all, it is clear that when a real crisis strikes, there is only one universal value left and that is human life, which each state decides for itself how best to protect based on its abilities, culture and traditions.  In this regard, I will again note how severe and dangerous the coronavirus pandemic has become.  As we know, more than 4.9 million have died of it.  These terrifying figures are comparable and even exceed the military losses of the main participants in World War I.  ***  The second point I would like to draw your attention to is the scale of change that forces us to act extremely cautiously, if only for reasons of self-preservation.  The state and society must not respond radically to qualitative shifts in technology, dramatic environmental changes or the destruction of traditional systems.  It is easier to destroy than to create, as we all know. We in Russia know this very well, regrettably, from our own experience, which we have had several times.  Just over a century ago, Russia objectively faced serious problems, including because of the ongoing World War I, but its problems were not bigger and possibly even smaller or not as acute as the problems the other countries faced, and Russia could have dealt with its problems gradually and in a civilised manner.  But revolutionary shocks led to the collapse and disintegration of a great power.  The second time this happened 30 years ago, when a potentially very powerful nation failed to enter the path of urgently needed, flexible but thoroughly substantiated reforms at the right time, and as a result it fell victim to all kinds of dogmatists, both reactionary ones and the so-called progressives – all of them did their bit, all sides did.  These examples from our history allow us to say that revolutions are not a way to settle a crisis but a way to aggravate it.  No revolution was worth the damage it did to the human potential.  ***  Third. The importance of a solid support in the sphere of morals, ethics and values is increasing dramatically in the modern fragile world.  In point of fact, values are a product, a unique product of cultural and historical development of any nation.  The mutual interlacing of nations definitely enriches them, openness expands their horizons and allows them to take a fresh look at their own traditions.  But the process must be organic, and it can never be rapid.  Any alien elements will be rejected anyway, possibly bluntly.  Any attempts to force one’s values on others with an uncertain and unpredictable outcome can only further complicate a dramatic situation and usually produce the opposite reaction and an opposite from the intended result.  We look in amazement at the processes underway in the countries which have been traditionally looked at as the standard-bearers of progress.  Of course, the social and cultural shocks that are taking place in the United States and Western Europe are none of our business; we are keeping out of this.  Some people in the West believe that an aggressive elimination of entire pages from their own history, “reverse discrimination” against the majority in the interests of a minority, and the demand to give up the traditional notions of mother, father, family and even gender, they believe that all of these are the mileposts on the path towards social renewal.  Listen, I would like to point out once again that they have a right to do this, we are keeping out of this. But we would like to ask them to keep out of our business as well. We have a different viewpoint, at least the overwhelming majority of Russian society – it would be more correct to put it this way – has a different opinion on this matter. We believe that we must rely on our own spiritual values, our historical tradition and the culture of our multiethnic nation.  The advocates of so-called ‘social progress’ believe they are introducing humanity to some kind of a new and better consciousness.  Godspeed, hoist the flags as we say, go right ahead.  The only thing that I want to say now is that their prescriptions are not new at all.  It may come as a surprise to some people, but Russia has been there already.  After the 1917 revolution, the Bolsheviks, relying on the dogmas of Marx and Engels, also said that they would change existing ways and customs and not just political and economic ones, but the very notion of human morality and the foundations of a healthy society.  The destruction of age-old values, religion and relations between people, up to and including the total rejection of family (we had that, too), encouragement to inform on loved ones – all this was proclaimed progress and, by the way, was widely supported around the world back then and was quite fashionable, same as today.  By the way, the Bolsheviks were absolutely intolerant of opinions other than theirs.  This, I believe, should call to mind some of what we are witnessing now.  Looking at what is happening in a number of Western countries, we are amazed to see the domestic practices, which we, fortunately, have left, I hope, in the distant past.  The fight for equality and against discrimination has turned into aggressive dogmatism bordering on absurdity, when the works of the great authors of the past – such as Shakespeare – are no longer taught at schools or universities, because their ideas are believed to be backward.  The classics are declared backward and ignorant of the importance of gender or race.  In Hollywood memos are distributed about proper storytelling and how many characters of what colour or gender should be in a movie.  This is even worse than the agitprop department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.  Countering acts of racism is a necessary and noble cause, but the new ‘cancel culture’ has turned it into ‘reverse discrimination’ that is, reverse racism.  The obsessive emphasis on race is further dividing people, when the real fighters for civil rights dreamed precisely about erasing differences and refusing to divide people by skin colour.  I specifically asked my colleagues to find the following quote from Martin Luther King: “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by their character.”  This is the true value.  However, things are turning out differently there. By the way, the absolute majority of Russian people do not think that the colour of a person’s skin or their gender is an important matter. Each of us is a human being. This is what matters.  In a number of Western countries, the debate over men’s and women’s rights has turned into a perfect phantasmagoria.  Look, beware of going where the Bolsheviks once planned to go – not only communalising chickens, but also communalising women. One more step and you will be there.  Zealots of these new approaches even go so far as to want to abolish these concepts altogether.  Anyone who dares mention that men and women actually exist, which is a biological fact, risk being ostracised.  “Parent number one” and “parent number two,” “’birthing parent” instead of “mother,” and “human milk” replacing “breastmilk” because it might upset the people who are unsure about their own gender.  I repeat, this is nothing new; in the 1920s, the so-called Soviet Kulturtraegers also invented some newspeak believing they were creating a new consciousness and changing values that way.  And, as I have already said, they made such a mess it still makes one shudder at times.  Not to mention some truly monstrous things when children are taught from an early age that a boy can easily become a girl and vice versa.  That is, the teachers actually impose on them a choice we all supposedly have.  They do so while shutting the parents out of the process and forcing the child to make decisions that can upend their entire life.  They do not even bother to consult with child psychologists – is a child at this age even capable of making a decision of this kind?  Calling a spade a spade, this verges on a crime against humanity, and it is being done in the name and under the banner of progress.  Well, if someone likes this, let them do it.  ***  I have already mentioned that, in shaping our approaches, we will be guided by a healthy conservatism.  That was a few years ago, when passions on the international arena were not yet running as high as they are now, although, of course, we can say that clouds were gathering even then.  Now, when the world is going through a structural disruption, the importance of reasonable conservatism as the foundation for a political course has skyrocketed – precisely because of the multiplying risks and dangers, and the fragility of the reality around us.  This conservative approach is not about an ignorant traditionalism, a fear of change or a restraining game, much less about withdrawing into our own shell.  It is primarily about reliance on a time-tested tradition, the preservation and growth of the population, a realistic assessment of oneself and others, a precise alignment of priorities, a correlation of necessity and possibility, a prudent formulation of goals, and a fundamental rejection of extremism as a method.  And frankly, in the impending period of global reconstruction, which may take quite long, with its final design being uncertain, moderate conservatism is the most reasonable line of conduct, as far as I see it.  It will inevitably change at some point, but so far, do no harm – the guiding principle in medicine – seems to be the most rational one.  Noli nocere, as they say. [“Do no harm.”]  Again, for us in Russia, these are not some speculative postulates, but lessons from our difficult and sometimes tragic history.  The cost of ill-conceived social experiments is sometimes beyond estimation.  Such actions can destroy not only the material, but also the spiritual foundations of human existence, leaving behind moral wreckage where nothing can be built to replace it for a long time.  ***  Finally, there is one more point I want to make.  We understand all too well that resolving many urgent problems the world has been facing would be impossible without close international cooperation.  However, we need to be realistic: most of the pretty slogans about coming up with global solutions to global problems that we have been hearing since the late 20th century will never become reality.  In order to achieve a global solution, states and people have to transfer their sovereign rights to supra-national structures to an extent that few, if any, would accept.  This is primarily attributable to the fact that you have to answer for the outcomes of such policies not to some global public, but to your citizens and voters.  However, this does not mean that exercising some restraint for the sake of bringing about solutions to global challenges is impossible.  After all, a global challenge is a challenge for all of us together, and to each of us in particular.  If everyone saw a way to benefit from cooperation in overcoming these challenges, this would definitely leave us better equipped to work together.  One of the ways to promote these efforts could be, for example, to draw up, at the UN level, a list of challenges and threats that specific countries face, with details of how they could affect other countries.  This effort could involve experts from various countries and academic fields, including you, my colleagues.  We believe that developing a roadmap of this kind could inspire many countries to see global issues in a new light and understand how cooperation could be beneficial for them.  I have already mentioned the challenges international institutions are facing.  Unfortunately, this is an obvious fact: it is now a question of reforming or closing some of them.  However, the United Nations as the central international institution retains its enduring value, at least for now.  I believe that in our turbulent world it is the UN that brings a touch of reasonable conservatism into international relations, something that is so important for normalising the situation.  Many criticise the UN for failing to adapt to a rapidly changing world.  In part, this is true, but it is not the UN, but primarily its members who are to blame for this.  In addition, this international body promotes not only international norms, but also the rule-making spirit, which is based on the principles of equality and maximum consideration for everyone’s opinions.  Our mission is to preserve this heritage while reforming the organisation.  However, in doing so we need to make sure that we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater, as the saying goes.  This is not the first time I am using a high rostrum to make this call for collective action in order to face up to the problems that continue to pile up and become more acute.  It is thanks to you, friends and colleagues, that the Valdai Club is emerging or has already established itself as a high-profile forum.  It is for this reason that I am turning to this platform to reaffirm our readiness to work together on addressing the most urgent problems that the world is facing today.  ***  Friends,  The changes mentioned here prior to me, as well as by yours truly, are relevant to all countries and peoples.  Russia, of course, is not an exception.  Just like everyone else, we are searching for answers to the most urgent challenges of our time.  Of course, no one has any ready-made recipes.  However, I would venture to say that our country has an advantage.  Let me explain what this advantage is.  It is to do with our historical experience.  You may have noticed that I have referred to it several times in the course of my remarks.  Unfortunately, we had to bring back many sad memories, but at least our society has developed what they now refer to as herd immunity to extremism that paves the way to upheavals and socioeconomic cataclysms.  People really value stability and being able to live normal lives and to prosper while confident that the irresponsible aspirations of yet another group of revolutionaries will not upend their plans and aspirations.  Many have vivid memories of what happened 30 years ago and all the pain it took to climb out of the ditch where our country and our society found themselves after the USSR fell apart.  The conservative views we hold are an optimistic conservatism, which is what matters the most.  We believe stable, positive development to be possible.  It all depends primarily on our own efforts. Of course, we are ready to work with our partners on common noble causes.  I would like to thank all participants once more, for your attention.  As the tradition goes, I will gladly answer or at least try to answer your questions.  Thank you for your patience.  [End, Vladimir Putin talk of October 21; To read the questions and answers, we have the full transcript here]  Originally published on www.kremlin.ru

Manage Your Subscription

_________________________________ 

How We Got Here:  

Remembering the Beginning of  

Our Plague and the Panic 

Victor Davis Hanson 

Historian’s Corner 

November 5, 2021 

 Whether the Athenian pandemic that destroyed a quarter of the Attic population in 430-29 B.C. and made it nearly impossible for Athens to win the Peloponnesian War, or the outbreaks of Yersinia pestis (A.D. 541–49) that ended the Byzantine emperor Justinian’s grand idea of a reunified Rome headquartered in the East, or the bubonic Black Death of the 14th Century (1347–51) that may have killed off a third of Europe’s population, plagues can tear apart the entire social and cultural foundations of society. But usually, these convulsions from a disease are still the most dramatic expressions of long-standing simmering pathologies. So, it was also in 2020. 

As the pandemic continued through the spring, caseloads mounted. Deaths increased. The plague’s ancient twin, panic, ensued. On March 19, California Gov. Gavin Newsom ordered a state lockdown of all nonessential businesses to prevent the virus’s spread by “flattening the curve” and thereby not overwhelming hospital intensive care units. Most other states followed suit with varying degrees of severity and laxity. Newsom warned that otherwise there would be some 25.5 million Californians infected with the virus in eight weeks (around May 14). At feared current lethality rates at the time of a supposed 3-4 percent of those infected, that modeled case number would have resulted in over 600,000 Californians dead. In fact, on May 20, 2020, California had reported less than 84,000 known coronavirus cases, and 3,425 deaths; that figure by August 2020 had climbed to 10,000 reported as dying of COVID-19, and eventually 17 months later in early October 2021 approached 5 million cases and exceeded 70,000 deaths attributed in some part to COVID-19. 

Some 30 million Americans applied for unemployment benefits, and over half the citizens of a terrified nation were estimated to be self-quarantined in their homes.  

For the rest of 2020, the virus waxed and waned, depending upon a host of factors that few public health officials could adequately predict or fathom. On the one hand, initial bleak prognoses that two million Americans might die from the disease were clearly flawed. On the other hand, no one knew why the virus suddenly erupted or declined—and spiked again in June and July 2020 only to diminish in the autumn—and the spike in October 2020. Gradual downward spirals in cases and lethality seemed suddenly to cease, as regional outbreaks erupted—although increased travel, social congregation, and a sense of laxity that the plague was ending likely resulted in further viral hot spots. 

In such uncertain and mercurial climates, governors sensed that extended draconian authoritarian measures might be necessary to combat the viral outbreak. They guessed rightly that a terrified public might be less sensitive to the possible unconstitutional nature of their martial law-like edicts. More cynically, some local, regional, and state officials gained more notoriety and attention to the degree that their orders contravened normal custom and practice and the law itself. 

Soon Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer had redefined the quarantine as barring state consumers from buying garden plants and seeds. She began outlawing solitary anglers from launching their boats on empty Michigan ponds and lakes, even as crowds packed Walmarts nationwide—and would soon hit the streets in protests often without protective masks and social distancing. At Ground Zero of the U.S. pandemic, New York officials were turning to drones and social media to ferret out those who were walking too close together. 

In California, the crime was strolling deserted beaches or kayaking on lakes empty of people. Snitches and drones were used to surveil and turn in reported offenders of bans on assembly, commerce, and free association. In small-town and rural counties of America where there were far fewer COVID-19 cases and deaths, most all businesses were shut down. Any who resisted closing their shops were fined or jailed, on the force of constitutionally suspect executive orders and fiats, not legislatively passed law. 

Even as Los Angeles County was reeling from budget shortfalls and releasing thousands of inmates in fears of infection in jails and the lack of revenue, the sheriff initially declared gun stores non-essential businesses and by edict ordered them locked down. Often those most chagrined were the unarmed and previous gun-control supporters who objected to being denied the right to purchase firearms at a time of social unrest and mass prisoner releases. By summer, firearms inventories were so backlogged by consumer demands, that it was impossible to buy a gun in California, and nearly so to purchase ammunition. 

In surreal fashion, New York governor Andrew Cuomo was apparently terrified that the epidemic’s spike in New York would result in a shortage of hospital space—even as thousands of beds in hospitals, in make-shift emergency centers and on the federal hospital ship USNS Comfort were empty of patients. Strangely, he not only sent elderly patients with active cases of COVID-19 into nursing homes but forbid such facilities from inquiring about the health status of such state-ordered transfers, and made it illegal to test them before they were admitted. As a result, by early May 2020, the infection had swept through New York’s elderly care homes, killing nearly 5,000 patients—the eventual total would tragically surpass 12,000—many of them residents of facilities that heretofore had either no or very few infectious cases. Cuomo successfully for months hid the actual data of deaths due to transference of the infected into nursing homes. 

Lurid news accounts reported pastors arrested for attempting to preach in parking lots with assembled parishioners social distancing from their cars. In some counties, local leaders threatened to arrest those who supposedly spread “false” information about the virus. New York mayor Bill de Blasio, who had in late March still urged New Yorkers to go out to bars and restaurants as well as to take the subway, warned the Jewish community that if it did not follow his orders of social distancing, he would target and arrest its members. In California, the city of Los Angeles simply dumped tons of sand onto skateboard rinks to ensure teens could not sneak into the open-air tracks. In Texas, a local magistrate jailed a salon owner, who, facing bankruptcy, had opened up her haircare shop. 

All the while, advocates of massive lockdowns had not fully calibrated the ensuing damage and despair that would follow from the national quarantine: missed medical procedures and screenings, delayed surgeries, the inability to go out to pick up prescriptions, increased substance abuse, suicides, spousal and child violence, and all the other pathologies associated with tens of millions shut in their homes for months on end—much less damage to the Constitution and the economy by unelected magistrates who de facto curtailed many of the citizens’ rights guaranteed under the Bills of Rights. 

Even more ominously, congressional leaders sought to laden emergency financial relief bills with all sorts of extraneous measures that in normal times had never garnered 51 percent public support—from student loan-debt cancellations to elements of the so-called Green New Deal. Eventually, multi-trillion-dollar bailout bills sent cash to workers, businesses, and state governments. But subsequent efforts sought to trump such unprecedented direct assistance. The House of Representatives proposed further entitlements—including a reportedly additional $3 trillion “Heroes Act.” The bill proposed giving American families $6,000 in cash each, but otherwise often had little to do with direct virus relief—given it included amnesties for illegal aliens and bailouts to address pre-virus unfunded state pension crises. The 2020–21 fiscal year by May was projected to run a record $4 trillion deficit, nearing an aggregate $27 trillion or more in national debt. 

The “never let a crisis go to waste” assumption was that in the general chaos, the Congress could ram through what ordinarily the people did not previously believe was affordable—on the logical premise that in a contracting economy, fiscal fluidity is critical, and deficits are not nearly as dangerous as radical deflation and depression. Ironically, opponents of the Trump administration blasted him for not invoking immediately the little-used 1950 Defense Production Act that would essentially have nationalized companies of the president’s choosing on the rationale that they must be forced to produce what the government deemed necessary for national security. The act would have greenlighted a de facto suspension of many constitutional protections. 

At the same time, progressives clamored to recalibrate the November election. They claimed the viral pandemic would either last until November or the fear of it certainly would. Either scenario would then justify for the first time in U.S. history a radical alteration of voting by forcing the entire country’s voters into an absentee ballot constituency. Opponents pointed to past vote harvesting and inadequate checks on voter rolls, both magnified by voting exclusively by mail. An exasperated Donald Trump even countered the idea of mail-in voting by suggesting that the election might be postponed until a vaccine was found—a suggested remedy as bad as the malady of vote-by-mail election. In the end, some 102 million voters did not cast their ballots on Election Day 2020, Yet oddly, the more millions voted absentee or in early balloting, the more the accustomed rejection rate of non-election-day ballots radically dipped, in some states by a magnitude of ten. Who would have figured that the more local registrars were swamped by millions of incoming mail-in ballots, the less they found ballots lacking complete names, addresses, or in otherwise not compliance with long-established procedures and laws? 

In sum, it did not take long after the start of the viral panic for elected officials and unelected bureaucrats to begin to curtail the First and Second Amendments to the Constitution, reminding the public just how thin was their veneer of constitutional government. Given that most state legislatures were in suspension during the lockdown, almost all government edicts were executive fiats and not the result of majority votes of elected representatives. 

As a result, for most of May and well into June 2020, many small business owners defiantly opened their businesses. They challenged mayors and governors either to arrest them or to explain the rationale that closed their small stores but not warehouse and corporate superstores. 

The fear of catching the coronavirus and the horror stories of the often painful deaths of the elderly who succumbed to it created widescale panic. It was no exaggeration that in just a matter of weeks of executive ordered quarantines, throughout America much of the Constitution was abruptly made negotiable. Voting laws were altered. Unelected bureaucrats at both the state and federal level became legislators, executives, and judges, as they made up laws, enforced them, and jailed without a hearing those who opposed their edicts. Prisoners were let out of jails; no-bail executive orders meant the arrested were not incarcerated. National leaders such as Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and California governor Gavin Newsom urged progressives to use the crisis of the pandemic to push through previously stymied ideological agendas that had not garnered public support. And most did. 

What finally more or less weakened the initial quarantine lockdown orders by as early as late May and June 2020 were not court decisions. In fact, the Supreme Court on a close 5-4 vote ruled that California had the right to shut down church services for reasons of public safety. Instead, the proverbial people themselves made the decision to defy strict municipal quarantine edicts and often sued governors and mayors. Initially, conservative groups, anchored by small businesses, dared the government to arrest them for returning to work. Hundreds in fact were arrested. But the quarantines finally became more porous only during nationwide protests in the last week of May 2020, amid looting, arson, and rioting of thousands of youths in major U.S. cities. Ostensibly, the presence of huge numbers of protesters in the street in violation of social distancing was excused by authorities, given outrage over the death of George Floyd, an African American male suspect who died while being in police custody in Minneapolis. 

Despite state quarantines that heretofore had been rigidly enforced and seen citizens jailed who were desperate to restart their businesses, most city police forces did not intervene in the initial days of arson and looting—often on the orders of elected officials. Perhaps inadvertently they thereby sent the message to the nation that mayors and governors could hardly arrest barbers, florists, and small business workers who were going back to work wearing masks and social distancing while giving exemptions to protestors without masks who were roaming the streets starting fires, destroying property, and breaking into stores. 

In sum, for much of 2020, the entire system of viral protection was almost immediately politicized. Red states more or less allowed businesses to open under particular guidelines, while their blue-state counterparts did not, but oddly seemed unconcerned about large public street protests, at least in comparison to the scrutiny that they exercised in closing down small businesses. 

In this context, Actress Jane Fonda “gaffed” when she declared that the coronavirus pandemic was “God’s gift to the Left.” Her intent obviously was not to express empathy for the then 220,000 dead, but rather that the Left had been able to weaponize the virus in order to enact agendas and advance election-year political narratives that otherwise would have been likely impossible before the viral outbreak and quarantine. 

___________________________________________________ 

Great News: 

Biden’s Vaccine Mandate 

 is Falling Apart!

​ By: Ron Paul, MD 

Ron Paul Institute 

November 9, 2021 

(Emphasis added) 

The Biden vaccine mandate appears to be falling apart before it’s even in place. From first responders to truck drivers to everyone in-between, the message is clear: many thousands are willing to be fired from their jobs rather than be forced to take a medical procedure they do not want. 

They have leverage and they are using it. We should support them. 

Grocery shelves are bare, shipping containers continue to float offshore, firehouses in New York are shut down, the Los Angeles County Sheriff warns that, in the middle of a crime wave, half of his deputies may quit or be fired. Airlines are citing non-existent “weather problems” to excuse the fact that their employees are rebelling against forced covid shots. 

The country is teetering on the edge of an economic abyss and the Biden Administration is doubling down. The only question is how far down the President is willing to drag his party and his own approval numbers to continue to push an unconstitutional, deeply unpopular, and thoroughly tyrannical forced vaccine on the population. 

If the vaccine provided a high level of immunity from the virus that did not wane over time, encouraging people to take the shot – which uses experimental technology – might make some sense, though mandating it would still be immoral and illegal. 

But Biden’s own senior health officials such as CDC Director Wallensky have been telling us since August that the shot does not prevent infection from the virus nor does it prevent transmission of the virus. So, it is not a “vaccine” by any definition of the term. That’s why the CDC itself in September changed its official definition of the term “vaccine” to exclude the term “immunity.” The deception is so transparent. 

 They say you must take the shot because it may prevent serious illness from the virus. But we know there are plenty of other things that may prevent serious illness from the virus. Media personality Joe Rogan was widely ridiculed for using ivermectin and other drugs and procedures to treat his bout of Covid-19. But it seems to have worked. Likewise, Green Bay Packers legendary quarterback Aaron Rodgers successfully treated his Covid with ivermectin and other procedures. Even though he now has natural immunity to the virus, he has been attacked by the mainstream media for not following Fauci’s demands.  

Success means nothing. Only obedience matters. 

A new study of the effectiveness of the Covid shots is not good news for the Biden Administration. Published November 4th in the scientific journal Nature, researchers followed 800,000 US veterans for six months after receiving the shot. Between March and November, Moderna’s effectiveness fell from 85 percent to 58 percent – just a little better than a coin flip. The Pfizer/BioNTech two-dose fell in effectiveness from 87 percent to 45 percent, and the Johnson & Johnson fell in effectiveness from 86 percent to 13 percent! 

As the Washington Times wrote about the important new Nature study, “Factor in natural immunity and a case could be made these vaccines are nearly worthless.”

So why is the Administration pursuing this scorched earth policy on vaccine mandates? Maybe we should look at how many lobbyists Big Pharma has on Capitol Hill. Maybe look at the revolving door between the FDA, CDC, and Big Pharma. The word is “corruption,” and if the CDC’s own adverse reaction database is accurate it is killing thousands of Americans. Hold the line and resist the mandate! 

___________________________________________________ 

Letter #141, 2021, Thursday, November 11: Viganò    Below please find an important new open letter from Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, 80.    This letter was requested from the archbishop by Robert Kennedy, Jr.(for more on him, see: link), and will be read at a rally in Bern, Switzerland, tomorrow, November 12.    The essay is a reflection on the meaning of true freedom. We might entitle it “Archbishop Viganò’s Essay on True Freedom.”    This letter also marks a new moment in the developing resistance to the planned “Global Reset” and its limitation on traditional human rights and freedoms, because it reveals the coming into a being of an international alliance against these measures stretching from the offices of Robert Kennedy, Jr., to the desk of the retired Italian archbishop who was once one of the top “insiders” in the Vatican itself.—RM

As a special thank you to readers of The Moynihan Letters, we would like to offer you the opportunity to order Finding Vigano: In Search of the Man Whose Testimony Shook the Church and the World. With your purchase, you will receive a complimentary one-year subscription to Inside the Vatican magazine. Yes, order a book, and get a free 1-year subscription to our fascinating bi-monthly magazine.Order Finding Vigano and get ITV Mag Free!

    ”True freedom is instead the ability to act within the limits of the Good, and this is the freedom to which you ought to aspire, this the freedom that you ought to claim with courage and pride, this the freedom that ‘will set you free’ (Jn 8:32).” —Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, in an open letter written today at the request of Robert Kennedy, Jr., to be read tomorrow at a protest in Bern, Switzerland, against pending restricve legislation in Switzerland due to the pandemic. Kennedy is the son of the late U.S. Senator Robert Kennedy (killed in 1968), and the nephew of the late U.S. President John F. Kennedy (killed in 1963). Archbishop Viganò, under Popes Benedict and Francis from 2011 to 2016, served as the ambassador of the Holy See to the United States    ================    Viganò in Bern: after the Health Crisis will come the Ecological and Transhuman Crisis (link)    11 November 2021     Published by Marco Tosatti    Dear friends and enemies of Stilum Curiae, tomorrow in Bern, Switzerland, there will be a large demonstration against the measures related to the pandemic, which will be attended by Robert Kennedy, Jr., who has asked Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò to offer a message. Good reading and good vision. Address of Archbishop Carlo Maria ViganòFormer Apostolic Nuncio to the United States of Americafor the Demonstrationagainst the pandemic measuresin the Swiss ConfederationBern – 12 November 2021    By Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò    Dear friends,    Many of you would never have thought that Switzerland would eventually follow Italy and other nations in supinely adhering to the diktats of the elite even in the matter of the pandemic emergency.    Your Confederation, in fact, is already well ahead of other countries on the path of globalization, and the imprint of the New World Order is very marked in the life of the great Swiss cities.    And just as Sweden was spared the lockdowns and the masks, one would have believed that also in Switzerland the measures of supposed containment of the contagion would have adopted the failed model of which Italy is instead a tragic example.    On the other hand, since the World Economic Forum has its headquarters in Davos, some of you could have hoped that Klaus Schwab would have prevented you from experiencing firsthand what awaits all of humanity, if we only allow his nonsensical Great Reset[1] to be brought to completion, shared by the UN with the name of Agenda 2030.[2]     And yet, if you think about what was shown to you on June 1, 2016, with the inauguration of the Gotthard tunnel, you should have an idea about the inspiring principles of the New World Order.[3]    You are here today to protest against the tightening of health and control measures, adopted by the Swiss Federal Government with the pretext of the so-called pandemic.    What lies ahead for Switzerland, as you know, has been adopted in whole or in part by other nations, including Italy.    Discrimination against the non-vaccinated is already a reality in many nations, as is the tracking of citizens by means of the vaccine passport, salary suspension for those who do not subject themselves to control, and the possibility for public authorities to legislate in derogation from ordinary laws and from the Constitution.    But allow me to ask you all some questions.    Are you protesting because of a limitation of your constitutional liberties, or because you realize that these first control measures are only the first step of a progressive cancellation of your individual liberty, absorbed by a State/Doctor that decides for you how to treat you, of a State/Master that decides if and when you can leave the house, work, go to a restaurant, and travel?    Are you demonstrating against the green pass and yet accepting the narrative about the pandemic and the vaccines, or have you realized that this colossal farce is based on a virus produced in a laboratory that has been spread in order to create an emergency pandemic that would give a pretext for placing all of humanity under control?    Have you taken to the streets because it annoys you to have to scan your QR-code in order to enter your office or factory and yet you have been inoculated with the experimental genetic serum, or have you realized that the so-called vaccines are ineffective, the risk of even grave adverse long- and short-term side effects, and that the pharmaceutical houses who are using you as guinea pigs have no responsibility, and that if you get sick or die they will not have to pay any damages or respond criminally to any court?    And finally: have you decided to protest because the freedom to not be subjected to health control is the same freedom in whose name you believe you have the right to kill children in the mother’s womb, the elderly, and those who are sick in their hospital beds?    Is this the same freedom that would legitimize homosexual unions and gender theory?    Is this the freedom to which you appeal?    The freedom to offend the Law of God, to blaspheme His Name, to violate the natural law that he has written on the heart of every human being?    Because if what you want is only to be free to do what you want, your demonstration makes no sense.    It is precisely those who speak to you about gender equality, the right to “reproductive health,” to euthanasia, to surrogate motherhood and sexual liberty who today hold you all in their grip, deciding what is right for you in the name of “your good,” public health, or the protection of the planet.    It is they who before too long will unite the green pass with your digital ID, with your bank account, with your tax, salary, social security and health status, and in doing so – for “your good” – they will be able to decide if you can work, travel, go to a restaurant, and buy a steak or rather some insects.    That freedom made you believe you are “free,” while those who want you to be obedient slaves let you run around by lengthening the leash, giving you the illusion of being able to do what you want, of having the “right” to abort, to live against the precepts of Christian morality, to be able to behave as if God did not exist, as if you would never have to present yourselves before Him on the day of judgment.    But this is not freedom: it is license, it is libertinism.    The freedom to damage your soul, certainly not the freedom to live honestly so as to merit paradise.    True freedom is instead the ability to act within the limits of the Good, and this is the freedom to which you ought to aspire, this the freedom that you ought to claim with courage and pride, this the freedom that “will set you free” (Jn 8:32).    The freedom to choose not to be fooled by the promises of those who offer you a better eco-sustainable, inclusive, tolerant, resilient and gender-fluid future, while forcing you to buy only the products they have made available on the internet, to order lunch and dinner via delivery, to be treated with telemedicine, to follow lessons via distance learning, and to not go into the office via “smart working.”    I am talking about the freedom to say no to those who, by envisaging progress in the world of work and enthusiastically showing you the free time, you will be able to enjoy with reduced work hours, are reducing your salary, eliminating your union protections, depriving you of the means of subsistence for supporting a family, forcing you to live in ever-smaller and more anonymous apartments that are always further in the outskirts of town.    To say no to those who first deprive you of the autonomy of a job by creating unemployment and eliminating professional specializations, and then offer you the citizenship income by which to make you slaves, blackmailed by a State that decides on what conditions you can work.    The freedom you must claim is that of not supinely accepting the media narrative, the colossal fraud of an entire category subservient to the elite, engaged in spreading lies and censoring the truth, paid to support power and suppress dissent; the freedom to demand that journalists rediscover the dignity of professional ethics and conduct, and not the infamy of courtly enslavement to masters who can never get enough power.    The freedom of speech that you all should invoke, and above all those among you who have roles of responsibility or carry out professions related to the present emergency – doctors, paramedics, law enforcement, judges, politicians – and the freedom to expose the corruption, conflicts of interest, silence, and complicity of a system based on deception, fraud, psychological terrorism and the manipulation of the truth. The freedom to refuse one’s consent to a crime against humanity being carried out with ruthless determination.    We can ask ourselves if, with the victory of this referendum on November 28, anything will change.    The Swiss Constitution favors the active participation of its citizens and will give a strong signal to the Federal Council to desist from its intentions.    But do not think that your battle for fundamental rights ends here: the attack is worldwide, and each of us must be aware of the threat that now hangs over every one of us.    This is not a clash in which we can overcome the common enemy with human efforts alone: it is an epochal battle, in which what is at stake are the destinies of humanity as a whole as well as each of us individually, both in time and in eternity.    And above all: the proponents of the Great Reset are intrinsically anti-Christian and antichristic, because this “New Order” is nothing other than the infernal chaos.    You have been given the opportunity to decide.    Not only if the green pass is illegitimate, but whether you want to definitively renounce what remains of your freedom, allowing the dystopian nightmare to be imposed on you of a tyranny that today is a health dictatorship and tomorrow will be ecological or transhuman.    And may God assist and protect those who belong to Him.    + Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò

[1] Cf. The site of the World Economic Forum: https://www.weforum.org/great-reset/[2] Cf. The site of the United Nations: https://unric.org/it/agenda-2030/[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0B28vi3u8c



OnePeterFive

Rebuilding Catholic Culture. Restoring Catholic Tradition.



• TRADITIONIS CUSTODES

Hidden Origins of Traditionis Custodes: Grillo and Francis’s Self-Abrogation

 Lee Fratantuono, PhDNovember 9, 20210 Comments

The Forgotten Francis Decrees

On the twenty-second of February, 2020. The Feast of the Chair of Saint Peter.

Quo magis.Advertisement – Continue Reading Below

Cum sanctissima.

Documents of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, released with the approval of the Supreme Pontiff Francis, approval that had been granted in an audience of 5 December, 2019.

These spring decrees are not nearly as well-known as such papal mandates as Traditionis Custodesfrom the summer of 2021. In fact, they might well merit to be called the Forgotten Decrees of Francis.

Quo magis provides a selection of optional texts of seven new Prefaces for inclusion in the 1962 Missale Romanum: for the Angels; the Baptist; the Martyrs; All Saints and Patrons; the Most Holy Sacrament; the Dedication of a Church; Nuptial Masses. Cum sanctissima offers rubrical supplements to the Missal (and Breviary) that permit the celebration of saints added to the Martyrologium Romanum since 1962. The rubrics include details on which texts to use for these newer saints, and explicitly reference a supplement that will be published to include Mass and Office propers for a selection of such potential celebrations. Once again, all is optional. An interesting “correction” of the 1962 rubrics is included: during Lent and Passiontide, there is freedom to celebrate saints whose observances were hitherto severely constrained. Again, maximum freedom is allowed by the optional status of all the new rubrics.Advertisement – Continue Reading Below

These two decrees are presented with explicit reference to the vision outlined by Benedict XVI in Summorum Pontificum from 2007. They respond exactly to Benedict’s vision of possible enrichment of the corpus of Prefaces, and of the possibility of celebrating post-1962 saints using the classical Roman Rite.

It is not the purpose of my article to comment on the import and content of these decrees (see Kwasniewski’s analysis here). Those who wish to avail themselves of the provisions are free to do to; those who wish to ignore them are also afforded the same courtesy: all the changes offered in both documents are facultative and non-obligatory; the only area in which one is bound not to do something is with respect to the specific provision that certain III Class feasts cannot be supplanted by new celebrations (a calendar list is provided).

My point is to focus on how these two Francis-approved, 2020 documents are essentially now lost to oblivion. Though not, significantly, before they engendered a fair amount of controversy.

Both documents generated a storm of opposition. The opposition was not from “fixed in amber” 1962 devotees who object to any change to that Missal. No, the optional nature of the decrees silenced any such protest, one might think. If one was worried about possible changes to the 1962 books, this was a relieving dyad of documents: one could, after all, simply ignore them both as one wished.Advertisement – Continue Reading Below

The opposition was from the progressive liturgical establishment, whose headquarters is at San Anselmo in Rome. The progressive liturgical establishment did not ignore these documents. Not remotely.

Quo magis and Cum sanctissima enraged progressive liturgists. Both decrees confirmed that the classical Roman Rite was part of the rich liturgical tradition of the West. Both decrees emphasized and highlighted how the classical Roman Rite was a living liturgy, not some museum piece fixed forever in 1962.

Both decrees came also on the heels of Francis’ granting of permission for certain locales to use the pre-1956 Ordo Hebodamadae Sanctae. Not only was Francis granting faculties to the sons of Lefebvre: he was also breaching the 1962 wall back before the drumbeat of 1950s era precursors  to the Pauline Novus Ordo, and he was now codifying how the classical liturgy could live on with new sanctoral propers as if organic development (as opposed to inorganic rupture) had actually happened in the 1960s and 1970s.

Noted San Anselmo liturgist Andrea Grillo quickly started a petition essentially aimed at ending the use of the classical rite (published at Munera and again at Pray Tell). Liturgical luminaries in both Europe and North America signed the document. Quo magis and Cum sanctissima inspired a determined campaign by liturgists of more left-leaning tendencies to end once and for all the Age of Benedict, an age they had always held in contempt and for which their pens were filled not with the ink of sycophantic calls for  “obedience,” but with the veritable poison of derision, of criticism of the man who had incurred their collective ire as long ago as 1968. Despite frequent assertions that not many people wanted or even cared in the least about the classical liturgy, Grillo and his colleagues never missed a  chance to call for the abrogation of Summorum Pontificum.Advertisement – Continue Reading Below

Traditionis Custodes was the granting of Grillo’s petition.

The promised supplement for the Missal and Breviary that would provide texts for certain newer saints is perhaps never now to see the light of day. What point would there be in producing such a text? Traditionis Custodes makes it clear that in Francis’ vision, there is no stable future for the classical liturgy. Every Roman is expected to move sooner or later to the “unique expression of the Roman Rite” (the fate of the liturgies approved for the Anglican ordinariates is unclear in the imprecisely worded, logically inconsistent language of the motu proprio). There is no need for the supplement to the classical Missal that was promised in the late winter of 2020, since in the midsummer of 2021 that Missal was given its death warrant. Indeed Quo magis and Cum sanctissimaare decrees of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a congregation that does not need even to have competence in matters concerning the classical liturgy as of July, 2021.

For we have moved from February 2020 and decrees that clearly provide for an announced future provision for the use of the 1962 liturgy, to July 2021 and the envisaged end of the use of the 1962 books, an end that will be presided over by other curial dicasteries. Already as of this writing, the prefect of one of those dicasteries has put in print the falsehood that Paul VI “abrogated” the classical liturgy – a falsehood that not even Annibale Bugnini, the de facto patron saint of progressive liturgy would try to assert.

The hyper-über-papal media maximalists of the Francis pontificate did not produce blog entries and essays in celebration of Quo magis and Cum sanctissima. There were no articles reminding us of the obligation of unquestioned obedience to every new airplane presser statement, let alone official decree approved by Francis. The same mouthpieces of the pontifical oracle who revel in celebrating such glories of the Bergoglian reign as the Pachamama embarrassment were less enchanted with Francis’ approval of two decrees that were entirely consistent with the trajectory of liturgical decisions for the past two pontificates.Advertisement – Continue Reading Below

Rather, there was the aforementioned tantrum (and tantrum it was) of the progressive liturgical establishment, a diverse lot united in certain core tenets, chief among them the curious doctrine that Benedict XVI was no liturgist and thus could not be trusted to speak on liturgy, while Francis is no liturgist and yet can be trusted to be the very vox Dei when it comes to any pronouncement on the liturgy.

Except, that is, when Francis approved these two decrees that Grillo and friends did not like.

Suddenly papal decrees could be not only ignored, but also protested against with vigor. The protests in this case yielded the bitter fruit of the summer of 2021. In the roster of post-Vatican II popes, there is apparently a hierarchy: Paul VI and Francis are entirely to be trusted on liturgy, and John Paul II and especially Benedict XVI less so. Francis is the new Paul, and history has been reset as it were to 7 August, 1978.

Except, again, when it comes to the two lost, forsaken, abandoned and ignored decrees of Francis that remind one of John XXIIII’s Veterum Sapientia when it comes to the question of forgetting an ecclesiastical document almost before the ink is dry: Quo magis and Cum sanctissima. Who would have thought that the effort to bring the 1962 “up to date” to accommodate new saints and blessed would be opposed so stridently not by devotees of the “Amber Missal of 1962,” but by progressives who would, one might think, applaud Francis’ desire to update, as it were, the 1962 liturgical books.Advertisement – Continue Reading Below

Traditionis Custodes, I would argue, was not so much the bad fruit of questionably and selectively interpreted episcopal polls and questionnaires (much less of petulant behavior by traditionalists) as of Francis’ own approval of the enrichment of the body of Prefaces and modernization of the sanctoral of the classical Missal. The decrees of February, 2020, triggered the nuclear option of July, 2021.

In a recent defense of Traditionis Custodes as an alleged “Gift” to the church, Blaise Cupich highlighted the fact that the 1962 Missal does not celebrate more recently canonized saints. Copies of Cum Sanctissima were not, it would seem, sent to Chicago.

Who knows if some future publisher of missals for the classical liturgy will include the Prefaces of Quo magis or the rubrics of Cum sanctissima. Perhaps editors are waiting for the announced supplement that may prove to take longer to produce than the supplement to the Pauline Breviary that has taken already more than half a century to release. What matter when Quo–Cum are the forgotten Francis decrees, consigned to liturgical limbo.

Consistency has never been a hallmark of this pontificate, and so there is little surprise that Francis overturned not only his predecessor, but also himself.

Lee Fratantuono, PhD

Dr. Lee Fratantuono finished degrees in Classics at Holy Cross, Boston College, and Fordham. He has authored over a dozen books and some sixty articles on Greek and Latin literature and Roman history, including commentaries on books of Virgil, Ovid, and Tacitus, and monographs on Lucretius and Lucan.

NEWS

‘Like watching a horror thriller’: Moving tentacled object, metallic fragments found in COVID jabs

---

Dr. Carrie Madej took a look at the Moderna, Pfizer, and J&J shot contents under a microscope, and cried after she confirmed with a second batch what she had seen in the first.

---

Emily
Mangiaracina

• 272

Fri Oct 22, 2021 – 8:12 pm EDT

(LifeSiteNews) — An internist who looked at several COVID jabs under a microscope is sounding the alarm after her discovery of strange, unidentified objects in the shots, including metallic fragments, “graphene-like” structures in each jab, and a tentacled, moving organism-like creature in the Moderna jab.

Dr. Carrie Madej, who said she has examined the magnified contents of the Moderna, Pfizer, and Johnson & Johnson shots, found it “very upsetting” to see things in each jab that the manufacturers have not been forthright about — so upsetting that she said she cried after she verified with a second batch of shots what she had seen in the first.

She explained on the Stew Peters show that she was first asked by a local Georgia lab to examine under a microscope the contents of a “fresh” Moderna vial, which she verified was unaltered before being placed onto a glass slide under a compound microscope. “Nothing was added to the solution, nothing was diluted,” she said.

“First it looked just translucent. And then as time went on, over two hours, colors appeared. I had never seen anything like this. There wasn’t a chemical reaction happening. It was a brilliant blue, and royal purple, yellow, and sometimes green,” she said.

She later shared that when she asked nanotech engineers what the emerging brilliant colors might come from, the engineers said the “only thing they knew that could do that” was a white light, over time, causing a reaction on “a super-conducting material.” In this case, Madej noted, white light came from the microscope itself.

She pointed out that an example of a super-conducting substance would be “an injectable computing system.”

Madej went on, “These fibers were appearing more and more. Some of the fibers had a little cube structure on them, I’m not sure what that was. And also metallic fragments were in there. They were not metallic fragments I’m used to seeing.They were exotic. They were very opaque.”

In time, Madej said, “all the particulates, all these colors started moving to the edge” of the cover slide. “There was self-assembling going on, things were growing. They looked synthetic.”

Madej noticed something else quite strange: “There was one particular object or organism, I’m not sure what to call it, that had tentacles coming from it. It was able to lift itself up off of the glass slide. It appeared to be self-aware, or to be able to grow or move in space.”

She found it disturbing but said she thought, “Maybe that was a fluke in a way, maybe that was just that one vial.”

 SUBSCRIBE TO OUR DAILY HEADLINES US Canada Catholic

Some time later, the same lab obtained more vials from a different batch of Moderna shots, as well as a J&J vial. Madej was concerned to see the same things she had observed in the first vial.

“Another one of those tentacle-like structures appeared,” she said. “This was now completely under the cover slip, so there was no movement because it wasn’t on the edge, but I just couldn’t believe I saw another one. Same thing.” Madej also saw the “same colors” appear over time, as well as the fibers.

In the J&J vial, Madej said, there was “definitely a substance that looked like graphene. They all had graphene-like structures in there. Whether or not they were, I don’t have the capability of testing them in order to know at this lab, but that’s what they appeared to be.”

The vial’s contents also had “fatty substances, a sticky glue-like substance that would be considered a hydrogel in those, both of them.” 

The J&J vial “also had colors appear.” “Their colors were different, like a fluorescent pastel kind of color. Again, a lot of synthetic structures in there as well.” Madej also noticed many “spherical ring structures” in the J&J contents.

“I’ve never seen anything like this before. They’re not supposed to be in these injections. What are they going to do to somebody? What are they going to do to a child? I started crying when I saw these the second time under a microscope, because it was confirmation of everything I saw the first time,” Madej said.

Madej again appeared on the Stew Peters show on October 20 to discuss her findings from a Pfizer jab vial as well as another J&J vial. “What I’m seeing in all of these manufacturers are synthetic substances, graphene-like, also these nano-carbon tubes,” Madej said.

“In this particular J&J” vial, Madej saw “round spheres, which were not air bubbles.” She continued, “There’s many of these rings, and as time went on they would get thinner and thinner and expand out and then finally extrude out some gelatinous material — I’m not sure what it was, but different kinds of things were inside these spheres. So they’re almost like a delivery structure, that’s what they were doing.”

On one of these rings, Madej saw what “looked like a translucent organism that went around, and back and forth.” Madej first “thought it was another water parasite,” but after continuing to observe its movements, “thought perhaps it was moving in a more robotic way.”

Madej saw the “same kind of synthetic things” in the Pfizer jab, as well as “something that looks similar to teslaphoresis. That’s when these little graphite-like black, metallic particles start to coalesce into strings, like a spider web. They do that through any external force — it could be light, it could be a magnetic force, it could be an impulse, like a frequency. Anyhow, all these little particles would then coalesce and form their own neural network, or their own fibers, or wires.”

After listening to Madej’s findings and seeing the photo and video documentation she provided, Peters commented, “It’s like I’m watching a seriously bad B-movie, a horror thriller.”

Are the Moderna jab’s tentacled creatures ‘immortal’ hydra experiments?

Madej believes the tentacled entity she found in the Moderna jabs has a connection with the organism hydra vulgaris. “It is one of the model organisms that the transhumanists like to study and look at. They feel that this is an amazing organism for humanity,” said Madej, in part because “it’s immortal in the lab setting” and “continuously produces its own stem cells.”

“It never stops. You can chop it up into little bits, put it in a petri dish and it forms itself again and again,” she continued. “They’re thinking, wouldn’t this be great if we could put this inside of a human body’s genome, and then if your hand was chopped off by a trauma, you could grow a new hand.”

The other reason the transhumanists are interested in the hydra, said Madej, is that it “has its own neural network,” that looks like a human nerve, and when [gathered together] “can form a mesh network, they actually can communicate between each other, almost like if you had your own intranet inside your body.” She noted that then “something outward could affect it, like an impulse, a frequency, something from 5G, a light, a magnet. What if something influenced that communication network?”

On October 21, Karen Kingston pointed out on the Stew Peters show that the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which owns a 50% stake in Moderna’s mRNA-1273 vaccine and it helped develop under the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) led by Dr. Anthony Fauci, “has been sponsoring research on hydra for more than two decades.”

In fact, the NIH has an entire subsection of its website dedicated to the Hydra 2.0 Genome Project.

Kingston also pointed to a study that found that Hydra has “about the same number of genes as humans, sharing many of the same ones,” and that they also found in the Hydra genes “linked with Huntington’s disease” and with plaque formation seen in Alzheimer’s disease. She compared the symptoms associated with these diseases with those being experienced by some who have received the COVID jabs, such as body tremors, in those who have “lost control of their neurological system.”

She believes people are being injected through the COVID shots with “transgenic hydra,” which she describes as an organism with DNA from another organism incorporated into it.

Another doctor’s ‘delivery structure’ findings in Johnson & Johnson jab 

Madej is not the first to observe metallic unidentified objects, graphene-like substances, self-assembling particles, and organism-like entities in the COVID jabs.

Dr. Jane Botha reported on the Stew Peters show on October 4 that when she put a drop from a J&J shot vial under the microscope and left the droplet uncovered, she saw “very symmetrical black discs” that “seem to be joined together,” by what Peters noted appeared to be metal connectors.

Botha did not know what to make of what she was seeing, but noted that they reflected light when observed under a dark field, and that they appeared to be “self-assembling.” She saw the same discs four different times, using four different droplets from the same vial.

When the sample dried, said Botha, she could no longer see the disc structures, but “black lines started to form.”

Botha was especially disturbed by what she found because when she viewed the jab fluid through a different microscope technique, more amorphous-looking “black structures” appeared to be “exactly the same structure” that she observed in the blood of her jabbed patients who were experiencing symptoms after the COVID shots. These symptoms included blood clots, shortness of breath, nerve pain, severe thrombosis, severe embolisms, and cognitive difficulties, including memory loss and depression.

Pharmaceutical researcher Dr. Jane Ruby shared on the Stew Peters show on October 6 that people have done “reverse searches” and have “put a lot of different science together to show that this is a technology that’s called micro-bubbles,” which she says is a delivery system used for the human body.

Ruby said Dr. Botha “is hypothesizing” that the reason she could no longer see the discs, but only black lines once the J&J jab sample dried up, is that “maybe they were programmed to break open” and “spill over their contents, their payload.”

This hypothesis would correspond with Dr. Madej’s observation in the J&J jab sample of “rings” that “as time went on they would get thinner and thinner and expand out and then finally extrude out some gelatinous material,” which she described as “almost like a delivery structure.”

The International Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research has published an “overview” of “the concept of microbubble as a drug delivery system,” describing microbubbles as a “small spherical type of bubble” “capable of penetrating even into the smallest blood capillaries & releasing drugs or genes, incorporated on their surface, under the action of ultrasound.”

Repeated findings of graphene oxide-like substances in jabs

Others have observed substances in the COVID jabs that they believe to be graphene oxide, which has been shown in various experiments to have toxic effects.

The first such finding to come to prominence was the observation by Dr. Pablo Campra Madrid, published in the Spanish blog La Quinta Columna, that the contents of what was labeled as a Pfizer jab, as viewed under an electron microscope, “present[ed] a high similarity with images of graphene oxide from the literature obtained by the same TEM technique, with similar magnifications.”

They added that in both images “an intricate matrix or mesh of folded translucent flexible sheets can be observed.” The researchers concluded although the “microscopy does not provide conclusive evidence,” it “provides strong evidence for the probable presence of graphene derivatives.”

Graphene oxide, one of the many derivatives of graphene, is praised for qualities that lend themselves well to biomedical applications such as biosensors, drug delivery, and the transfer of genetic material. For example, the Science Advisory Board describes the design by researchers from the National Center for Neuroscience and Technology in China  of a “hydrogel containing an RNA vaccine” that used graphene oxide, favored at least in part for its “high drug-loading efficiency” due to its “large surface area.”

In fact, a whole study has been dedicated to the “potential of graphene-based materials to combat COVID-19,” which states, “Graphene and graphene-related materials (GRMs) exhibit extraordinary physicochemical, electrical, optical, antiviral, antimicrobial, and other fascinating properties that warrant them as potential candidates for designing and development of high-performance components and devices required for COVID-19 pandemic and other futuristic calamities.”

Dr. Robert Young, a Ph.D. and naturopathic practitioner, has also examined each available COVID jab with microscopy and x-ray spectroscopy, finding objects in the Pfizer sample that bear similarity to images of graphene oxide. The microscope images and chemical/elemental content he found through x-ray spectroscopy lead him to believe the Pfizer jab contains graphene oxide.

Dr. Ruby has noted that various studies have found toxic effects of graphene oxide, including its tendency to lead to blood clotting.

A 2016 study titled “Toxicity of graphene-family nanoparticles: a general review of the origins and mechanisms has noted that “due to their nanosize, GFNs can reach deeper organs by passing through the normal physiological barriers,” such as “the blood-brain barrier and blood-placental barrier.”

The study found that “Graphene Oxide (GO) can result in acute inflammation response and chronic injury by interfering with the normal physiological functions of important organs.” “Many experiments have shown that GFNs have toxic side effects in many biological applications,” it concluded.

The Food and Drug Administration of Taiwan (TFDA)’s own official publication has also noted graphene oxide’s toxic effects.

It should be noted that the Graphene Flagship, funded by the European Union, has described one of the major developments of graphene usage as its contribution to 5G “transmitter and receivers”: “Ultra high capacity transmitter and receivers using graphene offer a unique solution to future 5G communications,” reads\ the 2018 development on the graphene timeline.

Graphene’s contribution to 5G “data transmitters and receivers” has also been discussed by the Estonian Public Broadcasting science news portal Novaator.

RELATED: German Doctors Reveal Content of COVID Vaccines & Autopsy ResultsTAGGED AS

Christ or Chaos

• Home
• Articles Archive, 2006-2016
• Golden Oldies
• 2016-2021 Articles Archive
• About This Site
• Donations: Updated August 27, 2021
• Now Available for Purchase: Paperback Edition of G.I.R.M. Warfare: The Conciliar Church’s Unremitting Warfare Against Catholic Faith and Worship
• Ordering Dr. Droleskey’s Books

You are here

Christ or Chaos

• Home
• Articles Archive, 2006-2016
• Golden Oldies
• 2016-2021 Articles Archive
• About This Site
• Donations: Updated August 27, 2021
• Now Available for Purchase: Paperback Edition of G.I.R.M. Warfare: The Conciliar Church’s Unremitting Warfare Against Catholic Faith and Worship
• Ordering Dr. Droleskey’s Books

Home»Sin: More Deadly Than the Coronavirus, part fourteen

Sin: More Deadly Than the Coronavirus, part fourteen 

These commentaries on the CCP/Wuhan/China/Chinese/Covid-19/Coronavirus are meant to provide those who access this site with reference sources to use as they see fit in the midst of the most well-organized, well-funded, and massively propagated global exercise in brainwashing and fearmongering that the world has ever seen.

That is, an upper respiratory virus that was synthetically engineered by gain-of-function studies funded in large measure by Dr. Anthony Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan, Hunan Province, Red China, that, though serious enough to kill those, especially who receive inadequate or improper medical care and/or are denied access to the lifesaving treatments that are held in disfavor by Fauci and his fellow health fascists, with underlying conditions (co-morbidities) that weaken their immune systems and can cause those infected with it to become very seriously ill and debilitated, is only fatal in well under one percent of cases, was used at the pretext to institute and then institutionalize various means (the wearing of masks, thus creating a society of faceless stooges, “social distancing,” “stay-at-home” orders, vaccination mandates) designed to limit, if not eliminate, certain legitimate human liberties permanently as part of the “global reset of humanity.” One of the primary goals of this monstrous scheme is to depopulate the planet by means of “comfort care” (“palliative care” regime) administered to those deemed to be too old or sick to recover from the virus and by the vaccines, which are sterilizing women of childbearing years, interfering with their monthly periods of fertility and actually serving as the cause of death for many thousands of people who have died relatively soon after receiving them or, as is being made manifest on a daily basis, by the blood clots and other injuries.

In other words, no matter the health-scare propaganda campaigns and the coverups of deaths and injuries caused by vaccines against smallpox and polio in the past, what began at Event 201 on October 18, 2019, the Feast of Saint Luke the Evangelist, at the Hotel St. Pierre in the Borough of Manhattan, City of New York, New York, and then blossomed less than two months later with the accidental (if it was indeed accidental) release of the CCP/Red Chinese/Wuhan/Covid-19/Coronavirus before it was fully weaponized was “sold” on the basis of lies and half-truths (the old saying that a half-truth is better than a lie) to convince the “people” that they had to change their behavior and sacrifice their “liberties” to advance a false representation of what constituted the “common good.”

EXTRACT FROM THE BOOK BY DOCTOR DROELESKY

Durbin Spins Communion Denial Decision November 11, 2021 Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on Sen. Dick Durbin’s beef with his diocese: Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, who identifies as a Catholic, has yet to find an abortion he couldn’t justify. That is why his bishop, Thomas J. Paprocki of Springfield, recently said he will be denied Holy Communion in his diocese. This is nothing new. In 2018, Bishop Paprocki issued an order that barred Durbin from receiving Communion following the senator’s vote against the “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.” So why is Durbin now whining again? Worse, he is misstating Church teachings on this subject, even to the point of claiming victim status. Durbin complained that “Other Catholics may share my point of view [on abortion]—statistics suggest they probably do—but they show up to Communion every week without any questions asked.” He added that “with very few exceptions, Communion is offered to anybody if the person believes that they [sic] are worthy of it.” Durbin is right about the latter comment. Very few Catholics are denied Communion, but what he failed to say is that he is one of them. He has not only been told not to go to Communion by his bishop, in 2004 he was denied Communion by Monsignor (now a bishop) Kevin Vann of Blessed Sacrament Church in Springfield. So yes, Durbin is unique. Where he is wrong is in his assertion that he is just like those Catholics who voted for him and go to Communion without this being an issue. Here is what the U.S. bishops have said about this matter. “A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who favors a policy promoting an intrinsically evil act, such as abortion…if the voter’s intent is to support that position.” In other words, Catholics who vote for a pro-abortion politician because they like his pro-union record, or his position on other issues, are not “guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil.” Durbin is wrong to conflate his status as a senator—someone who votes on pro-abortion bills—with those Catholics who vote for him for reasons other than his support for abortion rights. In fact, the Catholic Church is very specific about the difference. On November 24, 2002, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a “Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding The Participation of Catholics in Political Life.” Part II, Sec. 4, reads, “John Paul II…has reiterated many times that those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a grave and clear obligation to oppose any law that attacks human life (italics in the original).” Congress is a lawmaking body and Durbin is a member of it. He is not analogous to a blue-collar guy who votes for him despite his lust for abortion. Therefore, he merits disparate treatment. Contact Jasmine Hunt, Legislative Director to Sen. Durbin:jasmine_hunt@durbin.senate.gov

Kate R. commented on OH THE HORROR, THE HORROR!! AND IT NOT HALOWEEN, IT’S FOR REAL !!!11 of 45 Dr. Carrie Madej took a look at the Moderna, Pfizer, and J&J shot contents under a microscope, and …On Vlad Tepes Dr. Richard M. Fleming does a nice presentation of his scientific (under the microscope) examination of the Pfizer vax, and what happens when the Pfizer vax meets your red blood cells. He did not see life forms in his batch, nor graphene, but he did observe reliably that when red blood cells meet the Vax, there is a loss of oxygen in the cell, they start to clump together, and there is “garbage” in the cell he cannot identify. He is calling for an immediate halt to all the vaccines until the vaxxes are evaluated, as he said these “should not be put into a human being”. See the demonstration there before it is gone, and share it. To think of this going into people is terrible, to put this into any child is truly a horror. God protect our children.